be Egyptian

> be Egyptian
> have unique culture
> be only civilization comparable to Europeans
> throw away your heritage and culture for sandnigger pedophile religion

What the fuck

Other urls found in this thread:

rationalwiki.org/wiki/Sanskrit#Sanskrit_origins
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-Europeans#Genetics
forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php/36677-R1b-not-proto-Indo-European
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>> be only civilization comparable to Europeans

Ozymandias.

indos are pretty cool with their pyramids and death rituals and black magic but i mean cmon they lost to 15 spics with muscettes

> Persia
> China
> Phonecia

You're missing a few, but yeah it's shit. One day maybe they'll go back to being Copts

Believe it or not Egypt was actually okay before Islam took over.

>Cucked by Sea Peoples
>Cucked by Greeks
>Cucked by Romans
>Cucked by Christianity
>Cucked by Byzantines
>Cucked by Muslims
>Cucked by Turks
>Cucked by Britain
Egyptians are the betas of the middle east.

the spics had guns. But I think one of the most contributing factors to indos demise were the superstitions and gullibility. Fucking religion ruined everything

>be only civilization comparable to Europeans

Indian and Chinese civilizations and empires blow the Pharoahs out of the water

not really when you realize how actually ancient is egypt 6000 years ago they already had a kingdom

wew

They kinda originated around the same time especially the Indus Valley civilization

Not even meming lad. I was actually surprised by India's history especially seeing their current shitty state

Everything towelheads touch turns to shit. They're like a reverse Midas.

They throw away their culture for Christianity before that...

Assyrians before Greeks too

Ancient Indian civilzation was founded by Europeans. Sanskrit must have originated in Europe, that's obvious due to its vocabulary. Example: Sanskrit has native words for oak, lind, bear, wolf, dog and rabbit but none for palm tree, tiger or cobra. Europeans migrated to India and brought the Sanskrit language with them.

Lol Ancient Egypt stopped being a thing long before Islam. There was Libyans, Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, and then Romans 30 B.C., and it stayed a Roman province until the Islamic Arab conquest in year 640.
By the way, Copts helped Muslims to throwaway the Roman rule because Byzantines were oppressing them.
And Egypt isn't the only civilization comparable to Europeans'. Most of Europe is new to civilization anyway.

>only civilization comparable to Europeans
When was the last time you built a 460 ft pyramid on your yard?

>mfw Nazi propaganda is still prevalent in modern Germany

May as well make the most of it. You've only got a decade or so before you're praying five times a day anyway.

I don't mean to rain on your parade but there were several non-white civilizations way more significant and revolutionary than your country.

Forgot Iranians, Libyans, and Sudanese.

WE

>we wüss civillized n' scheeeeeiße

Retards, he's completely right, Sanskrit, and the Hindic languages that came from it are Indo-European, and have the same proto-origin as English and Spanish, and probably came out of eastern Europe.

>be only civilization comparable to Europeans
I knew egypt is shit, but I never knew it was that shit...

See

idiots
rationalwiki.org/wiki/Sanskrit#Sanskrit_origins

All of these apply to a lot of Middle Eastern countries. Not really exclusive to Egypt at all.

But PIE arent even white according to Sup Forums standards

They need to get back to praising the sun.

How is the language belonging to the same family tree somehow change their race?
Finns speak a language from Western Siberia but are racially no different from their Swedish neighbors.
Hungarians speak a language from Western Asia but are racially no different from their Austrian neighbors.
Turks speak a language from Central Asia but are racially no different from their Greek neighbors.
Etc.

Literally zero proof that Indus Valley was an IE civilization

>Most of Europe is new to civilization anyway.

Yamnya aren't, since they've got brown hair and eyes, but fucking everything that came from them was depicted as Sup Forumswhite, from Tocharians of China to Germanics of Scandinavia.
As to why, I have no idea where the big change happened.

Finns have extra Siberian admixture that Swedes lack and Turks have extra Turkic admixture that Greeks lack. both due to their linguistic ancestors

right but the Indo-Europeans weren't "European". at the time Europe was genetically little like them and present-day Europe is at most 50% Indo-European genetically in some regions. some south Central Asian/ north South Asian populations can be modelled as more Indo-Europeans than Southern Europeans.

India and Europe have shared Indo-European ancestry, one didn't come from the other exactly though it's possible that the people who made it to South Asia went to Europe first, picked up some local ancestry and went back to the steppe then India

>throw away
They got wiped away, friend.
Only Copts remain, they are a minority and getting buttfucked to this day.

Indus Valley wasn't, but India had many civilizations.
The Indic-speaking Hinduist ones were IEs, and were white. Even today north Indians are much whiter than southern Dravidians.

Because people mix with natives over time and can end up looking less white. The language has to come from an ethnicity, and that ethnicity in this case was white.

>Yamnya aren't, since they've got brown hair and eyes
Must be due to their R1b :^)

sad!

WE

WUZ

This is where we get into the genealogy vs ethnology comparison, and I dislike it.
Put simply, your ethnicity is defined by your language, religion, and the like, not your Y DNA. Ethnicity existed long before we knew about haplotypes.

That being said, I'd eager that's not wholly true. If read up on en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-Europeans#Genetics if I were you.

Pardon me gentlemen, I do believe you mean to be suggesting that you and I are ethnically descended from a well-documented proto-ethnicity, that would later go on to establish many influential cultures throughout Eurasia.

ANCIENT INDIAN'S

of course ethnicity and genetics are separate things. I never brought that up anyway

what I mentioned about their genetics is accurate though: when the Indo-Europeans started migrating to Europe west of the steppe, most of Europe looked nothing like them genetically. calling them "European" is anachronistic, they just ended up being a very important part of our ancestry, especially in Northern Europe, but that was the case in South Asia too

you could maaaybe argue that those who moved to South Asia were "European" because it might be the case that the route was steppe -> Europe -> steppe -> South Asia rather than directly steppe -> South Astia

>your ethnicity is defined by your language, religion, and the like, not your Y DNA
spoken like a true cuck

>comparing established ethnology to niggers pretending they were Egyptian pharaohs
reeee

Does that mean i can become american if I start sharting at the mart ?

>they lost to 15 spics with muscettes

Keep in mind they brough with them disease, they basically killed the natives without even being hostile towards them at the beginning.

Copts are just Christian Egyptians. Culturally they are no fucking different.

The fuck do you mean, this is literal fact

You think ancient Hittites decided who you were based on a cheek swab sample sent to 23andme for 99.99$?

Those steppes were on the continent of Europe though, specifically modern day Ukraine.

Europe is an arbitary definition. It wasnt defined back then.

Abso-fucking-loutely.

Nice

I will develop the civilization of the anus valley and let mudd mighty sharts run down the legs of the titans

>christian
>culturally they are no different from muslims

you just goofed

>As a name for a part of the known world, it is first used in the 6th century BC by Anaximander and Hecataeus. Anaximander placed the boundary between Asia and Europe along the Phasis River (the modern Rioni) in the Caucasus, a convention still followed by Herodotus in the 5th century BC.[20] Herodotus mentioned that the world had been divided by unknown persons into three parts, Europe, Asia, and Libya (Africa), with the Nile and the River Phasis forming their boundaries—though he also states that some considered the River Don, rather than the Phasis, as the boundary between Europe and Asia.[21] Europe's eastern frontier was defined in the 1st century by geographer Strabo at the River Don.[22]
PIEs were European.

there's nothing that organically ties the steppe to Europe though and cuts it off from Eurasia. to call them "European" is an anachronistic ideological construct

the Samara and Khvalysnk precursors of Yamnaya aren't exactly situated in Europe par excellence anyway. and I'm sure you're aware of the early R findings in Siberia

In an old-timey Judeo-Christian outlook on race this is how it worked:

Noah had 3 sons. Noah was some kind of breed of antediluvian baseline human but one of his sons was White, one of his sons was East Asian, and one of his sons was Black. The descendants of these sons form the "pure" races while the people in the Middle East, which is the Biblical center of the world and origin of the human race, are a variant mixture of all three. This only applies in the most generic sense of "race" and didn't really matter until the crusader era, though. Most people in Europe hated each other based on a combination of ethnicity and culture without the hue of their skin being all that different. We just have different racial standards today.

No, proto-Indo-Europeans for example were exclusively R1a though because they acknowledged that letting men from other tribes join them is cuckish behaviour.

Your passport will arrive shortly

>5th BC

Do you even know how old PIEs were?

You realize culture is more than just religion, right? They all listen to the same music, watch the same shows and eat the same food. They're also more or less the same ethnicity.

The only difference is one goes to the mosque on Friday and the other goes to the Church on Sunday. And I guess they have different political views but that is the extent.

Why do you say European?

You mean West, not your slav shithole

*far back

>proto-Indo-Europeans for example were exclusively R1a though because they acknowledged that letting men from other tribes join them is cuckish behaviour.
Source? Proofs?

And a *BRRLART* to you brother.

Well if we are going to talk about what is and isn't "European", we'll have to use both historic and modern ideas of what was Europe.
In both cases, they fit.

The PIEs probably didn't know or care that they were "European" but we see what is and isn't. It's not like geography really means something, but not importantly we know their ethnic ties, and they tie Iceland with Sri Lanka, which is damn impressive, and this all started in modern-day eastern Europe.

>Source
It correlates most positively with IE expansion. R1b, as well as other haplogroups, were most likely later additions.

forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php/36677-R1b-not-proto-Indo-European

you say geography means nothing then bring up that they were in "modern-day Eastern Europe" (its very edge to make it clear) as if it means something, though

>and they tie Iceland with Sri Lanka, which is damn impressive

yeah, they were a particular population that ended up being a major part of the ancestry and culture of both Europe and certain parts of South Asia. but it's pretty iffy to call them "European"

yes, I realize that, you just said they are the same, when they are not.

>The only difference is one goes to the mosque on Friday and the other goes to the Church on Sunday
No, stop being a retard on purpose.

> be only civilization comparable to Europeans

An interesting discussion, and this notion has been made before. Genetics of the PIEs are still debated, since no single haplotype is consistent through all of the PIEs.
I'm mostly asking for validation of your assertion that PIEs had this ancient Sup Forums anti-cuck race-war-now policy that ensured their Y DNA was always pure and traceable (which we HAVEN'T seen).

stop trolling, Jaska. this was before any of the recent ancient R1b findings in Samara and Yamnaya

I wouldn't take those Sumerian statues as proof of how they looked, unless you're willing to claim that they also had blue nipples.

They are basically the same. Religion is the only difference but even then they are both Egyptians an count as such in numbers. Considering Copts as a different people solely on religion is batshit stupid since you'd have to do that for the myriad of other groups that do have religious splits in them (Many of which have multiple religions in one family)

Its more meant to be a reaction pic i think.

Shut the fuck up your burger cunt

the thing is that ethnicity goes beyond that. self-identity is very important and religious differences can emphasize distinctions very much

Neither would I. I just used this pic because remembered me of wojak.

Exactly

15 spics and hundreds of thousands natives

Because at the end of the day, wether they were or weren't doesn't matter. They are what they were, PIE.
But they were geographically European, they came out of Europe.

Ancient Indo-Europeans weren't racist, their descendants in Pakistan, Northern India and elsewhere attest to this. The exogamy they practiced was mostly restricted to females from other tribes, though, at least originally as they were highly patriarchal.

yeah, 16th century spics with cannons, cavalry, steel weapons/armor, disease immunity and as many indians on their side

>Sweden
I'm a Germaniaboo, but holy shit North Germanics are some of the most backwater IEs.

I repeat, proofs?

No, they are not basically the same.
Basically, Muslim Egyptians are Arabs.
Basically, Copts are the survivors of the Arab conquests.
When Egyptian identity was trying to grow, mostly grown by Copts, it got btfo by the rise of Arab identity when the shit with Israel hit.

To say that religions is the only difference is flawed when it comes to Copts. Many of their secular traditions where included into their religion because that was the only way they had to survive. Even if this wasn't the case, reducing it to "one hurrs on friday the other durrs on sunday" is stupid.

Copts trace their heritage to pharaonic Egypt and identify as Egyptians and don't like to be called Arabs.

Muslims identify as Arabs and only indetify as Egyptians when it's time to we wuz in front of westerners.

Coptic religion isn't just religion. It has culutral elements that were preserved in religion as the only way to survive.

>muh holy messenger of god he gets the messages through heat strokes lol
>muh holy child of god he got magic powers and rose from da dead to save mankind from himself who was his father lol
>muh holy dung beetle that pushes the sun around and the suns muh holy bird headed
man who bless us lol
Throwing away trash for trash who cares?

The fact that 80% of Brahmins are R1a, all Scythians were (and their modern descendants in Central Asia are) R1a, most Northern Pakis are R1a etc.

>looking at history through a modern world view

oh boy.

but you said geography doesn't matter. some people consider Turkey a part of Europe too. were Anatolian farmers "European" too? why not face the fact that Europeans are just a very young people that came together in the Bronze age from various population elements?

>exogamy

it caused them to replace half their original autosomal DNA while they were still in the steppe after all

>it caused them to replace half their original autosomal DNA
Yeah, but they didn't care because like I said, they weren't hysterical about the purity of their blood; only that their lineages remained intact.

But you claim that was the IE thing, but that's about all the oriental IEs, what of the western ones?

So what, you're bringing images for european battles while conquistadors had much less stuff and ressources than the regular army.
I don't get why do you talk about "muh diseases and cannons" (wtf cannons and cavalry for the conquest of Americas), the conquest of precolombian empires is well-known, basically 15 spics with muskets.
I mean, it's done and known you don't have something to defend.

user Christina Egyptians are genetically THE SAME as Muslim Egyptians.
The Arab influx is minor as fuck genetically but that doesn't prevent people trying to paint Copts as the "true" Egyptians despite Christianity being a foreign thing just like Islam.!

Pharonism was developed by both Muslims and Christians and it's a total trucking joke because it's based of western Orientalism alongside ignoring the huge influence Egypt got from foreign entities.

>Copts trace their heritage to pharaonic Egypt and identify as Egyptians and don't like to be called Arabs.

Yet they cultural are no different form the Muslim Arabs and their Coptic language is dead as fuck. Even then Muslim Arabs aren't really keen on being called Arabs but that varies by person.

>be only civilization comparable to Europeans

China was miles ahead of Europe until the 18th century or so.

I wasn't disagreeing with you. just adding one more fun fact

whatever notions of purity we can potentially associate with the Indo-European due to later developments anyway, they were REALLY bad at it from the beginning

Anatolia has about never been considered European.
Their tiny foothold in the Balkans makes some of them European.

t. illiterate

me entendiste no seas pendejo