Black Spark, White Fire: Did African Explorers Civilize Ancient Europe?

First, it is important to recognize that the author of this book is not only a person of European descent, but that his wife is Greek. THis provides ethos for his position for the simple fact that he holds little reason for bias in affirming that the Ancient Egyptians were "black". Secondly, it is important to be able to define what the author means by "black". First of all, he asserts that race itself is a man-made concept and that the line between ethnic clusters is blurred--however, the existence of ethnic clusters based on regionality,origin, and phenotype do exist and have become the basis for racial distinction. It is based on this definition of race, that the author claims that the Ancient Egyptians existed well within the cluster of people who are presently identified as "black". And it is based on this definition that Europeans in England can lay claim to Greek cultural heritage, just as an African in Mali can lay claim to Egyptian cultural heritage. Thirdly, the fact that Richard Poe is not a member of the historical board in academia doesn't mean he is not able to be just as well informed in the subject. Poe made it clear that his position was an advantage, because, he was not force to write a history in favor of what conservative academia allowed him.

The book predominantly deals with mainly the role (in European civilization) and identity of ancient Egypt (Kemet). Few points to make: 1. The book does challenge a lot of conventions in history. I do not have a problem with conventions, as long as they can stand the test of logic and evidence. The book, shows that many of the conventions in history - did Egyptians civilize Europe, who were the Egyptians, etc - are based on (very) shacky grounds. As with most challenges to conventions, people are VERY resistant and quick to dismiss them as "nonsense", while all that is need is an open mind approach. 2. It seems so very easy to counter many of the Egyptologists views, conventions and version of history. The book adduces a LOT of evidence in the form of ancient testimonies, aercheology, laborotary research, etc, to analyse BOTH sides of the arguments. Unfortunately and Fortunately, most of the evidence tends to lean on the favour of Afrocentrics and the reason why it is so, according to the book, is because of racial attitudes, scholarly partriotism and double standards infliltrating scholarly work. 3. The book, although classified as history, has most of the elements of a thriller. It suspends the reader becasue of its approach towards the issues (does not give answers from the onset and easy ones), which makes it one of the best readings I have had so far. 4. In all fairness, it is likely tol offend many people, especially those who may believe in racial superiority, now and since (against other races and within themselves as a race: eg the "true Aryan" attitude), yet it will also be most informative to many people out there seeking part reasons for the evolution of racism - it is not only about the identity of Egypt and their role in civilizing Europe). The book does call a spade-a-spade and supports this with hard and very difficult evidence to refute! 5. Some points, like the connection between Knights Templars, Freemansory and Egypt, have long been made by other writers (Hiram Key), while many points are fascinating. 6. The book left me with a better understanding of ancient Egypt, its role, and identity, simply because it is NOT written by a person of particular inclinations and stereotypes, but a neutral person! it is WELL WRITTEN. Pitty many people will give it a one star becasue it is written in the era of dominant Afrocentric writing and may reveal things some people wouldn't like to be discussed in the "open". Do not judge it by the number of stars, but by its content and arguments.

This subject is very interesting. It has a lot of fascinating details and it is hard to put down. It is a challenge to people who either agree or disagree with the evidence. I am encouraged to read as much about Ancient Egypt that I can fit into my schedule.I believe that it is more important to focus on understanding the people who first developed the civilization so we obtain insight into why the culture and religious customs arose the way they did. Ancient Egypt is so different from other ancient civilizations like Mesopotamia and that makes it fascinating. This alone should be enough to unite people. However, we do have to recognize that in the past many false things were said about Egypt beginning with the rise in power of the European countries. I am not sure the Europeans said anything good about anyone that they conquered. This may be why many people feel the need to correct the mistakes of the past and why ethnicity is an issue. The disconnect maybe happening since some old books claim Egypt is white and that many people of African decent object to the fact that many people do not want to recognize any African connection with Egypt. There is no tabula rasa or clean slate with regard to the mistreatment of people or historical information. Everything that was done in the past will affect the future.I have been to Egypt and with regard to the question of whether the ancient Egyptians were blacks it depends on who you talk to. Apparently, this is a heated topic. People should go to Aswan and Luxor (Upper Egypt). One will see people who are much darker than people from the Cairo area. Most Egyptians consider the Nubians who live in this area black. From there to the delta (Lower Egypt) there is a gradual lightening of skin color. There is no abrupt dividing line between black and brown. Asian and European features can be seen more frequently in the northern part of the county. What is interesting is that many Egyptians have relatives in their family tree that have come from all over Egypt including Upper Egypt. I have seen a local Egyptian English paper stating that Egyptians are the result of mixing over centuries with Asian, European, and African cultures. I have had conversations with students from Cairo and they say they know that they have relatives in Upper Egypt but they do not consider themselves black. This can be confusing--they are aware that there is an African element in their make-up but they are not African. Maybe in today's world it is not considered kosher to be black because of the recent past history of slavery? Many of the Egyptians that I met see themselves as Arabs or Southeast Asians and many would speak of their relatives who were Turkish or Greek. But even with all of the other blood the Egyptians have, they are one of the most African looking of the Arabs with the exception of the Sudanese Arabs who are black in color. My experience with Arabs from the

Of all the reviewers that rated this book one or two stars, if you find this writing such a travesty then why not pick one or two points you disagree with and refute them? Both logically and academically. There are plenty in the book. It appears that you have engaged in ad homenen attacks and nothing substantive to back your posistion. The tactic is fallacious. Anyone who believes the beginning of enlightenment started with the Greeks is...well, unenlightened themselves. Surely something or someones of high inteligence preceded Greek and European inteligence, and the archeological records support such origin to be African. No civilization develops in a vacuum. They're all the product of continuous improvement efforts of previous inhabitants, and Europe is no exception.

With the recent revelation that Nubia, an unarguably black country, was probably the first true African civilization and that this area north of Egypt contained more pyramids than Egypt itself, Poe joins a growing chorus of dispassionate and objective historians that have no agenda but the truth. Funerary and other significant objects from ancient Nubia predates Egypt by more than 3,000 years. This black culture was more likely than not, the source of Egypt's civilization. A black spark indeed.