No announcement yet.

Race in Ancient Egypt: Black Pharaohs?


  • Race in Ancient Egypt: Black Pharaohs?

    Race in Ancient Egypt is one of the most polarized ongoing historical debates. But very few give the discussion a progressive treatment. And any treatment of this contentious discussion must discuss contemporary politics, sociology and historical reality thosands of years ago without contaminating it with our 21st century politics.

    As people of African descent and others assert their definitions of self in an effort to create a national consciousness, European academia belittles these efforts as juvenile and unnecessary–Marimba Ani

    Egyptian depiction of different Ethnic groups

    Everyone wants to claim something great, we all want to have a connected to the greatness of the ancients. But from a modern historical point-of-view, there is a problem. Because in the last 500 years Europeans have maintained and promoted the racist canard of David Hume; that Africa is a place without invention and civilization. So if Ancient Egyptians are of the African race it would destroy the myth that Africans were only good for sex, dancing and manual labor.

    You cannot be creators of the first civilizations and be sub-human. Europeans on the other hand would do well from claiming Egypt because it would prove their historical superiority beyond civilizations like Greece. It would also help to protect their mythology that Africans were only semi-savages, a people without history and invention.

    Victory has a hundred fathers and defeat is an orphan –JFK

    Despite the new wave of myths regarding Nubia and Kemet (Ancient Egypt) It is clear that Kemet and Nubia were neighbouring African Civilizations just as Aksum and Nubia. Difference doesn’t mean Nubia was a ‘black race’ and Kemet wasn’t. Both groups were ethnic groups of indigenous African origin. The ethnic differences were no more significant than Ethiopians and Kenyans.


    Ancient Egyptians race looked like Ethiopic people
    Ancient Egyptians looked like Ethiopic people

    The first nonsense that must be challenged and laid to waste is any focus on skin color. Some YouTube styled arguments suggest “Ancient Egypts were not black, they were brown.” Skin color and race are not interchangeable, hence why the word African is better than the word black (which is a color)–not a race. Being 100% African is not dependant on being pitch black in color–that is a Eurocentric condition imposed at the moment of their conquest of the African mind. And Africa’s diversity of features stands as testimony to this fact.
    Right now you can find dark skin Ethiopians, much darker than South African Zulus and you can find light-skin Ethiopians lighter than most Arabs. You can also find many Xhosa people lighter in complexion than most Indians. Skin color among African people is and always has been highly varied. So it is ridiculous to enter that into a debate about race in antiquity when everything in reality shows that Africans are not black in color. It has also been suggested, as can be seen from the paintings of Ancient Egypt, that they depicted their colors as black, white, and brown without discrimination. Maybe color for them had another meaning.

    Color variation in ET
    The salient reality is that no one can deny the historical truism that the Greeks (the world’s first Europeans) went to ancient Kemet to study at the Temple of Waset (later called Thebes by the Greeks and Luxor by the Arabs).In his magnum opus, A Lost Tradition:

    Many different types of Native African types

    Nubian Wall Painting

    African Philosophy in World History, (1995) Dr. Theophile Obenga quotes Aristotle ranking Egypt as “the most ancient archeological reserve in the world” and “that is how the Egyptians, whom we (Greeks) considered as the most ancient of the human race” (p. 45).
    Note: Recent DNA testing of the Amarna mummies (King Tutankhamun and his relatives) indicates that they inherited their genetic material overwhelmingly from African populations in the Great Lakes of East Africa, tropical West Africa and Southern Africa. These regional matches do not necessarily indicate an exclusively African ancestry for the Amarna pharaonic family


    Some of us are taken in by the new “Eurocentric” lies. When Nat Geo released the Black Pharaohs some of us went crazy with joy screaming FINALLY they are telling the TRUTH. No! They are just telling better lies. First things and we been telling you but not everyone gets it, there are no BLACK Pharaohs or BLACK anything in Africa. They are only African people! (aka you and me). So when Nat Geo is telling you about some Black Pharaohs you have to ask, So what color are the other ones? Exactly. Ancient Egypt is an African civilization full stop. Maybe as time pprogressed it became less homologous as Hyksos, Persian, Romans, Greeks and later Arabs settled. but it is at heart an African civilizations. This black thing is another lie to remove Ancient Egypt from Africa.and ask yourself have you ever heard of white kings of Greece ?

    Painted by European revisionist

    And the person doing the cover art for National Geographic is probably a white person drew the cover art. Because people in that region do not look like that and they do they wear those clothes– That maybe Southern Africa or something. So it is a game. The people of Upper Egypt (lower for us today) and what is now Sudan looked like Ethiopians, they were the same African people. Just like Ethiopians and Somali are the same — yet different. And sameness is not so subjective that we can say “Oh no one knows what race the Ancient Egyptians are”, because we know they were not Aryan, or Chinese, do the discussion of Egyptian race is confined between dark skinned races/groups.


    Ethiopians and Ancient Egyptians looked similar

    Race in Ancient Egypt is political, there is no such thing as a trans-historical African identity. [1][2] Therefore, in Africa’s ancient history the term ‘African’ as an identity would have had no meaning; people defined themselves as members of kingdoms, religions, and ethnic groups. [1] However, these identities were still of people in the continent we call Africa.[2] ‘The people of Africa is more than a name, it is linked to indigenous rights and issues of sovereignty. Africaness and skin color are not verification of each other.

    ‘Blackness’ fails at every level in both the historical and political context. Africans are the natural people of Africa: The diverse hair textures, the diverse skin hues, are all specific adaptations to living in the diverse African landscape. For this reason alone ‘skin blackness” is certainly not a marker for African identity; far too many native Africans, depending on geography, have light skin. The Motherland of these adaptations and the cultures are primarily Africa; hence the relevance of the name. [2] ‘African’ refers exclusively to the historical people of Africa and their descendants in the Diaspora.In plain language, no one is an African unless they can also be considered a ‘Black’ person. But not every ‘Black person’ is an African.


    Race is a social construction very new in human history and it is like beauty–in the eyes of the beholders. Not all Africans have tightly curly hair, and most do not have jet black skin. And we need to start their by discussing the genetic and physiological diversity of African people.

    It is very interesting to hear the opponents of Egyptians being African restrict themselves to one type of African look. Extremely strange when we have a world for all to see of total diversity; from very light skin, to very dark skin, all representing the African race profile. So why exclude Ancient Egyptians when they clearly look African enough to fall safely within the African diverse phenotype? Or will they rewrite history 4000 years from now and say the Haile Selassie was not “black” based upon his skull shape and light skin? Will he at some future date be assigned to the Arab race?

    Well what is happening in the Ancient Egyptian race debate is the very same thing. Discounting African diversity, handpicking one archetypal African group (say Wolof people) and making that group the definition of what it means to really be African. But Diop discussed this, and it is strange that Africans, unlike everyone else, have their race biased determined from outside. No one does this with Indians regardless of if they are jet black, or pale with green eyes.


    From one point of view South Africans cannot boast about building Axum, KMT, or Timbuktu, because they, as a group, played no role in it. The only ‘race” in Ancient Egypt that built the pyramids was the Egyptians themselves. This is a valid argument, but we have to consider other things also. It is human nature to take claim of the achievements of the past. All Africans lay claim to KMT, Axum, Timbuktu, Great Zimbabwe, etc, as part of our racial contribution to the world. It actually does not matter if anyone in the Diaspora or South Africa has direct Ethiopian or Ancient Egyptian blood, because what the claim is saying, is that people of African ancestry, or people who “look like us,” have within them the capability to produce great works.

    And if it was ever about direct claim, then no one can claim anything. With Greece there is no direct connection to British Empire — yet it is all still culturally/academically the history of Eurasia. All of Europe talks about a connected European history. There are homages to this pan-European history all over Europe; it is embedded in the education system. But does Newton represent the average Brit? Certainly not, then why would they stretch and claim Aristotle as part of European genius?

    If we cannot stretch and claim Imhotep? At one level of argument on Only Einstein should claim E=Mc2. The majority of the people are never the great innovators of history. Yet the majority of the Romans claim the work of the few genius Romans, the accomplishments of a few Aksumites become the claim of all Ethiopians. If we want to put a fine point on it, we could counter argue that because the people of modern Ethiopia have changed since the time of the great Abyssinian empires, then most of them cannot claim that history under the modern national set-up of “Ethiopian.” So the Oromo people cannot lay claim to Lalibela. And then where do we draw the line? And there is a line, but it is blurred.

    It is possible to argue that all Muslim accomplishments can be claimed by Muslims because of the ideological

    connection, just like the recent accomplishments of Japan may be claimed by modern Japanese. In other words we are finding some sphere of commonality (political, ideological, social, etc) to show that those things allow them to make a connection. Jews do this all the time when they say Jewish inventors, or Jewish Nobel Peace Prize winners. And all connections are valid at some level. This is the way human beings forge their identities on the great works of the past, to inspire them to build anew.

    HISTORYIDENTITY August 27, 2015 Alik Shahadah
    Last edited by Tariq; 11-16-2018, 10:56 PM.
      Posting comments is disabled.

    Latest Articles