On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 07:39:52 -0700, "Circe" wrote:

Holger Dansk wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 18:28:10 -0700, "Circe"
wrote:
Holger Dansk wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 12:10:10 -0700, "Circe"
wrote:
Holger Dansk wrote:
The Copts were not Christians when they were pharaohs.

Ah, then you are using Copt in the older, less typical sense. And
in that case, it just means they "Egyptian". The word "Copt" tells
us nothing about skin color or any other features, especially when
applied to ancient Egyptians. Given that the ancient Egyptians
represented the skin color of their pharoahs in art using colors
ranging from light brown to black, we cannot use their artistic
representations as any sort of guide. And since none of us were
living at the time, there's no way to tell for certain what
"color" the ancient Egyptian pharaohs were. Most experts believe
the ancient Egyptians were mixed ethnically with a strong strain
of sub-Saharan influence.

The black savages of Sub-Saharan-Africa had nothing to do with the
civilization north of the Sahara. The blacks were uncivilized
living in the bush/jungle running around naked or in loin cloths, not
just at one period, but for thousands of years. Most are still savages,
and they own and abuse slaves in the Sudan, and commit all kinds of
atrocities. They never created anything of any importance. As I said
before, they carved some ugly figures out of wood. Can you imagine
living that way for thousands and thousands of years?

Since no individual lives for thousands and thousands of years, that's a
pretty silly question. I can't imagine living *any* way for thousands and
thousands of years.

I thought that surely, you would understand that this means many
generations over thousands of years. Gosh, I'll try to take time to
explain things to you.

As to whether or not sub-Saharan cultures created anything of "importance",
frankly, that is an opinion based on nothing more than subjective
interpretation of what *you* think is valuable or important. It is an
opinion I do not share.

Well, of course, it is what I think and a lot of others think. You, of
course, may value doo doo and stench and dirt floors and rapes and
slavery, etc., and you are certainly free to do so.

Why don't you say that the Sub-Saharan-Savages brought doo doo up the
Nile so the people of Egypt could fertilize their crops and how valuable
that was, etc.?

The fact that people in parts of Africa own slaves
or commit atrocities is equally irrelevant--the civilizations you admire
having created things of "importance" (Greeks, Romans, et al.) did the same
things. Nor are these behaviors limited to sub-Saharan Africa in modern
times.

Well, now, we are talking about today, not thousands of years ago, etc.

What other countries have slaves today. I'm sure there may be a few if
you look real hard.

Holger

http://www.mindspring.com/~holger1/holger1.htm