Egyptology today

købe billige Nike Air Max 95

billige Nike Air Max LTD Herre Sko købe billige Nike Air Max 95

billige Nike Air Max LTD Herre Sko

<a href="http://www.skonikedk.com/">http://www.skonikedk.com/</a>

<a href="http://www.brandjakker.com/">http://www.brandjakker.com/</a>

<a href="http://www.salgskonorway.com/nike-shox-r4-c-13.html">http://www.salgskonorway.com/nike-shox-r4-c-13.html</a> ) salg Nike Shox Sko, salg Nike Shox TL1 Sko.
<a href="http://www.salgskonorway.com/nike-shox-turbo-c-10.html">http://www.salgskonorway.com/nike-shox-turbo-c-10.html</a>) salg Nike Shox Sko, salg Nike Shox NZ Sko.
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]-->

Egyptology Today is a collection of essays edited by Richard H. Wilkinson. To be more precise, one could say it is a volume of essays written by profoundly Euro centric scholars on the state of Euro centric Egyptology. This profoundly euro-centric intellectual paradigm rest firmly on the works of Hegel, Junker, Reisner, Breasted, Erman and the many other European writers and thinkers. To understand this volume of essays one must first understand the UNSTATED PREMISES of the standard eurocentric paradigm. Crucial to understanding the UNSTATED PREMISE is the opinions of Hegel (and Gobineau). Both men classified black people as being between mankind and animals. Black African people contributed nothing to the development of human civilization. According to Herr Hegel black people were a "nonhistorical" people, a people at the "threshold of history". Civilization had its birth in, Mesopotamia; the East- Asia is the Mother of all. Thus all civilizations found in Africa came from the "East" or from "fusions of people" or from "invaders" from various parts of Asia-or even Europe. Egyptology today is caught in the grip of this centuries old dogma; taught from kindergarten to graduate schools and it permeates American culture. Unfortunately this race based intellectual paradigm has also been taught worldwide, especially in the study of the ancient black African peoples we now call "ancient Egyptians". When asked to produce any evidence of an Asian, European or a Semitic origin for "ancient Egypt", we are pointed to "authorities", speculations and migration theories, "accepted interpretations", "serious scholars" or erudite "suggestions" or even assertions that are not to be questioned. This tactic is used throughout this collection of essays. On p.125, 126, Rita Freed offers some of her interpretations of the Namer Pallet. Freed offers this comment about the "Eastern" influences on the two large long necked mythical animals on the Namer Pallet: "Their origin may lie in ancient Elam (Persia) or Mesopotamia, and they bear testimony to rich interconnections at the beginnings of the third millennium BC." Freed does not tell us what were these "rich interconnections" or where when or how these "rich interconnections" took place. Among the ancient Egyptians and precisely what ancient peoples and cultures in Elam and Mesopotamia did these "rich interconnections" take place? Sadly Freed offers not one shred of evidence. Here Freed makes the typical standard vague Western assertion that supports the standard Euro centric paradigm. If Freed were allowed to step out of her ideological prison she could see that the Namer pallet is a profoundly African object. For example on the Namer Pallet the pharaoh wears an ox-tail.(that was worn also by priest). Even today in parts of Nigeria religious officials still wear the ox-tail at ceremonial and religious functions. The pharaoh also wears a small bag of amulets across his chest. This is still worn by many traditional African rural village leaders even today. In parts of Senegal it is called a dakk. Behind the pharaoh stands, a priest, the so-called Sandal bearer who also is holding a kettle. Since the pharaoh has taken off his sandals we can assume that he is on holy ground after having been ceremoniously purified by the priest with holy water from the kettle. We know that ablutions existed in ancient Africa (Pharaonic Egypt) centuries before Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Namer seems to be ready to make a human ritual sacrifice after a military victory. This is, of course a very African practice. (see C. A. Diop African Origins. P.79). Remember the paradigm! Freed stumbles again when she gives the typical Eurocentric interpretations of Menkare and his wife. "Both gaze forward impassively," "The two represent an ageless, timeless ideal." And "there is no tenderness or emotion in their position". Perhaps if she stepped out of her ethnocentric bubble she would learn that the so-called "frontality" of ancient Egyptian statuary is very Black African in its conception. The pharaoh and his wife were standing in the presence of the Gods and Goddesses; they were still, listening, in awe of their Creator. On p.208 John and Ann Forster alludes, perhaps unwittingly, to this very idea when they quoted from the Pyramid Text:"All cease motion, are still, for they have looked upon Unis, the King, Whose soul rises in glory, transformed, a god alive among his fathers of old time, nourished by ancient mothers." This is purely African. In no way is it Asian and certainly not European or Semitic. Remember the paradigm! Ronald J. Leprohon, another contributor to this volume, writes about the personal names of these ancient African peoples without mentioning the fact that modern black African people have names that reflect the same ancient Egypto-Nubian cultural universe. Mer Netjer was an ancient Egyptian name meaning: "the one who God loves". In countless African languages we have the very same idea.. In Yoruba we have the name: Olufemi, which means: God loves me. We could continue this list ad infinitum using every black African culture and any ancient Egyptian name-the cultural universe is the same. James P. Allen even has the audacity to repeat the tired worn out fallback position of the euro centric Egyptologist that the language of ancient Egypt was a mixed language. He writes that `Egyptian belongs to the family of North African and Near Eastern languages known as Afro-Asiatic or Hamito-Semitic." This is absolute nonsense! Is he referring to topological or genetic linguistic relationships or is he simply confusing the general reader when uses the word "belongs? The only evidence he gives is another Euro centric scholar, Loprieno. Its the old Greenberg classification. So around and around they go, caught in the grip of a failed theory. It has been demonstrated time and time again that the language of ancient Egypt was a typical Black African language related genetically to modern day black African languages. No competent linguist can establish a genetic relationship between ancient Egyptian and any Semitic language. Lets quickly pass over the work of Schuh. Russell G. Schuh is a typical white American academic who has been born reared and drenched in euro centrism. Mr. Schuh has no native command of any African language--he is an ideologue. Anyone who is interested in the details of the genetic relationship between Black African languages and Egyptian(and Coptic) can visit: ankhonline.com for several demonstrations clearly laying out the GENETIC linguistic relationships between Egyptian and modern black African languages. Finally Donald B. Redford adds the latest attempt to avoid the black African reality of "ancient Egypt: he brings up the so-called Uruk "world system" in the formation of the Egyptian state." This is just a reformulation of the old Hegelian view of the Mesopotamian origins of civilization. This is another dead end for the Eurocentrics who just can't bring themselves to accept the facts of a Black African Egypt. Around and around they go caught in the grip of a failed and racist theory. Sooner or later the history of Africa will have to be written free of the race based Eurocentric views of ancient African Nile Valley cultures and peoples. The new school of African Egyptology pioneered by the late Dr. Cheikh Anta Diop and others can no longer be ignored. Mr. Wilkinson and his cohorts continue to ignore the works of Dr. Theophile Obenga,Dr. Babacar Sall, Dr. Aboubacry Moussa Lam to the detriment of their endeavors. The history of "ancient Egypt"(a series of ancient African Nile Valley cultures) can not be separated from from its Black African origins in the Great Lakes area without engaging in myth making and the explicit support of the racist dogmas of the past. Remember the paradigm! Thumbs down!!