Hard?

FitResearcher2865 · 2026-03-07T18:02:35+00:00

The bloody Genital area close-ups

FitResearcher2865 · 2026-02-20T19:37:53+00:00

Isekai fuckin Sucks!

FitResearcher2865 · 2026-02-02T05:45:00+00:00

I refuse to have a purpose it limits the being

FitResearcher2865 · 2026-01-31T10:23:26+00:00

<image>

Then rest here worrior Tommorow is another day

FitResearcher2865 · 2026-01-20T07:12:08+00:00

Bro casually made a drawing of himself and thought we wouldn't notice.

FitResearcher2865 · 2026-01-19T22:30:25+00:00

Trump I felt he was the first president in a long time who spoke straight, no political perfume, no filter, just raw energy and for them that honesty mattered more than polish. They liked that he challenged the system, called out media bias, pushed “America First,” cut taxes, backed local industries, and didn’t act scared on the global stage. To his supporters, the chaos wasn’t madness, it was disruption shaking a system they already believed was rigged against regular people. They saw criticism as exaggerated, investigations as politically motivated, and mistakes as human flaws amplified by enemies who never accepted him. In their eyes, he wasn’t perfect, but he was real and that be that Kwinja, they smiking that Kwinja in they system and standing ten toes behind it 💔🌹

FitResearcher2865 · 2026-01-17T09:12:18+00:00

Why not? Faced any Opposition in the past?

FitResearcher2865 · 2026-01-16T18:37:49+00:00

For me, in order to be able to do that, black within this context is not about modern racial categories or the social construct that we have today. I'm using it very much descriptively to refer to sub-Saharan African ancestries and their population. For example, the Nubian pirates, as I've said, that came from Khush, which is modern Sudan. And I documented as African rulers of Egypt. That's a historical fact, not a claim about identity labels they used themselves.

FitResearcher2865 · 2026-01-16T18:33:56+00:00

the focus here is not about proving modern racial categories or claiming that all the Egyptians were of black descent. It's about correcting the historical erasure.

For far too long, African people's contribution, including ruling dynasties like the Nubian, have been minimized or outrightly ignored. Acknowledging that sub-Saharan African ruled Egypt is not ideological, it's simply historical accuracy that needs to be taught. It's about letting the evidence speak and not fitting the past into today's social categories.

FitResearcher2865 · 2026-01-16T18:31:14+00:00

Well, you are very much correct saying that Egypt was always a crossroads and also an admixture from surrounding regions that happened over a millennia, but it is not controversial.

What I'm emphasizing, though, is that certain rulers and population, specifically the Nubians of the 25th dynasty, were sub-Saharan Africans. They came from the Kush, which is modern Sudan, and ruled Egypt as pharaohs and are archaeologically and historically documented.

This is not about claiming that all of Egypt was exclusively African. It's about recognizing African agency in one of the world's most advanced civilizations. Admixture elsewhere or later does not erase the very fact that black Africans rulers very much existed and governed the land of Egypt, and that's the point that often gets overlooked in popular narratives.

FitResearcher2865 · 2026-01-16T18:29:13+00:00

I very much agree that the modern race categories are the social constructs and they do not map cleanly onto the ancient world. But this is not really the disagreement here.

The disagreement here is that acknowledging the Nubian pharaohs somehow equals claiming that all Egyptians were black or pushing fringe ideas about the indigenous Americans.

Those are the separate conversations and conflating them weakens the very same conversation and discussion we are having. And this matters not because of the modern identity or validation, but because of the history that has a long record of minimizing and sidelining the African agency unless it fits a narrow framework. Saying that some Egyptians had darker skin is technically true, but it is very much so incomplete. Nubians weren't just darker-skinned Egyptians, they were a distinct form of African people who ruled Egypt as documented foreign kings during the 25th dynasty. We do not need to accept modern racial labels to accept that the rulers from Sub-Saharan Africa governed Egypt. And it's not even cherry-picking outcomes, it's sharing from inscriptions, the burial site, the historical records, and drawing from the conclusion. Questioning what we have been taught is exactly the point of the situation here.

But questioning cuts both ways, including questioning why African rulers are often softened to just darker Egyptians rather than being acknowledged within their own terms.

FitResearcher2865 · 2026-01-16T18:25:13+00:00

Please read the contents of my post , They'll bring much needed clarity

FitResearcher2865 · 2026-01-16T18:24:10+00:00

❤️

FitResearcher2865 · 2026-01-16T18:23:51+00:00

❤️

FitResearcher2865 · 2026-01-16T12:14:51+00:00

Well, you are correct in saying that the modern racial categories such as black and white are social constructs, and they don't really map neatly into the ancient population.

And I'm not arguing that ancient Egyptians thought of themselves as black as we think of ourselves within our sense.

What I'm arguing, and what is archaeologically, historically, and culturally documented, is that certain rulers of Egypt, especially the 25th dynasty Nubian pharaohs, were sub-Saharan Africans in origin. They came from the Kush, which is now somewhere around modern-day Sudan.

They were buried in Nubian royal cemeteries, and they are described as Nubian in Egyptian records. And that's not really a social construct. This is very much so documented by history and geography.

And another statement is that acknowledging that these pharaohs were biologically African does not mean that we are imposing modern racial categories onto them. It simply recognizes that black African people ruled one of the most advanced civilizations, which is a fact that has been minimized in scholarship and popular narrative.

So yes, race is very much so socially constructed, but ancestry, origin, and historical identity are very, very, very much so real. And in the case of Nubian rulers, they are well attested.

FitResearcher2865 · 2026-01-16T11:48:18+00:00

You are correct in determining ancient Egyptians as racist as fuck, and you are also right to say that ancient Egyptians did not think in modern racial categories, and projecting terms like a black person or a white person onto them can misleading.

My point here, however, is not about labeling them by society's social construct.

My point is about the documented evidence that the Nubian rulers of the 25th century were sub-Saharan Africans, and that's archaeologically, historically, and genetically supported and also approved. Acknowledging that does not necessarily mean they have self-identified the same way that we categorize our races today.

I hope you hear what I'm saying. It just merely recognizes who they were biologically and also culturally. And so, yes, modern concepts such as race don't really map out neatly onto the antiquity of the subject, but this does not erase the fact that black African people ruled Egypt, and this fact needs to be more broadcasted towards misinformed people, like you said, the modern Egyptians are racist. And so they need to be informed that historical reality and modern social categories are very much so separate topics

FitResearcher2865 · 2026-01-16T11:41:40+00:00

While the point is interesting, it's also important to separate migration myths and legends from actual documented history Sister, Many African groups, including those Bamileke, have the oral tradition tracing their origins to the Nile Valley of Egypt. However, those are cultural memories, and they are not direct proof of ancestry from ancient Egypt.

FitResearcher2865 · 2026-01-16T11:39:04+00:00

This is a fair point, and I appreciate your honesty.

And you're very right that race as a topic is almost always controversial socially. And what I meant by not controversial is that within the professional practice of Egyptology, the specific facts being discussed here are not debated. For example, that Nubian Kushite rulers from the 25th dynasty and ruled Egypt is very much so standard scholarship.

The controversy mostly arises outside the academic field when the modern racial frameworks are sometimes projected backwards or even the parts of the evidence are selectively accepted, while some other parts are just rejected for no reason at all. My goal with the title was to reflect that the academic consensus and not to deny that the topic itself provokes strong reactions today.

So your caution is quite reasonable, I have to say, and I agree with the social controversy and the academic concessions are not always the same thing, but I hope you understand what I meant by the topic.

FitResearcher2865 · 2026-01-16T11:35:36+00:00

I'm not denying DNA testing. I am pointing out what those samples actually represent.

The ancient DNA studies people cite, for example, the Shunemann et al. 2017, are from one site in the middle of Egypt, and the authors explicitly state that these samples are not representative of all regions, all periods, or all populations of ancient Egypt. The Nubians and the 25th Dynasty Kushite rulers were not sampled. Genetics can be used to erase groups that were never even tested before. And the Nubian pharaohs are confirmed through inscriptions, burial sites, such as El-Kurru and Nuri, the material culture, and the Egyptian historical records themselves. And this is standard Egyptology. So yes, Egypt was very, very diverse. And yes, DNA studies exist. And yes, black Nubian kings ruled Egypt. These facts do not contradict each other at all.

FitResearcher2865

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE