The Hidden Genocide: How the Silence of Kemet Speaks Louder Than History
BY: OMOLAJA MAKINEE
The charge of “Egyptocentrism” has long been wielded as a defence against the uncomfortable truth that the people who built the civilisation of Kemet are not the same as those who today call themselves Egyptians. Beneath this argument lies a silence far greater than denial—it is the silence of extinction. The disappearance of the Kemetian language from the living world is not merely a cultural transition; it is evidence of a genocide unrecorded in official history.
When the Arabs conquered Kemet in the 7th century CE, they did not simply settle among the native population. They did not coexist, as they did in other parts of Africa where Islam spread without annihilating indigenous identities. In Nigeria, Mali, Chad, and Senegal, the people retained their ancestral tongues while absorbing Arabic words and Islamic concepts. Even after centuries of colonisation, Yoruba, Hausa, Wolof, and Fulani are still spoken, and each has developed its own adaptive linguistic fusion—Pidgin, Ajami, or Creole—reflecting the human brain’s natural tendency toward adaptation, not erasure.
1. Psychextric Evidence: The Brain Does Not Replace—It Adapts
In the science of Psychextrics, language retention is tied to the Epigenetic Index Marker (EIM) and Genetic Index Marker (GIM) within the diencephalic network—the same system that governs subconscious pattern retention and recall. Once a linguistic framework imprints within the GIM–EIM loop, it becomes a stable component of the cognitive architecture. The cortex may project new linguistic outputs (as in learning a second language), but the foundational memory of the first language remains active in the thalamic nuclei that regulate auditory and semantic mapping.
This biological permanence explains why bilingualism and hybrid languages emerge naturally across colonised societies. When the Hormonal Index Marker (HIM) and Hormonal Fluidity Index (HFI) align under new linguistic pressures (such as adopting a coloniser’s language), the diencephalon fuses both languages into a hybrid equilibrium. This is why Nigerians speak English with a Nigerian rhythm and syntax—why Caribbean Creole fuses English lexicon with African tonal memory. The human brain does not delete; it adapts.
Therefore, the complete extinction of the Kemetian language in daily life—without even a surviving pidgin, creole, or substratum in Arabic—defies all known laws of neuro-linguistic adaptation. Such a total disappearance can only be explained by a sudden disappearance of the people themselves.
2. Linguistic Absence as Forensic Evidence of Genocide
Language is the last biological evidence of a people’s existence. Its extinction is not a mere cultural event—it is a neurological void, a rupture in the human chain of memory. In every colonised region, traces of the indigenous phonology survive, because the people survive. French-speaking Africans still pronounce French through their ancestral phonemes; Arabic-speaking Berbers retain Amazigh inflections; even enslaved Africans in the Caribbean reconstructed their lost languages into new ones. But Kemet left no living speakers, no variants, no tonal descendants. Hieroglyphs survive only in stone, not in sound.
If the Arabs had merely migrated and intermarried with Kemetians, the language would have persisted—transformed, adapted, fused, but not vanished. That it vanished completely is the biological fingerprint of genocide. It is the silence that results when an entire cognitive community—those who carried the GIM–EIM patterns of Kemetian speech—is eradicated from the human gene pool.
3. Renaming as the Final Act of Erasure
The subsequent renaming of Kemet to Egypt sealed this extinction. Naming, in both psychextric and political theory, is an act of possession. To rename is to overwrite the spiritual coordinates of identity. Just as the dog bears the name of its owner, the renamed land bears the psychological imprint of conquest. The Arabs could not have called the land “Egypt” if the Kemetians had remained to call it “Kemet.” Renaming presupposes replacement.
In short: the Arabisation of the Nile Valley made a political fact of both covert genocide and cultural replacement; the renaming to Egypt was part of the symbolic infrastructure that completed that replacement. If one accepts the logic that conquerors may rename to claim ownership, then one must accept the counter-logic: reclaiming the original name is an act of de-ownership; a peaceful, necessary undoing of that imposed claim. Kemet Revived is not a whim; it is the rightful, restorative answer to centuries of cognitive conquest. To refuse it is to accept the permanence of the conqueror’s claim to our story. To insist on it is to demand that history return to its rightful narrators.
4. Ideological conquest, cultural displacement, and historical revisionism
Throughout history, ideological conquest has often carried the same power as military conquest. The spread of any exclusive belief system—whether religious, political, or cultural—has tended to draw a line between those within the doctrine and those outside it. In the case of Kemet, the ancient polytheistic worldview—rooted in cosmic harmony, ancestral veneration, and the balance of Ma’at—stood in deep contrast to later monotheistic doctrines that saw multiplicity as heresy. When the invaders imposed their creed upon a civilisation that sanctified religious plurality, a conflict of cosmologies became inevitable.
Religious conquest, therefore, must be seen not merely as conversion but as cognitive domination—an attempt to overwrite the indigenous moral order with an external one. The language of faith became the language of power; the displacement of Kemetian spirituality made way for a new political identity that could not coexist with the old. Those who refused assimilation were branded as outsiders, their gods demonised, their temples desecrated, their language silenced. The extinction of Kemetian religion and language, therefore, was not only a cultural loss but a spiritual annihilation—a form of genocide justified through moral and metaphysical replacement.
Over centuries, this process of ideological replacement was layered with colonial reinterpretation. As European powers later colonised Africa, they found the Islamic presence in North Africa speaking various dialects of Arabic politically convenient and historically useful. The earlier records of mass displacement also around the 17th century and suppression were gradually sanitised. The conquerors became “ancestors,” and the conquered were erased from the narrative. This was the distortion that thinkers such as Cheikh Anta Diop and others fought to correct—the reclamation of historical memory from the hands of those who had rewritten it as some form of a gradual process of migration, cultural shifts and conversion to legitimise their presence.
The recovery of this buried truth is not about blame, but about balance. To name what was lost is not to divide, but to heal. Kemet Revived stands as a philosophical and moral restoration—an effort to retrieve the suppressed narrative of an African civilisation whose extinction was both material and metaphysical. The distortion of history that replaced Kemet with Egypt was not simply a linguistic substitution; it was an erasure of identity, faith, and consciousness. To confront this is to return dignity to the forgotten ancestors and to remind the modern African mind that reclamation is not rebellion, but remembrance. The call to revive Kemet, therefore, is the call to restore the continuum of African civilisation to its rightful centre, where truth, harmony, and memory can once again govern the soul of the continent.
Conclusion: The Charge of Egyptocentrism Is a Deflection
The accusation of “Egyptocentrism” is therefore not a critique—it is a cover-up. It attempts to silence the question of absence by accusing those who raise it of bias. But the absence itself is evidence. Kemet’s silence is not voluntary; it is imposed. And the fact that the Arab world must claim Kemet’s heritage while speaking a foreign tongue is the final proof that the people of Kemet were not absorbed—they were erased.
The fact that the language of Kemet disappeared from daily speech, replaced wholesale by different dialects of Arabic speakers; not few, not many, but all; testifies not to evolution but to replacement. A conqueror may inherit the territory, but when his tongue becomes the public speech and the native tongue is exiled to archaeology, the lineage of governance has been displaced. Religion can be adopted, but language is lived; it grows from the land itself. To lose it is to confess not merely conquest, but also to the 17th century mass and sudden genocide of a people.
Until this unrecorded genocide is acknowledged, the soul of Africa remains incomplete. To restore Kemet as the name of the continent is not Egyptocentric—it is restorative justice. It returns the murdered language to the living map. It says: The people who named this land still speak through us, even if their killers thought silence would last forever.
To conclude, the recovery of Kemet is not merely the act of renaming; it is the act of remembering. A people are not dead until their language and cosmology are erased. Thus, the revival of Kemet is a spiritual resurrection—a declaration that the African soul cannot be defined through the lens of its conquerors. To restore Kemet is to return the continent to the moral geometry of Ma’at, to the harmony between law, truth, and the living conscience. It is to re-anchor civilisation in its indigenous rhythm, before the invasions that sought to fracture its wholeness. The true power of naming lies in ownership; the one who names, claims. Therefore, to reclaim Kemet is to reclaim Africa’s authorship of civilisation itself. This is not Egyptocentrism—it is the restoration of memory, the justice of history, and the awakening of an identity that the sands of conquest tried to bury but could never silence.
“To rename is to reclaim. To reclaim is to resurrect. Kemet lives wherever Africa remembers itself.”
Back to 👇