Jump to content

Talk:Kemetism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Untitled

[edit]

There's kind of an apologist slant in favor of the House of Netjer/Kemetic Orthodoxy; I cleaned up the biased language a little, but I don't trust myself to get rid of it entirely, as I'm pretty biased towards the House of Netjer myself. Anybody want to have a go at it?

As an aside, it'd be interesting if someone put in about the history of rivalry between HoN and Per Ankh. Switchercat 03:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think a part of this is just that a lot of the writers are most familiar with Kemetic Orthodoxy. By all means, if somebody has other things to contribute or if they want to make the language less biased, I think they should. The only problem I think could happen is it could go the other direction. Falsetto 00:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monolatry

[edit]

The definition given of 'monolatry' in the article conflicts with the Monolatry article. I'm not sure if there should be a mention or not - I encountered this page via the random feature and know nothing about the topic :) Cheyinka 05:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, they are indeed different ideas using the same word, I will endeavor to dig deeper into this, and hopefully find where the discrepancy stems from.IanCheesman (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested merge

[edit]

Since Kemetic Orthodoxy is a stub and doesn't seem to be getting any longer, and since this article seems to contain a lot of material related to Kemetic Orthodoxy without really explaining what it is and how it relates to the rest of Kemetic Recon, I thought it might be a good idea to merge the two. We did something similar with Hellenic polytheism, and it's been really helpful to have all of the different groups/traditions/factions in one place so that it's easy to see when we're making questionable generalizations based on the practices of one group or swaying towards the POV of one or another. What do people think? - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 18:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I feel that rather then combining the two articles information from the kemetic recon section should be moved to the kemetic orthodoxy page such as Shemsu Naming and the majority of the info on Tamara Siuda.Plantman223 05:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I've thought some more about it, I really feel like that would be a better way to go. Italian Wikipedia has really extensive coverage of Kemetic recon and they seem to have done this really well. I think it would be good for us to check out and possible translate some of their material (or at least borrow some of their images and organization):
I removed the merge tags and I hope that we can get some traffic going between these two articles in the days ahead. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 05:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see two main problems with merging the KO and Recon articles-
First and foremost, since Kemetic Orthodoxy is such a large and developed part of the Kemetic movement as a whole, there is a common misconception that the terms "Kemetic Orthodoxy" and "Kemetic Reconstructionism" are interchangeable- in much the same way that people mistakenly interchange "Wiccan" and "Pagan." Not all Pagans are Wiccan, however, and not all Kemetic Recons are KO- I would not want to do anything to encourage further confusion along those lines.
Secondly, although the House of Netjer certainly seems to abide by a Kemetic Reconstructionist ethos, and is usually recognizable to Kemetic Reconstructionists as a reconstructionist organization, the leader of the organization itself prefers to differentiate what she teaches from the reconstructionist movement... so she would probably not appreciate a stub on her temple being merged with the recon article, and it would not be polite to do so.
I agree with PlantMan223 that some of the information on Shemsuhood, Parentage, and Tamara Siuda could be very agreeably moved over to the KO stub, though. I also feel, however, that since Kemetic Orthodoxy has had such an impact on the Kemetic Reconstructionist community as well, it may not be unreasonable to have some of this information in both places. 66.123.206.10 00:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)WebenBanu[reply]

New Kemet Movement

[edit]

The New Kemet Movement is a relatively new separatist (religious) movement, fifteen to twenty years old, sponsored by the Kemet or Khamit Society, a secret society of African Americans who preach and practice the afrocentric doctrine and faith of black separatism, black nationalism, black apartheid, black racism, and black supremacy. This nationwide group was nearly successful in gaining legislation for an all black school district in Milwaukee, Wisconsin under its leader Howard Fuller through the passage of state legislation defining apartheid boundaries for an all black school district in the late 80s. The apartheid legislation had passed one of the Wisconsin legislative houses and only through the monumental lobbying efforts of a back principal, Texas Bufkin, who took three bus loads of black parents to Madison, Wisconsin, during that historic struggle in the late 80s, to lobby the Wisconsin legislature against the formation of the all black segregated school district, did the nearly successful apartheid efforts of Howard Fuller's Kemet movement fail. So powerful is the Kemet or Khamit Society, Texas Bufkin was subsequently fired by the school district for her efforts at reversing the separatist legislation. The Kemet Society today claims 150 members in the Milwaukee area and over 10,000 nation wide. The Ausar Auset Society is the local religious Kemet cult in Milwaukee. Reports of polygamy, female circumcision (FGM), incest, and child abuse, as practiced by the ancient Egyptian pharaohs and ruling class of Egyptian elite society, surround the eclectic/syncretic cult society. The afrocentric revisionist history, philosophy, education and doctrine and the self-esteem arguments of afrocentric practitioners is a way for the Kemet (Ausar Auset) movement to maintain access to public school tax resources to support their afrocentric heathen and pagan practices of acient Egypt through vouchers for religious charter and choice schools.

[1]

this is apparently a statement by Kemetic Orthodoxy, dating to 2000, but it survives only in this archive on arthurhu.com

The Ausar Auset Society is the local religious Kemet cult in Milwaukee. Reports of polygamy, female circumcision (FGM), incest, and child abuse, as practiced by the ancient Egyptian pharaohs and ruling class of Egyptian elite society, surround the eclectic/syncretic cult society.[2]
  • Not Yet "Free at Last": The Unfinished Business of the Civil Rights Movement : Our Battle for School Choice (1999) [3]

Former Milwaukee Superintendent of Schools Howard L. Fuller, a voucher supporter, was described in a Washington Post post-election story (on the failure of vouchers at the polls) as a "professor of education at Marquette University who formed an organization called the Black Alliance for Educational Options (BAEO)." Following his funding trail reveals that the Black Alliance is in fact a project of the Institute for the Transformation of Learning, based at Marquette University and founded by Fuller in 1995. Between 1996 and 1998 it received at least $360,000 from the Bradley Foundation alone. Marquette University itself is one of the top Bradley Foundation recipients, getting more than $6.6 million from the foundation since 1986. [4]

outside the document cited, I find no evidence linking Fuller and Ausar Auset. Also, hardly any evidence of a "Kemet Society", outside a single crackpot site kemetway.com. This appears to be a conspiracy theory then? The connection with female circumcision is also tenuous. Here is a quotable article at least, Constitutional protection for bazar multiple cultural practices Education, Project Innovation, Winter 1997 by Leon W Todd Jr (Director, Board of Directors, Milwaukee Public Schools, Box 2181, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201-2181) [5]

Local school officials in Milwaukee, Wisconsin have had some major problems dealing with religious education within public school classrooms, and with drug dealing and usage as parts of religious rites of passage. These problems are typically associated largely with Afrocentric Religious Cults, and in connection with the U.S. Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) passed by Congress in 1993. ... A number of presently organized religions cults like Ausar Auset Society, Yonuba, and Rastatarians have bet on this law and maybe the charter schools movement to guarantee their full access to public tax moneys via the budgets of public school districts. The intent for use of such tax moneys was primarily to foster the spread of their religions. In discussions about the separation of church and state and in debates over race relations within the public school setting unwarranted legal speculation and "race card" posturing about possible constitutional protection for certain bazaar multicultural practices of Afrocentric Cults like polygamy, incest, female circumcision (FGM) and certain forms of child abuse based on the genetic culture coming of age of race specific adolescents within different races (different cultural groups for the intellectually confused) are no longer appropriate. These cultists have been very orthodox to the North African region, and have been referred to as rites of practices of the ancient pharaohs. Many of these ritualized forms of child abuse as have been practiced in our Black communities under the protection of RFRA in the United States can now be appropriately prohibited under the law.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

After five years of operation, the CSRC determined that Khamit Institute was not operating an academically or fiscally viable organization. The school will cease operations at the end of the 2003-04 school year. --dab (𒁳) 09:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THIS STATEMENT IS INCORRECT, BIAS, RACIST,AND PURE IGNORANT. I SUGGEST YOU STUDY DR. JOHN HENRIK CLARKE AND ALSO CHIEKH ANTA DIOP. MAYBE EVEN DR. PHIL VALENTINE, ANTHONY BROWDER, PROFESSOR KABA KAMENE. LEARN SOMETHING FACTUAL BEFORE YOU SPEAK ON MY ANCESTORS CULTURE. ITS VERY OFFENSIVE THOSE LABELS THAT YOU TRY TO PUT ONTO MY PEOPLE. WE DO NOT AND WILL NOT ACCEPT THE IGNORANT DISRESPECT. DO YOUR DUE DILIGIENCE OR DON'T SPEAK ON WHAT YOU DO NOT KNOW. THANK YOU. ASÈ. 2600:6C5E:467F:326E:6857:80C3:2FE8:1B78 (talk) 06:00, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kemetic Traditionalism

[edit]

http://www.per-ankh.org/ has been online since 2002. It is still full of lorem ipsum placeholder text. Knocking up a website and leaving it unattendend for eight years does not make you a "religion", at least not one that meets Wikipedia's inclusion threshold. --dab (𒁳) 09:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cuts and suggestions for expansion

[edit]

Unless an organisation is notable enough for an article, I don't think it should be in this article. A few mentions on forums and a website aren't enough. I've deleted a few, and redlinked one where it is clear there should be an article. The section on reconstruction obviously needs work, see [6] if anyone is interested. Dougweller (talk) 07:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

removed mention of "kemetic wicca".

[edit]

Not only can it not exist, as Wicca has 2 very specific deities from the British Isles, it was an un-sourced claim, so I removed it. Stregamama (talk) 13:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, only pure Wicca is like that. Kemetic wicca is not the same and it does exist, though the favored term practitioners use to describe their movement is "tameran wicca". Tameran wicca is a syncretic religion, with practitioners taking egyptian mythology and placing it against a neopagan backdrop. Elements from each are mixed to form an entirely new strain of wicca, though some lean more heavily towards either the kemetic or wiccan aspects.

Examples of tameran practitoners and good sources of information on the subject include:

So you see, tameran wicca does exist and this wiki does need to cover it, which is why I propose the redirect on the Tameran WIcca page be removed and replaced with coverage and the redirect on "Kemetic wicca" be switched from Kemetism to Tameran wiccaThe Talking Toaster (talk) 02:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting discussion! Being that I follow witchy ways myself, and having studied the pathways for more than 12 years - I can't say that I have ever read (any where reliable) that Wicca is only has two specific deities. If this is in fact, a fact, I would love to see a source to verify the claim, otherwise we really should leave the section up. =)
I wonder... as an alternative, if we should perhaps give Kemetic Wicca it's own page and link to it from the Wicca "see also" section? Or maybe we could add it to the disambig section? Thoughts? --Bema Self (talk) 01:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A see also would be possible, as would adding it to the template at :Template:Neopaganism Just be careful with those references. Youtube and personal sites may not be sufficient as sources, but I would approve of TTT's suggestions. Sephiroth storm (talk) 19:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Church of the Eternal Source

[edit]

Currently, the Church of the Eternal Source is listed as "New Age". However, from the description in the header of the New Age Article, New Age is "a Western spiritual movement that developed in the second half of the 20th century. Its central precepts have been described as 'drawing on both Eastern and Western spiritual and metaphysical traditions and infusing them with influences from self-help and motivational psychology, holistic health, parapsychology, consciousness research and quantum physics'". From looking over their website, http://www.cesidaho.org/ , I am unable to find any evidence of them being any more "New Age" than any of the other groups here. I think they should either be in a large section with Kemetic Orthodoxy (like how all the black nationalists are grouped together, the non-black nationalist ones could) or have their section renamed. Thunderstone99 (talk) 14:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kemetism

[edit]

Being that the people of Kemet were what we would call black today, it seems weird that there is a section in this name.

"Black Blackism" Really odd. Ausar Auset society should just be listed without any separation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vapblack (talk • contribs) 23:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are begging the question by assuming Ancient Egyptians were what we would call black today. That's still a fringe hypothesis. Dougweller (talk) 09:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And one not typically supported by archaeology or representative subclades within archaeogenetics. Honestly, this article is in rather sad shape. I'll improve some of the prose, but it desperately needs reliable sources. The same with the majority of pages related to Kemetism, especially the Kemetic Orthodoxy page, which is heavily promotional, unsourced, and full of OR and SYNTHESIS. I'll do what I can, but unfortunately I think reliable sources on reconstructionism are lacking in general. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 08:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was originally supported by the fathers of Egyptology in the 1700s but later shifted by those Egyptologist who choose a narrative that favored a European non-African origin/connection. A course correction has been made and grows as more and more scholars seek the truth. Catalyst Inspire (talk) 18:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a fringe hypothesis! But a proven fact by top scholar’s utilizing anthropology, archaeology, linguistics, Genetics, historical records, including the Kenites themselves, statues, etc. Catalyst Inspire (talk) 18:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Caption Revert

[edit]

Before I undo the edit by the anonymous IP, I wanted to ask why they reverted to a less coherent, and grammatically incorrect caption. Perhaps I'm missing something, but there didn't seem to be a reason for it. I posted a request for clarification on the user's talk page as well. If I don't see a reply, I'll rollback the edit. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 13:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Article

[edit]

I've started a draft to revise this article, so that I can introduce citations at my leisure. I didn't want to clutter up the mainspace with possible OR and have it be summarily challenged before I could introduce the appropriate citations to support it. Anyone is welcome to edit it, so long as you provide your reasoning for those edits on the talk page. It's located here: User:Quinto_Simmaco/Draft:Kemetism. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 14:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Classification of Kemetic Orthodoxy

[edit]

The recent revision made by 87.5.115.110 on 30 March 2017 attributes to a doctoral thesis by Harrison the following assertions:

  • Kemetic Orthodoxy has been the most prominent group
  • Kemetic Orthodoxy is a form of monism

It also removed the following content, citing OR:

  • Mention of Reconstructionism as an alternative (uncited, but an obvious counterstance to modern takes on ancient Egyptian practices such as the KO organisation)
  • Reference to KO as a "Henotheistic" religion (as stated by HoN itself)
  • Reference to Neo-Atenism as an alternative (admittedly difficult to cite, however something like Tameran Wicca is probably a better example of a non-reconstructionist alternative)

I have three issues with this revision:

  1. If we're going to remove information as OR, we can't replace it with OR. We need to reach a consensus as to what type of religion KO falls under. I feel their own choice of Henotheism (not Monalatry, for the reasons already discussed) is very accurate, and autociting.
  2. The reference cited in the previous revision has been left in. I don't know if the added material is supported by this citation, as it is not accessible online, being a doctoral thesis. If it is an accurate reference, can a quote be provided? If not, the citation will need to go or be replaced.
  3. As it stands, the introduction to Kemeticism basically states that Kemetic Orthodoxy eclipses all other forms, without bothering to even name them. This is entirely biased towards KO, the previous wording was much more neutral.

I propose a revert for these reasons. Wasechun tashunka (talk) 19:35, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this helps, but see Harrison's blog.[7]. @Wasechun tashunka: Doug Weller talk 19:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the original version that had the Harrison source. His book was published in January by Routledge. I removed the bit with a cn tag as you shouldn't restore material removed because it wasn't sourced without a source. I don't like the word 'strains'. Doug Weller talk 17:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell, his book won't be out until the 1st October. I added "including" to the lead, as it looks like the quotation used was cut off as it only listed one 'strain', but states that there are three. I have no way of accessing the thesis, but I'll keep an eye out for the book when it's released.Wasechun tashunka (talk) 17:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing a complete rewrite of this article

[edit]

So the current state of this article is, to put it plainly, horrendous. Not only is it a poor machine translation of the Czech article, it's full of original research, personal essay-ish phrasing, and bad sources (surely it must be considered a bad article by the Czech wiki's standards too? I'd love to know what they're saying about it over there). I've spent the past six-ish months completely refurbishing it in a draft page here, and I'd like people to give it a look and get some feedback to make sure I'm doing the right thing by, y'know, proposing completely overwriting the page. I know my version is far from perfect, but I hope you'll agree it's a huge improvement over the current state of things. vagabondsun (it/its + he/him) | talk ✨ contrib 19:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think your judgment is correct. Your draft is rough around the edges, but its structure is an improvement, it uses the most reputable sources available, like Harrison or Krogh and Pilifant, and it certainly avoids the weird essay-like tone in the current version.
A couple of points come to mind. First, in citations, it's very much preferred to specify the page you're citing whenever possible. That's especially true of book sources, where citing a 200-page book without giving a page number isn't very helpful when others try to verify the citation. Second, a content question: do Kemetists themselves draw a distinction between "magic" and other rituals of theirs? In ancient Egyptian religion, there really wasn't such a distinction; see Harrison 2017, pp. 57–59, where he discusses the crucial work of Robert Ritner on this topic. To the Egyptians, heka was the force that made rituals, of all kinds, effective. Of course, Western culture does draw a distinction between rituals and magic, so it's possible that Kemetists do so, especially because most of the significant Kemetist groups seem to have been founded before Ritner published his seminal work in 1993. But I think the article should only recognize such a distinction if Kemetists themselves do. (My only source, Harrison, doesn't seem to really answer this question.) A. Parrot (talk) 00:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can certainly go through and add page numbers for the Harrison citations - I'd do the same for LaBorde's stuff but the ebook copies I have don't actually have the page numbers in them. As for your second question, I can say anecdotally that independant kemetics at least make a distinction (see, for example, the fact that the Kemetic Round Table project sorts 'ritual' and 'heka' submission prompts into separate categories), and LaBorde gives it its own chapter in Circle of the Sun (although she does also spend a lot of time affirming that it can't truly be separated out from devotional ritual). I don't feel strongly about keeping it in its own section and would be fine folding it under Ritual, but if it is kept separate, it might be better to rename it Heka anyway? vagabondsun (it/its + he/him) | talk ✨ contrib 12:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I thought I could add page numbers. My ebook copy of Profane Egyptologists also has no page numbers, but I knew of my local library having a copy - turns out theirs is digital too! Is that going to be a major obstacle? I imagine the reason you're bringing it up now is because you'd like to check my work before I port it over. vagabondsun (it/its + he/him) | talk ✨ contrib 18:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Guidelines say “ If there are no page numbers, whether in ebooks or print materials, then you can use other means of identifying the relevant section of a lengthy work, such as the chapter number or the section title.” Doug Weller talk 18:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. I've gone through and converted all the Harrison citations to the short format to include the chapter names (and section names, because the chapters are also often rather long), and the LaBorde ones as well while I was at it. vagabondsun (it/its + he/him) | talk ✨ contrib 13:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@A. Parrot @Doug Weller So, just to confirm, am I good to replace the article with my draft now? I feel it's important to get an explicit 'yes' on this with how drastic the change is. (Also, is this a situation in which a history merge would be appropriate? I'm not really sure if there's specific protocol for rewrites from drafts.) vagabondsun (it/its + he/him) | talk ✨ contrib 12:27, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Vagabondsun sorry, no. You are heavily relying on two self-published works so we can’t trust any of the text they source. Doug Weller talk 12:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I see the concern there. I'd like to argue that they're appropriate per WP:USESPS in that there is no better published source available, and that LaBorde is considered an authoritative reference by both kemetics themselves and the academics who study them - see the fact that Harrison cites her extensively. I concede that it's far from ideal, but I do feel that they're the best sources we have on kemeticism as it's generally practised and integral to a full understanding of it given the incredibly sparse attention paid by outsider researchers to anything other than KO and a handful of other formally incorporated groups. vagabondsun (it/its + he/him) | talk ✨ contrib 13:07, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kemetists means ancient Egyptian nationalists

[edit]

In egyptian public, Kemetists literally means ancient Egyptian based nationalists, those who deny their arabic identity and have an ancient egyptian based nationalism are called kemetists in Egypt

I believe such elaboration about that in the article is necessary Amr.elmowaled (talk) 01:08, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide sources that say this? A. Parrot (talk) 14:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately no I don’t think i can reach a reliable source, it’s just something well known on Egyptian social media Amr.elmowaled (talk) 01:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Amr.elmowaled sorry, that means we can't add it. Doug Weller talk 12:18, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article Relevance

Catalyst Inspire (talk) 18:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paganism is not Kemeticism. Kemet did NOT refer to the black soil but the black people.

[edit]

Kemet means land of the blacks. This refered to the native people not the soil. It is older than all modern day religions and it was not a religion when you speak of Kemetism it was a science. Just because one does not understand the knowledge left does not mean that it is based on strictly mysticism as some would believe. Many modern day theories and philosophies followed today were learned from ancient mystery schools out of Kemet. Kemetians were closely related to the neighboring Kushites and Nubians. 2600:6C5E:467F:326E:6857:80C3:2FE8:1B78 (talk) 05:53, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Utter bullshit. Pseudohistorical nonsense. Pitch this idea to the NOI or something, not wikipedia. ActualOswinOswald (talk) 17:10, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there a random anecdote about Czechia in the middle of this article?

[edit]

>In the Czech Republic there is only one known society claiming to be a member of the Kemetism, the civic association Per Djoser Achet registered by the Ministry of the Interior.

Ok? And why is this specifically in the article. Czechia is not a large or internationally relevant nation. ActualOswinOswald (talk) 17:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kemetism&oldid=1250307790"