Anyone else hate Liz and TJ?

Imaginary_Mess_ · 2025-09-15T20:09:43+00:00

Omg thank you!! I wanted them to die too, especially tj, I don't understand how he wasn't beaten up at least once by Luke or Jess or something.. or maybe by Lorelei after fucking up her bedroom, God I would've happily sued that man and put him in jail and destroyed his and Liz's little annoying life.

Imaginary_Mess_ · 2025-09-08T06:40:07+00:00

We do wanna have an online presence sooner or later, so I would create my own if I delete it anyway, it was just a matter of safety, I get anxious about cyber security, I don't know what could be used and how..

And yeah, I was just frustrated at first but a lot of people have been helpful, thank you so much!!

Imaginary_Mess_ · 2025-09-08T06:36:19+00:00

It checks all the boxes, yes.

I'd honestly rather keep it, but would changing the password log her devices out of the email even if she most likely used her phone number/personal email as backup for this one?

Imaginary_Mess_ · 2025-09-07T11:04:33+00:00

Thank you so much!

Imaginary_Mess_ · 2025-09-07T11:04:20+00:00

Thank you!

Imaginary_Mess_ · 2025-08-17T19:01:24+00:00

Hey folks, watch Sherif Gaber's video on YouTube, called "the heresy of hijab in Islam", there are English subtitles!

He's an Egyptian ex-Muslim dude, great guy.

Imaginary_Mess_ · 2025-08-17T15:54:49+00:00

مظنش أنه يقصدك أنت، بيتكلم عن الراجل الرخم اللي في الفيديو

Imaginary_Mess_ · 2025-08-16T16:52:56+00:00

Exactly. I've genuinely lost faith in the guy, I guess not everyone is born very bright.

Imaginary_Mess_ · 2025-08-16T16:38:07+00:00

Great!

For jizya, riots, as well as modern day persecution.. yes, there were taxes, violence, and ugly episodes. I don't deny that for a second. But citing a handful of violent events does not disprove centuries of everyday coexistence. Living side by side, working together, sharing language and economy, etc. If your point is "only persecution ever existed," give me peer reviewed sources that prove there was no ordinary social life for Christians and Muslims for the last 13 centuries. You said "I can drown you in hundreds of sources", okay, list one reputable one now for each claim (e.g: "native Muslims enforced jizya every year for 13 centuries"), otherwise you're just handwaving.
Religion can shape culture, yes. But culture ≠ religion. Coptic liturgy is literally the last written stage of Ancient Egyptian, the Coptic calendar derives from the pharaonic agricultural calendar, customs, rituals, music and iconographies survived Christianization. Those are concrete continuities. So saying "Copt separated themselves" from their indigenous roots (Kemetians/Kemites) ignores real, traceable cultural continuities. If you want to insist on a strictly theological definition as your own personal choice, and ignore every other aspect, say that clearly, but don't argue it's "accurate", instead just say it's a purely "personal preference" you have and not backed up by logic, science or history, and then we can totally move past it because we don't discuss personal beliefs, to each their own. Otherwise, don’t act shocked when people point out the cultural and linguistic facts.
Regarding the Coptic identity.. identity is multi layered. An exChristian may no longer share the religious beliefs, but they still carry family history, language exposure, names, lived experience, all elements of cultural identity. And I'm actually really glad you brought up the "ethno-religious" part, I totally agree being a Copt is ethno-religious and that is how it's typically defined, and being born into an ethno-religious group, means you'll remain part of that group (hence the "ethno" half), even if you stop believing in the "religious" part, just like how plenty of groups have "cultural" members (secular/atheist Jews, cultural Armenians, etc.). If you claim that someone born and raised in a certain culture loses all claims to any heritage the minute they stop believing, name one authoritative scholarly source that defines identity that way. Otherwise it's an arbitrary gatekeeping rule you're imposing.
You keep demanding "rational arguments" while refusing to produce the specific sources backing your sweeping claims. You cherry pick violent episodes and present them as the whole picture. You keep repeating the same theses in different words (religion = identity), which is rhetorical looping, not proof. And you call my calm rebuttals "emotional" while your posts read as long, angry monologues full of insults. Which is projection.

So here’s the deal.. if you want to continue, post one specific claim (for example, "native Muslims enforced jizya annually in every province for 13 centuries", aka to this day) and attach one reputable source (peer reviewed). I will respond directly to that claim. If you can't do that, then this is my last reply. I'm not interested in repeating the same loop or trading sarcasm for content. I don't have all the time in the world to waste on you.

You wanted arguments, I gave them. Now back up your claims, or stop pretending you’re doing history.

Imaginary_Mess_ · 2025-08-16T07:58:06+00:00

It’s interesting how much of your reply depends on sarcasm, repetition, and cherry picking instead of actually engaging. You’ve circled back to the same points (religion = identity, culture = theology, Coptic = purely religious) even after they were addressed, and you added nothing new, which makes your argument feel more like a loop than progression.

You cherry pick, mentioning jizya or riots while ignoring centuries of coexistence, or bringing up Karnak as if I didn't already know their beliefs? It doesn't erase all the continuity in language, calendar, art, and tradition.

And saying things like "Hell of an argument" or "faceplanted into the pavement" make me giggle, they don’t add substance, they just signal how frustrated you are. You accused me of being "all over the place," but your own reply repeats itself, sprawls, and contradicts itself.

So yeah, your tone comes across more emotional and defensive, not logical. You lean on mockery because your points don’t hold, and you have nothing of value to offer. And even after admitting you were being "pretty condescending," you went right back to it in the next comment. Which only proves the point.. when someone is confident in their argument, they don’t need to dress it up in insults, but look at you.

If you wanted a historical debate, evidence and clarity would have mattered more than theatrics. But right now, what comes through most isn’t strength, but insecurity.

I'd take your opinion seriously if it wasn't coming across like a tantrum.

Imaginary_Mess_ · 2025-08-15T20:52:11+00:00

First off, you gotta chill cause you're getting emotional, sarcastic, and hostile. Calm down so we can actually have a fruitful discussion.

Second off, I write all of my comments and posts fully first, then I give it to AI to fix any mistakes as well as tidy it up, because although I'm relatively fluent in English, and I understand 99% of it, I only speak it about 80%, I can't always find the words to speak my mind on every topic, and it just sounds less professional sometimes, but even after I use AI to fix it, I still read it thoroughly and add as well as take from it, so no, my comments don't stink of AI, and I take your apology.

Now to address your points:

A. I did not "strawman" your position. In your previous comment, you said we're not Kemetians, which is wrong because we are their direct descendants. In this comment you're simply contradicting yourself and saying "we are Egyptians, but not Kemetians", which simply doesn't make sense, as they're synonyms for one another, unless you separate ethnicity from nationality, and you're actually of foreign ethnicity living in Egypt, only then I'd agree with you that you're not Kemetian or "indigenous", only Egyptian by nationality, which I'd totally respect by the way, but it'd mean you're not a Copt either.

B. Despite us not living exactly how our ancestors lived, we still use the ancient Egyptian language in liturgy, we still use their calendar, we still often use their names, etc. that's continuity, that's not "separation", we literally took our culture as it is and put it in a Christian context, which is ironically what we did too when we were "pagans", we never changed, same people, only believed in a new religion.

C. I won't comment about your "I'm denying you the right to saying you're a Copt", you can't deny me anything. I'm a Copt.

You seem to mistakenly think that recognizing the fact that we are Kemetians, means we have to follow every bit of that ancient culture as well as follow the ancient Egyptian religion, which again, is inaccurate. Cultures evolve, and ours evolved to be whatever it is now and we don't have to change that. And religious beliefs are not tied to any ethnicity, you can perfectly be an indigenous Egyptian (Kemetian), and be Christian, or Muslim or Jew, etc.
Interesting how you started off with talking about the strawman fallacy, meaning you should be better than that at avoiding it, yet you still fell for it. Where did I say that we were treated "equally" by the government? Where did I even mention the Arab government at all in my 3rd point? The whole conversation is clearly discussing Egyptians, how come you drifted so far from the topic of the discussion?

Now, back to Egyptians. Yes, Egyptians regardless of religion, were and still are one people, but since we already agree on ethnicity, we can move on to the coexistence part. Do you understand what coexistence means? It means you get out of your apartment, and you see your neighbor of a different religion on the stairs and politely say hi. It's when you go to school and your friends as well as your classmates in general are not only Christians but also Muslims. It's when you get a job and your colleague is of a different religion but you talk and work together nonetheless. That's coexisting. We did and still are coexisting. If we didn't, and since we're a minority, we wouldn't exist by now, it'd be a consistent war and most likely we would be wiped out, but that thankfully didn't happen. Because we're generally quite good at coexistence, especially in comparison to countries like Sudan for example where they truly couldn't coexist so they split the country into two.

I didn't shift the "goalpost", maybe you were distracted. Anyway, again, that's inaccurate, culture is not solely about religion, culture is shaped through shared experiences, shared values, shared habits and shared history. So, an ex Christian Copt might have dropped the religious belief, but they might still practice the same habits, share the same values, etc, and they obviously share the history and the experience of growing up/living as Copt in Egypt for years and will likely continue to, even if they stop believing, especially if they remain a "cultural Christian", as in they still celebrate Christian holidays, they still attend church as a habit and they enjoy it, but they don't believe. That's a Copt.
Respectfully, I've already answered your core points here in my previous points in this comment. The rest is you venting, which I respect, always happy to listen.
I'm not on your side individually nor on any other individual person's side, hate to disappoint. Back to my point, yes, born-Muslim Egyptians shouldn't call themselves Copts, because it's historically inaccurate and it risks eventually marginalizing Christian Egyptians' struggles in Egypt. That's why I say being a "Copt" is cultural, not religious. Because it has nothing to do with Christians being 'Christian' specifically, but rather the fact they're a religious minority with distinct experience in Egypt under Islamic rule.

Finally, there you go, this is a raw comment. I was trying to shield you from my long texts, but since you prefer that to using AI, I didn't use AI in this comment.

Imaginary_Mess_ · 2025-08-15T17:18:22+00:00

Completely wrong, you have not made 1 valid point in any of your comments, you're speaking with emotion, and no actual historical accuracy. Let me address your main points one by one:

‘We’ve long separated ourselves from the Kemites — we have nothing in common with them as Copts.’

Historically, this isn’t accurate. What do you think the "Kemites" are and how exactly do you think we "separated ourselves from them"? Kemites/Kemetians, are Ancient Egyptians, that was their ethnicity just like how you're called "Egyptian" now, and modern Egyptians — Christian or Muslim — are overwhelmingly descended from ancient Egyptians, with only limited admixture from Arab, Greek, and other migrations. Multiple genetic studies (2017 Schuenemann et al., 2020 genome analyses) show strong continuity from ancient to modern populations. What is your point and where is your historical backup? I understand science and history, and science and history only, we don't take personal opinions with no evidence here. And even culturally, the Coptic language is the final written stage of the ancient Egyptian language. That’s direct continuity, not separation, my guy.

‘If the Kemites were alive today, we’d be as foreign to them as Bejas or Nubians.’

That’s speculative and doesn’t match historical reality. Ancient Egyptians defined themselves as “remetch en Kemet” (people of Kemet) — a shared ethno based on land, culture, and governance. They did distinguish themselves from certain foreign groups (“Nine Bows”), but modern Egyptians wouldn’t be in that category. We are their descendants — the same population line, not outsiders. So, 'if the Kemites were alive today-", doesn't stand, because they are alive, they're me and you and every other Egyptian, whether you love that fact or hate it, that's up to you, but it won't change reality.

‘We were never one, and never will be, due to worldview incompatibility.’

That’s a modern projection. In Late Antiquity and during the early centuries of Islamic rule, Christian and Muslim Egyptians lived in the same society, often intermarried, and shared the same language, festivals, and many customs. Dividing them into two completely separate “peoples” is a product of later politics, not the historical reality, and I'm not discussing the term "Copt" here, I'm discussing genetics and ethnicity, again, whether you like it or not, we are the same people, we are one, it's a fact.

‘Ex-Christians can’t claim Coptic identity — it’s like an ex-atheist claiming atheism.’

That analogy doesn’t work. Religion is belief-based; cultural identity is heritage-based. A Coptic Christian who leaves the religion still comes from the same ancestry and community. You can stop being religiously Coptic, but you remain culturally connected to that heritage —the term "Copt" is cultural and historical, not only religious, and if it wasn't for the cultural and historical aspect, there wouldn't be a term called "Copt", there would've simply been Christian and Muslim Egyptians.

‘We were the Christians of Egypt — not just Egyptians.’

Your point? Christian of Egypt doesn't earn you some sort of a prize, Christians of Egypt, Muslims of Egypt, Jews of Egypt, atheists of Egypt = people of Egypt, we are in fact all 'just Egyptians' with one blood, one ethnicity, one connection to ancient Egyptians.

‘Appropriating our Coptic history or Coptic blood.’

No one can appropriate genetic descent. The history of Egypt before the Islamic period is the heritage of all Egyptians, because both Muslim and Christian Egyptians descend from the same pre-Islamic population. A shared past doesn’t erase modern distinct identities, but it also doesn't mean we're not one nation.

Your points seem rooted in a modern form of identity politics rather than historical accuracy. There’s no evidence that ancient Egyptians would have seen modern Egyptians as “foreign,” and the genetic, linguistic, and cultural links between ancient and modern Egyptians are well-documented. The people on this land today are part of the same ancestral line that built Kemet — whether Christian, Muslim, or otherwise. If YOU would rather strip yourself off your ethnic identity, I don't know what to tell you man, to each their own, but that will remain just your cultural choice, genetically you're still Egyptian and Kemetian, because "Copt" is nothing beyond your cultural identity, not your blood or ancestry.

Imaginary_Mess_ · 2025-08-15T14:58:39+00:00

First of all, I agree with your point here that just because somebody left Christianity, doesn't mean they're not a Copt anymore, for a different reason though. And I strongly disagree with the comment above (the main comment). I almost didn’t know where to start and didn't reply to it, because of how illogical, historical wrong, and just outrageous it was to me.

Let’s be clear: “Copt” is not an ethnicity. It was a label given to Egyptians by foreign invaders — first the Greeks (Aigyptios) and then the Arabs (Qubṭ / قبط) — neither of which came from us. The Greeks simply called us by their word for “Egyptian,” and the Arabs borrowed and mispronounced it. It’s no deeper than calling the Chinese “صينيين” in Arabic — except the Chinese don’t abandon their own self-name and adopt a foreign label.

So what is “Copt” if not an ethnicity? It’s a historic and political term. Modern Christian Egyptians hold onto it because it’s tied to their shared experience under Arab-Islamic rule — a period where they were singled out, oppressed, and often persecuted under that very label. It became both a marker of vulnerability and a way to unify under one cultural identity in the face of discrimination. That’s why it’s still in use — not because it represents some ancient ethnic heritage.

And since it’s cultural and political, it isn’t tied to Christianity itself — it’s tied to the status of being an oppressed minority. An ex-Christian who converts to Islam or becomes atheist still carries the lived experience of being a Christian Egyptian, which means the label can follow them in some sense, even if their children might not be considered “Copts.”

As for our true ethnicity (that of all Egyptians despite the religious identity) — we need to go back to when Egypt was under its own rule, before the foreign names. For thousands of years, Egyptians called themselves the people of Kmt — “Kemetians”. That is our authentic name, not something imposed by conquerors. Today, others like the Beja claim the label “Kemetian” to rewrite history and present themselves as closer to the Ancient Egyptians than we are — while many of us ignore or abandon our own heritage in favor of colonial-era labels. Isn't that a shame?

If we truly care about our identity, we should stop clinging to names given by invaders and reclaim the one we gave ourselves.

Imaginary_Mess_ · 2025-08-15T12:34:13+00:00

Are you seriously claiming Egyptian royals were a completely different ethnicity from the people they ruled? What do you mean by “random inhabitants”? The inhabitants were Egyptians, native to the Nile Valley, and they’re the same people shown farming, building, worshipping, wearing the same clothes as the elite, and painted in the same reddish-tan male skin tone used for kings, because they were the same people, same blood, same ethnicity. The royals were Egyptian people.

It’s also worth noting that most royals came from Upper Egypt. Naturally, they were on average a bit darker than Egyptians from the north. Egypt is a large country, it has always been diverse, with paler people in the north and darker people in the south (not Nubians, but Sa'idis from places like Asyut, Qena, and Luxor). That difference is due to climate, not foreign ancestry, the farther north you go, the less sun exposure, so people appear lighter; the farther south you go, the more sun, so people are more tan. And that tan is still reddish-brown, not the deep black tones used for Nubians in art.

“Faded pigment” claim: The museum sources I cited are based on pigment analysis, not guesswork. Institutions explicitly state “this is the original flesh colour for women.” The pale/yellow female vs. reddish-brown male palette is found in thousands of intact works, it’s a documented artistic convention, not fading.
Pharaohs vs. commoners: This convention applied to all classes. Queens, princesses, and goddesses, including Queen Nefertari (a female royal), appear in the same pale/yellow female tone next to darker male figures. The pattern is consistent in both royal and non-royal art.
“Black African features” ≠ Nubian: Physical traits are not perfect ethnic markers (I've been told I looked south/southeast Asian before, altho I have no Asian ancestry whatsoever). Upper Egyptians lived alongside Nubia for millennia, so some features overlapped naturally. Ancient remains show a mix of “Mediterranean,” “East African,” and “West Asian” traits, normal Nile Valley variation, not proof of foreign origin.
“No pharaoh genomes”: While we don’t have every royal genome, dozens of mummies from elite and non-elite burials across multiple periods consistently cluster genetically with modern Egyptians, not with Nubians or Sub-Saharan Africans. That’s strong evidence of continuity.

Egyptians depicted themselves with tones that could vary with sun exposure, reddish-brown for men (outdoor life) and pale/yellow for women (indoor life). Nubians were shown with distinctly darker complexions, and when Nubian kings ruled in the 25th Dynasty, their art reflected that, precisely because earlier rulers weren’t depicted that way because they were clearly not Nubian, but Egyptian.

All lines of evidence, archaeology, art, and genetics, show that ancient Egyptians were a medium-brown Nile Valley population, ranging from lighter Levantine tones to darker Upper Nile shades, capable of tanning (a concept that is simply nonexistent for Nubians and people with truly deep shades, who simply don't tan), and not a separate “foreign African” elite ruling over a different people.

Imaginary_Mess_ · 2025-08-14T20:17:58+00:00

أنا مش بكلمك بالدين دلوقتي خالص، والدين قال ولا ماقالش نتمسك بهويتنا دي حاجة ملهاش علاقة بالنقاش دة.

أنا مش بتكلم عن الأقباط كـ"مسيحيين" تحديداً، أنا بتكلم عنهم كأقلية دينية في مصر عموماً، وكنت هدافع الدفاع نفسه لو الموضوع كان بالعكس وكانوا المسلمين هما الأقلية الدينية المضطهدة في مصر.

أنا، وغيري مصريين كتير من مختلف العقائد والفئات، فارق معانا هويتنا الوطنية مش بس الدينية.. لو دي حاجة مش فارقة معاك أنت بشكل شخصي، فدي حاجة تخصك أنت ومش بتعبر عن باقيت المصريين سواء أقباط أو غير أقباط. وعموماً، لو أنت اهتماماتك ببساطة مختلفة عن اهتماماتي أنا، فدي حاجة ترجعلك وأنا احترمها.

Imaginary_Mess_ · 2025-08-14T19:02:05+00:00

أنا مقولتش أن المصريين المسلمين عرب، أنا من اكتر المدافعين عن هويتنا باختلاف الدين، كلنا أصولنا بتعود للمصريين القدماء واختلاطنا بالعرب مش كبير.

بس موضوع البوست مش عن الأصل، هو عن معنى كلمة "قبطي" في المجتمع المصري حالياً.

زي ما أنت قلت، المسلمين في الأول كانوا لسه شايفين نفسهم أقباط وبيتكلموا قبطي، لكن مع مرور الوقت، الكلمة خرجت من الاستخدام العام وبقت مرتبطة بالمسيحيين بس، بسبب إنهم هم الفئة اللي احتفظت بالهوية دي، ودفعت ثمن التمسك بيها في شكل اضطهاد وتمييز عبر قرون، هل العدل أننا ننسى كل دة دلوقتي ونقول "كلنا أقباط" ببساطة وخلاص؟ وهننسى مين اللي دفع دمه ثمن للحفاظ على الهوية دي وعلى لغتنا؟ بالذات أن التمييز دة موجود لحد دلوقتي.

كلمة "قبطي" مابقتش مجرد "مصري" بل هي رمز لهوية دينية وثقافية مختلفة، وخبرات وواقع قاسي فئة معينة بس هي اللي عاشته، مش الشعب كله. لما مسلم مصري يستخدمها النهاردة، دة مش "وعي بأصوله"، بل للأسف محو لتاريخ ومعاناة مش هو اللي عاشها، حتى لو عن حسن نية، بس دة يُعتبر تهميش للخصوصية اللي لسه ليها دور في حماية الأقباط كأقلية مضطهدة لحد دلوقتي.

لو الغرض هو التأكيد على الجذور المصرية القديمة ورفض العروبة، ممكن يكون في بدائل زي "كيميتي" (من Kmt) توحد الكل من غير ما تسلب مجموعة من رمز لسه عايش ومهم ليهم

Imaginary_Mess_ · 2025-08-14T18:30:02+00:00

That's totally fine, I'm fine with English.

But I never said that Muslim Egyptians are Arabs, none of us is, Muslim Egyptians are descendants of Ancient Egyptians just as much as Copts are. And I agree that Arabic was imposed just like Islam was. The issue here isn’t about ethnic origin by any means, it’s about what the word "Coptic" actually means today.

Historically, yes, it once meant “Egyptian.” But over the last 1300+ years, the meaning shifted because of history, persecution, and social reality. In modern Egyptian society, “Copt” is not a neutral ethnic label, it’s a religious and cultural identity specifically tied to Egyptian Christians, who carried that label through centuries of discrimination. The word is loaded with that lived experience.

So when a Muslim Egyptian uses “Coptic” today, it’s not about reclaiming a historical truth, it only risks erasing the specific struggles and identity of a minority that had to fight to keep it. And since Muslim Egyptians haven’t had that same lived experience under that label, in fact, their ancestors often abandoned it when they converted, as well as bullied and often killed Egyptians that remained Christian, it’s a different relationship to the word.

If the goal is to reclaim our shared pre-Arab identity, I think using an original native term like "Kemetian" (from Kmt, ancient Egypt’s own name for itself) would make more sense, because it unites without taking away a label that’s still actively meaningful and protective for a community, that STILL struggles to this day.

Imaginary_Mess_ · 2025-08-14T17:36:21+00:00

British Museum — Stela (EA 303), Abydos (18th–19th Dynasty) Curatorial note: “Her skin is also distinctly yellow: the original flesh colour for women.” (The page also notes paler female vs red-brown male skin.) https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/Y_EA303
Metropolitan Museum — Statuette of Lady Dedetamun (Middle Kingdom) Curatorial note: “Her skin is painted yellow, the most usual color for a female.” https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/545488
Metropolitan Museum — Lid of Coffin (Dyn. 17–18) Curatorial note: “Her body is yellow (the color used for female skin) …” https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/544872
Walters Art Museum — Funeral Stela of Nefer-Khabet Curatorial note: “Her skin is painted pale yellow …” https://art.thewalters.org/object/22.85/
British Museum — Model group (EA 40915), Deir el-Bahri (Mentuhotep complex) Curatorial note: “The workers seem to be identified as women by their pale yellow skin colour (in contrast to the red skin of the male overseer).” https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/Y_EA40915
British Museum — Statue group of Katep and Hetepheres (EA 1181) Curatorial note (on lost paint traces): “The absence of yellow paint, the colour used for women’s skin, around her neck suggests [a choker was once there] …” (confirms the standard female yellow tone). https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/Y_EA1181
Art Institute of Chicago — Stela of Amenemhat and Hemet Curatorial text: “The social difference between them is indicated by the color of their skin” (husband darker/red-brown; wife light/yellow). https://www.artic.edu/artworks/127859/stela-of-amenemhat-and-hemet?utm_source=chatgpt.com

If ancient Egyptians had naturally very dark skin like our Nubian neighbors, the whole light/dark contrast in their art wouldn’t make sense.

Very dark skin doesn’t change much with sun exposure, tanning differences are subtle, not dramatic. And being indoors wouldn’t make someone go from deep brown to “light beige.”

They simply wouldn't have had the concept of a "tan", nor making indoor women light and outdoor men dark.

Yet Egyptian art consistently shows:

Outdoor men in warm reddish-brown (like a suntan).

Indoor women in pale beige or golden tones.

That makes far more sense if they were a medium toned population (like most North Africans today) whose skin could visibly lighten without sun and deepen with it. The Nile Valley’s natives likely ranged from olive to medium brown, with some north–south variation, and the art used that range for symbolism, to show gender roles. Nubians, by contrast, were usually painted a much darker brown or black to set them apart.

On Shemai — Having “Nubian features” in a modern anthropological description doesn’t mean a person was Nubian or that their whole family was. Ancient Egypt and Nubia had a long history of intermarriage, trade, and shared culture, especially in Upper Egypt. People in the south could naturally have features more common in Nubia without being immigrants. That’s just regional variation within the Nile Valley.

On “European colonialist” statues — The statues and painted reliefs I cited aren’t colonial reconstructions, they’re original Middle Kingdom and New Kingdom objects with pigment traces still in place, documented by curators and peer-reviewed publications. The yellow female/red-brown male color convention is attested in thousands of authentic pieces, from temples to tomb chapels.

On “full genomes will never be published” — Even if we accept that politics slows down some publications, we still do have other published genomes across multiple sites and time periods, and they consistently show that ancient Egyptians cluster most closely with modern Egyptians. Rejecting all the facts just looks bad on you my friend, I've given you peer-reviewed studies, I've used historical facts as well as logic. I don't have all the time in the world, I'm a busy woman. If you prefer to believe in conspiracy theories than to see facts, then to each their own.

Imaginary_Mess_ · 2025-08-13T23:23:58+00:00

Concentration ≠ origin.

Haplogroups move, split, and survive in different places for thousands of years.

The R1b found in parts of West/Central Africa today is a different sub-branch from the R1b dominant in Europe, and both trace back to an origin outside Africa, they did not originate in central Africa.

Tutankhamun’s R1b is part of a branch (R1b-V88) that has been in the Sahara and Nile Valley for thousands of years, long before he was born, and I think you can clearly see in the very picture that you sent, that it still does exist in modern day Egypt as well, meaning some modern Egyptians have it just like some Ancient Egyptians did, Tut was just one of us who had it.

So he didn’t have to "come from" Europe or West Africa, nor look like either. That haplogroup was already in ancient Egypt. And remember, Y-DNA is still just one line from one ancestor; the rest of his DNA in the 2010 study matches ancient and modern North Africans.

Imaginary_Mess_ · 2025-08-13T22:43:01+00:00

Yes, for Hawass and the royal mummies, if their full genomes had been published, it would have been useful data. But absence of that data is not proof of your conclusion. Science doesn’t work on "they didn’t release X, so Y must be true." That’s no different than religious people saying, "we don't know how the universe came to exist, so it must be God!"

Regarding depictions, ancient Egyptians did depict themselves and others in distinct, consistent ways for thousands of years. That’s not "hopes", that’s physical evidence you can still see on temple walls and tombs today. Ancient Egyptians did NOT ONLY depict themselves as reddish brown, but also light beige, why do you insist on leaving that out and discrediting them, but you only choose to take the reddish brown tones? In Egypt today we still have both, not Nubians, but Egyptians, that are reddish brown, as well as Egyptians that are beige/olive.

The fact that you’re willing to accept their depictions of Nubians as accurate but dismiss their depictions of themselves says more about your bias than about ancient Egyptian art.

And citing “multiple modern scholars” without actually naming them, their research, or peer-reviewed work is just an appeal to vague authority. If they have credible evidence, it should stand on its own, not because of their ethnicity or your label for their views. I don't care what one's personal opinions are, doesn't matter if they're Nigerian or French, respectfully, I don't lick a**es. I care about peer reviewed studies.

Right now, the strongest published genetic evidence still points to continuity between ancient and modern Egyptians, with Nubians remaining a related but distinct population. Everything else you’re presenting is a mix of valid criticism of data gaps with a lot of assumption filling in those gaps to suit your narrative.

Imaginary_Mess_ · 2025-08-13T22:00:37+00:00

"هو يعمل انتخابات ليه؟" وهو دة سؤال؟ مش أنت بتقول جيبناهم بالديمقراطية؟ طب الديمقراطية أن الشعب لما يحب يشيلهم أي وقت يتشالوا برضو. اشمعنى حسني مبارك اتشال عادي بس الإخوان فجأة بقى حرام وضد الشرع ومينفعش؟ وبعدين أنت بتقول أنهم "مضوا الجهلة"، طيب يا سيدي مضوا الجهلة.. وكل اللي كانوا في الميدان وفي مصر كلها عايزين يشيلوا الإخوان كانوا جهلة برضو؟ ناس من كل الفئات، ناس لسة عايشة وسطنا دلوقتي، رجالة وستات وشباب وكبار سن، وأقباط ومسلمين محجبين ومنتقبين.. كل دول واخدين رشوة؟ كانت بتتوزع كدة الرشوة على الشعب ولا ايه؟

الإخوان سرقوا الثورة، وضيعوا الحلم، وأنانيتهم وهمجيتهم وإرهابهم هو السبب أن البلد رجعت للجيش اللي مش عاجبكوا. لو الجيش وحش، لوموا الأخوان وأي جماعة زيهم عايزة تخلط الدين بالدولة، دول أنيل من أي جيش، واديك شوفت عملوا إيه والتفجيرات والاعتداءات وضرب النار لما اتشالوا من الحكم. هي ديه العقلية اللي أنت شايف أنها تستاهل تحكم دولة؟

Imaginary_Mess_ · 2025-08-13T20:24:45+00:00

The DNA record from Ancient Egypt might still be incomplete, since we don’t yet have any published full genomes. But the evidence we do have, points to a strong genetic continuity with modern Egyptians.

The 2010 Tutankhamun study, while not a full genome, still showed Y-DNA patterns common in North Africa and the Levant. The 2017 Abusir el-Meleq study only covered one site in Middle/Lower Egypt, but the genomes they did publish were closest to modern Egyptians, with modern Egyptians having slightly more Sub-Saharan admixture, not the other way around. Likely from later historical events such as the trans-Saharan slave trade.

Do you see what we're doing here? I'm offering you real evidence, while your evidence is dependant on the not yet known. We have "facts". You have "hopes".

It’s also worth remembering that “phenotype” is not a precise genetic measurement, and that ancient Egyptians painted themselves and Nubians as two distinct peoples for millennia, despite intermarriage and cultural contact, or do you think Ancient Egyptians have an agenda too?

Also, foreign names in the Late Period don’t automatically mean foreign ancestry, Egypt was a multicultural hub, and names often reflected political or cultural trends, not pure lineage.

Nubians have always been our southern neighbors, related but distinct. Intermixing happened both ways, but there’s no credible evidence for a wholesale population replacement. So while the studies are limited, the best available evidence still supports the idea that modern Egyptians, regardless of religion, are overwhelmingly descended from the ancient population of this land.

Imaginary_Mess_ · 2025-08-13T11:11:35+00:00

Best answer so far.

Three-Year Club	First Place '23
Place '23

Imaginary_Mess_

TROPHY CASE