How to Critique the Critique: Analyzing Dr. Kambon's critique on The Origin of Amen

[@cheriejones9671]

You are thorough and help us understand how important that is to be serious scholars . Its a brave work you do! Please keep teaching us.

[@livefromplanetearth]

correspondence is the new standard give thanks 🙏🏾

[@seba.collective]

Brother Asar, I commend your contribution to the discussion. Why do so many cultures have a deity that is involved in their creation story that is closely associated with the name Amen?

[@AsarImhotep]

Peace and blessings. Thank you for your viewership and comment. In regard to your question, can you provide some examples of the name of the deity and the culture it is associated with? Thank you in advance.

[@seba.collective]

Amun - Ancient Egypt Ammon - Libya, Greek Hammon - Phoenician, Carthaginians, Rome Atum - Ancient Egypt Atom - Science Amotken - Salish Native American Amen - Akan, Christianity Amin - Judaism Imana - Great Lakes region Amma - Dogon Allah - Islam Aum/Om - Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism Omo - Japanese Omoni - Mbochi Omni - The four characteristics of Christian God Is it a pattern or coincidence?

[@seba.collective]

A couple more: Amenominakanushi - Kojiki Ometeotl (Ometecuhtli and Omecihuatl) - Aztec Can anyone name any others?

[@kwamefulani9417]

"The fundamental linguistic arguments, made by Kambon are 100 % correct."

[@nuchamber]

Loved your work, as usual... keep up the good work...

[@PoliticalAtheist80]

Neither Dr Faraji nor Dr Issa have any excuses for not ensuring at the very least, that Prof. Osei's linguistic arguments were sound. If you're going to embark on a collaborative project you have to ensure that every participant has a solid knowledge base on which to present their academic theses. Kambon is as Kambon does but he should still know better, as an Afrikan not to "wash our dirty linen in public." Being the so called "linguistic expert", Kambon should have been far more magnanimous in his approach. This is the Afrikan way. Asar's example of Baba Oduyoye's work in relation to Baba Olumide Lucas, is the perfect example of what Kambon should have done, i.e. "do the work..." Well done Asar.

[@sundiataatakakranzambi]

Mad I missed the live.

[@TYAdodo]

Htp Bro Asar, I think you may have misinterpreted Kambons critique in regards to Obenga and Specialization the Obenga comment was not an "appeal to authority". Kambon is not saying Obenga is right or wrong, but that the authors should have engaged his argument, on some level, given the seminal nature of Obenga's work on Negro-Egyptian. Re: linguistics degrees, Kambon is not dismissing scholars based on degrees...he takes the issue with the methodology of the authors. Ex, he takes issue with "folk etymology". I have dialogued with Kambon on Afrikan languages. In critique and feedback, he never brought up the fact that I'm not formally trained in linguistics (and he knows I'm not). Re Do the work, kambon text is a book review article, so I wouldn't expect that.

[@AsarImhotep]

That is incorrect. This is why I always cite directly the author whom I am critiquing. This is Kambon's words exactly: "Firstly, and most strikingly, the authros seem to be wholly unaware of the work of Tata Theophile Obenga, WHO HAS ALREADY MADE COMPARISONS BETWEEN IMN 'AMEN' AND CONTEMPORARY AFRIKAN LANGUAGES (Obenga 1993)" (Kambon, 2020: 74) Here it is clear as day that Kambon made the argument that Obenga in his 1993 text -Origine commune de l'égyptien ancien, du copte et des langues négro-africaines modernes - Introduction à la linguistique historique africaine_ made comparisons (based on the "correct method") between Imn 'Amen' and contemporary Afrikan languages. I have the book, which is why I screenshot the pages and showed that Obenga does NOT do any such comparisons. On the question of the God Amen, he makes a chance look-a-like suggestion with Imn and Imana in East Africa. That's a far cry from a comparison of Imn with contemporary African languages in the plural. There are no sound-correspondences done between the language, and he never even defines Egyptian Imn or Kirundi Imana to see if they are even a match semantically. In other words, Obenga does exactly what Osei, Faraji, and Issa does in their 2020 text The Origin of the Word Amen, but Obenga is praised and Osei et. al are condemned. Thus, the only reason Obenga was added to this discourse was to appeal to authority. Obenga (1993) does no etymological work and does not have an in-depth analysis on Amen what-so-ever. It's mind boggling that he didn't even double check the text before trying to 'son' Osei et. al for not bringing up Obenga's name in their discussion; but then tries to argue against Osei et. al for allegedly not reading Herodotus for the word 'Menes'.

[@AsarImhotep]

And trust me, he's pulled the "I'm a PhD" in linguistics card several times with me and others. This is one of the reasons I remind the audience that neither Diop or Obenga have degrees in linguistics. They took courses and got certificates like many other scholars whose primary degrees are in History (Obenga, Diop, Ehret) or Social Anthropology (Greenberg, Blench), etc.

[@TYAdodo]

@@AsarImhotep To the first point, the quote you cited is about engaging Obenga observation more so than he is right/wrong. The point he is making is that the authors should have engaged relevant literature that already exists, namely Obenga analysis, not that Obenga is right or wrong by default.

[@TYAdodo]

@@AsarImhotep I cannot comment on your exchanges with him, I just know we've had differences of views and cases where I've been completely wrong and my lack of Linguistics training hasn't come up. Re: degrees, he's talking about methodology issues in the case at hand. In the article that you critique, he brings up the issue of folk etymology as the central problem it is in that context that he brings up specialization Kambon doesn't simply rail on the authors for not having Linguistics degrees or Egyptology degrees to discredit them, but more so to identify why they have the shortcomings that they do (as he argues).

[@AsarImhotep]

@@TYAdodo Not I said that there is a section where he 'rants' that they do not have linguistics degrees. Thus, this is why I brought up the fact that neither does Obenga or Diop or Ehret or Greenberg, etc. And I stated in the video that I essentially agree with his linguistic assessments of Osei et. al. I brought these same points to them over 13 years ago for the first edition.

[@Taylordessalines]

You’re critiquing Kambon?! This should be interesting.

[@Sekou156]

Asar, l read the critic by Dr. Obadele. As a lay man , l believe his critic must be taken seriously. He made a lot of valid points. However, he was too condescending. Some of his points were unnecessary and annoying.

[@AsarImhotep]

Greetings. Thank you for your commentary and insight. As I stated in the video, I agree with most of what Kambon has said regarding book. However, the tone and condescending language takes away from the academic usefulness of the critique, along with the other issues addressed in the video.

[@mrrsrggeh509]

The Genes of modern Egyptians and Their Relationship to the Ancient Egyptians: 👇 The issue of the ancient Egyptians’ relationship with modern Egyptians has always been one of the most common topics in which the controversy is still in force until now, between a hater and a hater, and between a defender of identity, and the malevolent party always speaks without any prior knowledge of research, science, analysis and global studies. The other side of the defenders of identity was based on some studies that were not successful, or some photos - unknown source - that are transmitted from one person to another that prove that the genes of the contemporary Egyptian correspond to the genes of the ancient Egyptian; But it was also questionable, and she was not successful enough, until mid-2017 everything started to change. In 2017, the first scientific study that was able to decipher the genetic code of the ancient Egyptians for the first time without failure, like most previous studies, was announced to the world, after several mummies were examined in a new way; They are mummies that date the period of the modern state and beyond from the (Abu Sir) burial site in the present Giza Governorate. This study included an in-depth research conducted on Y-DNA and MT-DNA analyzes, in addition to the atosomal and some SNP analyzes. » related to knowing the color of hair and eyes, and finally, it included several comparisons between the genetic content of the ancient Egyptians with the current ones, and several samples from ancient and current peoples from neighboring regions. - Results of the maternal bloodline “MT-DNA” analyzes of the ancient Egyptians: One of the results of this study is the comparison of the Umayyad dynasty of the pre-Ptolemaic and Roman Egyptians with the Egyptians of the post-Ptolemaic period, where it was found that the difference between them is almost non-existent. Since the consistency of such results at the level of the matriarchal dynasty for a period of more than a whole millennium, means that these dynasties are the first founding dynasties present at a very early period in the country.. This was not surprising, as previous studies such as: - Olivieri A et al 2006. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17170302/ - López et al 2016. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4844272/ That such strains whose presence is evident in the Egyptians after they were examined is evidence of their entry into periods associated with the waves of return to Africa, and this includes the strains of West Eurasian; such as «R0, HV, T, J, and I», and finally the rest of the strains; The "M, the U, the L3, and the N1" are believed to have taken a single form in making their way in the first waves of return to Africa.. - Soares P et al 2012. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22096215/ After comparing the results of the ancient Egyptians with those of the present Egyptians, there was no significant difference except for a slight increase from several strains of the L difference, which is linked to their entry in the slavery era [1550 - 1150 BC], when the blood of a number of Egyptian men mixed with the blood of their negro African slaves; Of course, it did not go unnoticed without including the jarf compared to the strains of the state of Ethiopia from the Horn of Africa, and the result was an almost complete difference between the Egyptian dynasties (whether ancient or modern) with the Ethiopian dynasties; Which denies any genetic relationship between the Horn of Africa and Egypt. - Y-DNA results: Because of the poor purity and damage of the majority of samples from the mummies due to environmental factors; The results of Y-DNA were limited to only three strains, unlike the MT-DNA strains; Those results were: - 2 scores on J - Result on E-V68 - E-M78 - E-V22 And the emergence of such strains was not surprising at all, as haplogroup J among Egyptians reaches 32% of the study.. - Luis et al 2004. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182266/ Haplogroup E-V68 reached 74% of the study.. - Trombetta et al2015. academic.oup.com/gbe/article/7/7/1940/631621 - SNP results to predict human phenotypes and traits: He also announced one result in the study, which was the sample JK2911, as that sample contained both HERC2 and LCT, SLC24A5, and this suggests that the shape of that mummy was dark-haired and dark in the color of the eyes, and that he suffered in his life from lactose intolerance. Affecting the ability to drink milk. - Autosomal Results: This appeared in the Egyptian genetic structure consisting of the mixing of the local peoples of northeastern Africa with the subsequent Middle Eastern movements coming from the east of the country in the Niluthean periods. It is the same as what appeared when analyzing the Egyptian results from Abu-Sir, where all the samples examined from different periods (State Modern - Ptolemaic - Roman) with each other, which means that the genetic composition of the population has not changed over the ages, and if we compare that with the samples of the current Egyptians, we can also say that this genetic continuity certainly exists until our time; This is with noting that there are new discoveries from comparing the ancient Egyptian samples with the different non-Egyptian samples in the study.. The Egyptian component was similar to the Natufian after the comparison, especially with the rest of the Iranian and Anatolian contents in a lighter way, and a difference appeared at the time between the present and the ancient Egyptians, a difference coming from the presence of a genetic patina (sub-Saharan contents, African affiliation) in the current Egyptians, This made a number of ancient and current peoples bearing a mixture similar to the Egyptians in a better alignment with the ancient Egyptians than with the present ones, in calculating the ratio of the general origins of West Eurasianism. However, this does not mean in any way that the ancient Egyptians belonged to those peoples, or that those peoples are the descendants of the ancient Egyptians, or that the present Egyptians are not of the ancients, That these suggestions should be based on solid evidence of Y-DNA and higher levels of atmospheric analysis, and not like any less accurate test than this one in this study, so this study was, as we explained, the first study that included all the near and far details, and the results showed correct Without any doubt as its predecessors. - To sum up, to finish these false and bearish sayings, which do not have any source, reference or only one reliable scientific study, whose goal is only hatred against the Egyptian civilization, and their attempts to cast doubt on the contemporary Egyptian in his ancient origins; And their tongue says with mockery: “The modern Egyptians do not originally belong to the ancients. The Egyptian civilization is originally Kushite.” Thus, such gossip, which scholars, researchers and scientists consider mere words that should not be taken care of, is the result of a grudge only. The ancient Egyptian was like a thorn in the throat .. Let us continue the “Summary”: This study proved that the ancient Egyptians had the same genetic characteristics and natures as the present Egyptians, after a successful comprehensive study without any doubt of error, after relying on “Y-DNA, MT- Autosomal DNA, and SNP’S”, which is This means that the contemporary Egyptian is from the core of the ancient Egyptian in a “finally” manner, after the complete genes of the ancient Egyptians came out to us, and were compared with the contemporary Egyptians, while also proving that the ancient Egyptians were not negroes in the Arabs or the like of naive myths, which were repeated by some without any study Its ignorant honesty is weak in resourcefulness, and the previously explained points are what makes this study very important. It categorically denies that the present Egyptians are not descendants of the ancient Egyptians. Source 👇 www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15694 kzbin.info

[@X60Gamers]

Im late to this comment, but giza is on the delta. the delta is at the door way of africa out into eurasia along with the arabian peninsula. A natural feature of north africa is what I termed "the asiatic current". As in, eurasian genetic are suppose to show themselves in north africa, but the rule is that these genetic will always hug the coastal region as asiatics move across the coast from the levant to senegal and hypothetically farther. this comment that you posted is sampling bias, using modern egyptians (from the delta) and ancient egyptians (from the delta) will result in, SURPRISE, "ancient egyptians are the same as modern egyptian." you can tell whatever story you want with genetic if you don't use historical or archeological or linguistic evidence correctly. Surprised to say, egypt began at Naqada III, were last I checked a long while ago, there was straight, wavy, and kinky hair. And, regarding straight hair, you have two responses: (1) the indigenous argument, ie. straight is indigenous to africa which it is, and (2) the defeated enemies of Narmer argument, which on narmers pallete shows you straight haired ppl defeated by ppl with kinky hair. Wavy hair is missing from the narmer pallete descriptions but doesn't mean wavy hair is not associated with narmer's ppl.

[@AC-yg9zf]

Dr Kambon does have some good Scholarship, but one of the problems I found with him is that he is too emotional in his assessment in history and misses alot of nuances. We need to move away from the Magical African narrative.

[@sundiataatakakranzambi]

I used to listen to a lot of Dr. Kambon's lectures in my mid to late teens. It wasn't until he started saying that the Dalit Indians are "Black African" is when I realized that all his arguments might not be right and exact. I want to thank Wudjau, the entire Mossi Clan, and yourself for showing me how to study correctly and how to evaluate others arguments based on the methodology used. 🔴⚫🟢

[@thedebunker1777]

The Dalit (Dravidians) are black people but not Africans, similar to how Melanesians are black people but are not Africans.