Btw, you're Polish? You guys played a role in our Haitian Independance in 1804, one of the rare European people who can say that. You should be proud.

Not much to be proud of. Napoleon sent our troops there, most died of Yellow Fever, and a handful deserted in disgust. Not exactly the most glorious part of the szlachta's legacy.

what would be the Kemetyu's?

It need not have been an outright lie. They could very well have believed it. The story might have begun for reasons totally lost to history. But the fact remains--the fact that a people themselves claim an origin does not make that claim any more than hearsay. Archaeology, genetics, and linguistics must bear it out before it's taken seriously. Current archaeology and linguistics does favor an origin in Ethiopia for the Afro-Asiatic language family as a whole, but lower Egypt for the Proto-Semitic languages, which are not believed to have any relation to the Sumerian languages. (furthermore, regarding your "black head" point--since they specify the head, it seems more likely they're referring to hair color than skin color. Is there genetic evidence giving a significant sub-saharan African population in Lower Mesopotamia?)

Ethiopians for the most part look nothing like today's Arab Egyptians.

They look more like them than they do Bantu-speaking peoples from western and southern Africa. Speaking from personal observation, both Egyptians and Ethiopians look basically as one would expect a dark-skinned Jew to look (though some Egyptians are lighter than others). My parish priest, meanwhile, is a Ghanan. Much darker skin, very different shape of head, broader nose, different hair growth--aside from both being human, they look no more related than I do to a Chinese.

My point is that, despite coming from opposite sides of a continent, the two peoples have been written off as "black" to satisfy the 4-color worldview of the time, without any deeper interest by the Europeans about their actual ethno-linguistic differences.

History is written by the victors, that is true, but we all benefit from knowing exactly where we come from and how we got here.

History is not written by the victors, but by people who write history books that pass scholarly review. How common are North Vietnamese history books in the US, for example?

It is a mistake not to acknowledge the current racial paradigm and consciously work towards tearing it down with Truth.

I disagree. The current racial paradigm must be totally ignored in the search for truth, because it has nothing to do with the reality of the world in 3,000 BC or indeed any time until at the High Middle Ages. To allow modern ideology to pollute research is to open the way to turning history from an end itself to a tool to advance nationalist stupidity. That way lies the stupidity of the nineteenth century, when the Prussians, in an effort to prove themselves the most Aryan of all Europeans and justify their Drang nach Osten, postulated an Aryan homeland in Pomerania and tried to prove by skull measurements that Poles were some species of Mongol.

Facts, evidence, those are the way to truth. Not mere ideology.

Let's ignore the fact that we have Akhenaten Lookalikes running around all over Sudan

From Wikipedia:

However, Dominic Montserrat in Akhenaten: History, Fantasy and Ancient Egypt states that "there is now a broad consensus among Egyptologists that the exaggerated forms of Akhenaten's physical portrayal... are not to be read literally"

Even if we do read his looks literally, I've got a Finnish ballroom dance instructor who looks exactly like that statue. A few highly inbred monarchs are unlikely to look like the majority population anyway.

the Europeans who conquered them have decided to lay claim to our heritage

I have never heard of a European claim Egypt was a European culture or anything other than Semitic/Afro-Asiatic. At most, Egyptians in film (even before Hellenization) tend to be portrayed by European-descended actors.

let's even forget about the chronological impossibilities implied by your hair brained theory... Can you cite a single source to support this or should I just take it on faith?

From Wikipedia: Page Emmer Wheat:

The oldest evidence of domesticated emmer wheat has found near Damascus, Syria dating from 7,650 to 8,200 years BC. The dryness of the site, requiring irrigation for agriculture, suggests that the emmer was introduced as an already domesticated plant from elsewhere outside the Damascus Basin. Emmer is found in a large number of Neolithic sites scattered around the fertile crescent. From its earliest days of cultivation, emmer was a more prominent crop that its cereal contemporaries and competitors, einkorn wheat and barley.[8] Small quantities of emmer are present during Period 1 at Mehrgharh on the Indian subcontinent, showing that emmer was already cultivated there by 7000-5000 BC.[9]

So wheat agriculture was present in Syria and Palestine around 8,000 BC.

Now the page on Prehistoric Egypt:

The period from 9000 to 6000 BC has left very little in the way of archaeological evidence. Around 6000 BC, Neolithic settlements appear all over Egypt.[16] Studies based on morphological,[17] genetic,[18][19][20][21][22] and archaeological data[13][23][24][25][26] have attributed these settlements to migrants from the Fertile Crescent in the Near East returning during the Egyptian and North African Neolithic, bringing agriculture to the region. However, other regions in Africa independently developed agriculture at about the same time: the Ethiopian highlands, the Sahel, and West Africa.[27] However, some morphological and post-cranial data has linked the earliest farming populations at Fayum, Merimde, and El-Badari, to Near Eastern populations.[28][29][30] The archaeological data suggests that Near Eastern domesticates were incorporated into a pre-existing foraging strategy and only slowly developed into a full-blown lifestyle, contrary to what would be expected from settler colonists from the Near East.[d][32][33] Finally, the names for the Near Eastern domesticates imported into Egypt were not Sumerian or Proto-Semitic loan words,[e][34] which further diminishes the likelihood of a mass immigrant colonization of lower Egypt during the transition to agriculture.[35]

So not a mass immigration, but clearly the technology flowed from north to south. You can refer to the sources on each page. Wheat agriculture happened in Syria first. To what chronological impossibility do you refer?

The lenghts you go to in order to dance around the truth is really impressive. Let's ignore the fact that we have Akhenaten Lookalikes running around all over Sudan, let's ignore the Beja People who still wear their hair like the 6th Dynasty did and look the same,

I'm not ignoring them. Indeed, it is totally sensible that Egyptians should look like their immediate neighbors to the south.

What I dispute is whether that makes them "black," a term that is utterly meaningless because it lumps Bantu peoples in with Afro-Asiatics. It is just as stupid as lumping Finno-Ugrics in with Indo-Europeans in the category "white," or Japanese and Sino-Tibetans together as "yellow."

But your entire case rests on claiming an Afro-Asiatic culture and heritage for Bantu-speaking peoples, when the entire modern scholarly consensus is that Egyptians had nothing to do with anyone living west of Libya or south of Ethiopia. The entire modern scholarly consensus is that Egyptians did not think of themselves as African, did not look like anyone from West Africa (rather somewhere between Palestinian and Sudanese, on average--some outliers tended toward one extreme or other), and culturally were much more attached to the Mediterranean-Mesopotamian region than to West Africa (with which they had no interaction).

THIS, right here, is what I take issue with (presuming that you are, for the moment, descended of West Africans):

our heritage

Until there is conclusive proof--be that proof archaeological, linguistic, or genetic--that the Niger-Congo peoples are descended, even culturally, of Ancient Egypt, this is just blatant cultural appropriation. It is stealing the works of another people to make your own look better. It is not motivated by an honest search for truth, but by nationalism. It is no different at all from the historical German attempts to say that the ruling classes of Greece and Rome were Germans.

The linguistic and genetic evidence is that Egyptians are most closely related to Ethiopians and to Semites--and that this group, as a whole, is not particularly closely related to the Niger-Congo peoples of sub-Saharan Africa.

Anyway, it's getting late, and I'll hand off the rest of the argument to anyone better-versed in Egyptology who wants to pick up. Your points about dreadlocks, cotton, and fruit are addressed in the .pdf I linked.