U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Africa
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-12-2013, 01:40 PM
Status: "I hate living in Georgia!!" (set 14 days ago)
 
48,211 posts, read 45,506,708 times
Reputation: 15341

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by EdwardA View Post
I don't know why some folks are so threatened by some of these facts. I mean Japan wouldn't have a written language without China.
You aren't understanding something. Black people have been vilified, hated, and deemed "inferior" by many people. That can do disturbing things to the psyche of many people. Being looked down on, constantly being told "you're nothing" or "you can't do anything without a superior race monitoring you". That is the kind of stuff people have problems with. How hard is that to understand?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-12-2013, 03:23 PM
 
Location: America
6,987 posts, read 15,485,772 times
Reputation: 2067
eschaton

Quote:
1. It is false to claim Africans were "in the Stone Age" before the Islamic period. Central African cultures were forging iron tools and weapons over 4,000 years ago. It's unclear if this was an importation from the Near East or an indigenous invention. But it meant technologically speaking Africa was way ahead of Australia and the Americas at the time colonialism was ramping up. Indeed, the use of iron tools was part of the cultural package which allowed Bantu-speaking farmers from the Nigeria/Cameroon border region to expand over Southern Africa and ethnically replace the existing populations (which were hunter-gatherers, and largely "pygmy" or "khoisan" in origin, not Black African.
The earliest Blacksmith forge found in Africa is around present day Niger. It dates to about 3,000 BCE, well before anyone in the middle east was smelting iron. You can read about that in the peer reviewed article "West African Prehistory" by McIntosh and McIntosh. There was a recent article published that showed findings from a French time that found a forge dating to about 4,000 BCE. Africa is a huge place though, and they haven't even uncovered 80% of it, so God knows whats on that place. You can also read more about African metallurgy here:
Project MUSE - Did They or Didn't They Invent It? Iron in Sub-Saharan Africa


Quote:
2. Ethiopia, and more generally speaking all of East Africa, was an area of huge cultural interchange between Africa and the Near East. In terms of genetics, virtually all modern day East Africans have some "white" ancestry. Here's another post showing similar data. Ethiopian highlanders (Amhara and Tigray) show the most West Eurasian (white, if you like) ancestry, in some cases having as much as 45%. Lesser amounts are found in Oromo, Somali, and even among the Masai. Genetic evidence suggest there were several different waves of expansion from the Near East into East Africa, with the most recent being only 3,000 years ago, along with a later migration of these hybridized people into Southern Africa ahead of the expanding Bantu. Regardless, admixture would make logical sense in Ethiopia, given highlanders speak Semitic languages closely related to modern South Arabian languages, have a written language with Near Eastern origin, and had close enough religious associations with the Near East that many highlanders were Jewish before conversion to Orthodox Christianity.
You have things a bit backward. The Axumite empire expanded out of Africa, no one expanded in. The axumite empire was quit large, it ruled over the middle east and if we are to believe the Kebra Nagast, even parts of India. We also know that Roman merchants were allowed to live and trade on the coast of Ethiopia. My point is, because of ancient Axum's importance and large geographical area of rule, they would have naturally brought people in from the outside (as slaves), and also there would have been people coming in to trade and from this the admixture would have naturally occurred. Secondly, Semitic language is a Afroasiatic language and has its start in Africa, not outside of it. I do not know of any linguist that says other wise. One of the worlds most renowned Afro-linguist Christopher Ehret talks about that here:


Dr. Chris Ehret - YouTube



It would be hard to prove that Ge'ez has its start outside of Africa. Being that it (Africa) is the geographical location that brought civilization and Semitic people out of Africa and into Southern Arabia.

Also Falasha being supposedly "Jewish" doesn't prove anything. Especially considering you would have a tough time proving that there was anyone calling themselves "jews" prior to the rule of King Herod, and the Falsha pre date Herod's rule. I will even go so far as to say, you would even have a hard time proving a supposed Israel existed prior to Herod as well. So we have to be careful when dealing with biblical "history" if we can call it "history".

You can read about Axum here:

http://www.britishmuseum.org/pdf/kin...chersnotes.pdf

Also Surat Al Fil in the Quran is dedicated to the downfall of the last Habashi (So-called Ethiopian) king to rule over Arabia by the name of Abraha. He wanted to tear down the Kaba, he used a army of elephants to try and accomplish this.

You can read more about that on the New York Public LIbrary here:

The African Diaspora in the Indian Ocean World

Also if you are interested, you should get your hands on the Kebra Nagast! This book is a book written by a Axumite which chronicles the history of the Axumite/Habashi Empire.

Also, genes can not tell you when they were introduced into a population. There have been peer reviewed papers written on this fact, along with a call for all geneticist who publish work to stop making claims that genes are N number of years old in a particular population. Because, again they can't tell you that with any accuracy. So this whole 3,000 yrs old gene pool thing is a load of none sense. I am trying to find a recent article that was written discussing this fact, when i get my hands on it, i will post it.

Quote:
3. I'm not going to belabor the points about North Africa, except to note again that modern genetic studies have shown that the Arab invasions if anything made modern North Africans more "black." Berber populations in the Maghreb consistently show less African admixture than their Arab-speaking neighbors, although the ones further south, like the Mozabites and the Tuareg, do show black admixture on their own. Black ancestry in Morocco and Egypt has been dated to have occurred mainly after the Islamic slave trade started up. Hell, look at what actual Copts look like in Egypt - not too different from other Egyptians. It's clear at minimum if you could take a time machine back to the Roman era people in North Africa would be if anything lighter than today. We can't fully disentangle what the ancient Egyptian population looked like, but the majority of the ancestry of modern-day Berbers seems to be from a group which migrated back into North Africa from the Middle East 12,000 years ago.
Not sure where you are getting any of this from, in terms of you claiming "Berber populations in the Maghreb consistently show less African admixture than their Arab-speaking neighbors". I would like to introduce you to world renowned geneticist Omar Shomarka Keita, who works for the Smithsonian Institute, whose reputation and scholarship is beyond reproach. He presented at a conference at Chapel Hill last year, talking about the genetics of Africa, it was VERY interesting to say the least. He addresses the things you're talking about exactly, however he shows that the data shows anything but what you are claiming. You can watch the video here:


Dr. Shomarka Keita - YouTube

As for African "slave trade" introducing black genes into north africa, again another very weird statement and one that is based more on imagination than fact.

The earliest eye witness reports say that North Africa was black. You don't find mixed populations in North Africa until the 700s AD and thats because black africans and arabs invade Europe and start bringing in millions of white slaves. One professor says the number was at least 1.5 million European slaves, being introduced into Africa in a 200 year time span, and in his book "christian slaves, muslim masters" he admits that his numbers are actually far less than what written records state. But I think he had a hard time swallowing the sheer number of europeans brought into africa. Another thing to note about his book, he only looks at a 200 year time span, but the trade went on for almost 1,000 years. So if its 1.5 million every 200 years, we are talking something like 7.5 million whites, being introduced as slaves into North Africa. That is enough to change the look of ANY place. We also should recall that adaptation does not explain why whites are in N. Africa. Why you may ask? Well, if you have blacks, mixed people and physically white looking people in North Africa, there is no theory that would explain how you have all these groups in one area, the theory of Adaptation wouldn't explain that. These European Slaves also find their way into the interior of the continent. There were 200 white slaves soldiers brought into the bagam kingdom in Cameroon, at least that many or more were brought into ancient Malian empire as well. This doesn't include the women that came in as well. There is another book that has actual european slave narratives for those who were able to gain their freedom, its called White Slaves, African Masters. You can also watch this video, that gives you just a small glimpse into this:


ATLANTIC JIHAD:The Untold Story of White Slavery - YouTube

Also, lets look at early eye witness accounts of what north africa was like pre 700 AD:

Quote:
26 But Ethiopia may be divided in still another way, quite apart from this. For all those who have made coasting-voyages on the ocean along the shores of Libya, whether they started from the Red Sea or from the Pillars of Heracles, always turned back, after they had advanced a certain distance, because
p121
they were hindered by many perplexing circumstances, and consequently they left in the minds of most people the conviction that the intervening space was blocked by an isthmus; and yet the whole Atlantic Ocean is one unbroken body of water, and this is particularly true of the Southern Atlantic. All those voyagers have spoken of the last districts to which they came in their voyagings as Ethiopic territory and have so reported them.
33
Wherein, then, lies the absurdity, if Homer, too, was misled by a report of this character and divided the Ethiopians into two groups, placing the one group in the east and the other in the west, since it was not known whether the intervening people really existed or not? Furthermore, Ephorus mentions still another ancient tradition, and it is not unreasonable to believe that Homer also had heard it. Ephorus says the Tartessians report that Ethiopians overran Libya as far as Dyris,80 and that some of them stayed in Dyris, while others occupied a great part of the sea-board; and he conjectures it was from this circumstance that Homer spoke as he did: "Ethiopians that are sundered in twain, the farthermost of men."
Note: Libya was the name many Greek, Roman and European writers called North Africa. Dyris is the name given to the Atlas Mountains in Morocco.

The above quote is from Strabo's book "The Geography". He lived between 64 BC to 24 CE. You can find similar statements from Herodotus in his book the histories, and from Pliny the Elder. Also from the geographer Ibn Hawqal, who died around 988 CE. Though by his time portions of berbers had become "white, through importation of slaves, and in some cases, you had European merchants and european muslims leaving Europe for Africa and mixing in with local populations.

Ibn Hawqal divides Berbers as so:

""Pure Sanhaja" and the "Banu Tanamak", the difference being that the later "Banu Tanamak" were originally Sudani (Black) whose skin and complexing became white bcasue they live close to the north"page 468 of the peer reviewed article "What Happened to the Ancient Libyans" by Dr. Richard L Smith from the Journal of World HIstory, Volume 14, Number 4

I should add the Sanhaja are the people who go into Spain and rule, i.e. your so called Moors. In Africa the tem actually znega and it is from these people you get the name of current day Senegal.

We also have the writer Pseudo-Scylax from the 4th centry BCE who wrote a description of the "ethiopians" who lived just south of the Pillars of Hercules. For those that do not know, the two land forms that are connected to Africa and the other to Spain, which mark the entrance into the Strait of Gibralter. So in other words, Psuedo-Scylax is talking about the geographical area that is Morocco. Hence, even by 4 BCE North Africa is still black. You can find that in Raoul Lonis' "Les Ethiopiens de Pseudo-Syclax"



Quote:
4. People shouldn't focus on what "Africa" invented. Continents geographic landforms, and we shouldn't abstract them across a wide array of cultures. The fact is, as has been noted, large portions of East Africa were "civilized" long before the vast majority of Europe was. Europe inherited its inventions from the Near East as well, and it's becoming clear that as with elsewhere, Near Eastern farmers seem to have wiped out a huge portion of Europe's original population.
Why shouldn't people focus on what Africans invented? The very notion is absurd. Chinese, Japanese, Europeans, and many other groups of people have entire departments in Universities devoted to uncovering what their forefathers did before them. So I am not sure why you think Africans should be any different.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2013, 04:00 PM
 
45 posts, read 76,569 times
Reputation: 104
One of the many great civilizations of pre-colonial Africa were the Swahili city-states on the East African coast.

Quote:
Between the 11th and 16th centuries AD, a truly cosmopolitan civilization rose and fell on the eastern coast of Africa. From Mogadishu in Somalia south 3000 kilometers to Cape Delgado in Mozambique, the city states called Swahili established regional trade centers, where copper, gold, silver, lead, gum copal pottery, beads, and bronze came from Cambodia, China, Arabia, Egypt, Yemen, Thailand, Vietnam, and the Indian subcontinent.

Chapurukha Kusimba begins his 1999 book, The Rise and Fall of Swahili States, with an exotic gift, a live giraffe sent to the Emperor of China in 1414 AD by the Bengal state from the city of Malindi on the Swahili Coast. As the emperor was soon to discover, the giraffe was one of many luxury items controlled by the merchants and leaders of the Swahili states.
The Rise and Fall of Swahili States

Quote:
The Swahili Coast runs from Somalia to Mozambique, with the densest concentrations of known settlements on the coasts of modern day Kenya and Tanzania. Unlike their neighbors, the Swahili people of the East African coast are predominantly Muslim, wrote their language in the Arabic script prior to European colonization, and have constructed stone towns since the end of the first millennium CE. Until the 1970s, both foreign and local commentators generally viewed all "civilized" features of the region as introduced by trade and intermarriage with Arabs and Persians. In fact, the coastal culture and people were not considered African, but rather were assumed to descend from Near Eastern trading settlements. Swahili oral and written histories do little to dispel this notion of external influence, with traditions tracing family lineages to foreign ancestors.

Since the 1980s, postcolonial archaeologists, linguists, and historians have shown that there is little evidence for these colonial scenarios of an Arab source for urbanization on the coast. Archaeological excavations have shown that the material culture of the region does not undergo any dramatic change from the pre-urban period to the urban period (roughly pre- to post-1000 CE).
Migration and Urbanization on the Swahili Coast

Quote:
Located on two islands close to each other just off the Tanzanian coast about 300km south of Dar es Salaam are the remains of two port cites, Kilwa Kisiwani and Songo Mnara. The larger, Kilwa Kisiwani, was occupied from the 9th to the 19th century and reached its peak of prosperity in the 13th and 14th centuries. In 1331-1332, the great traveler, Ibn Battouta made a stop here and described Kilwa as one of the most beautiful cities of the world.

Kilwa Kisiwani and Songo Mnara were Swahili trading cities and their prosperity was based on control of Indian Ocean trade with Arabia, India and China, particularly between the 13th and 16th centuries, when gold and ivory from the hinterland was traded for silver, carnelians, perfumes, Persian faience and Chinese porcelain. Kilwa Kisiwani minted its own currency in the 11th to 14th centuries. In the 16th century, the Portuguese established a fort on Kilwa Kisiwani and the decline of the two islands began.

The remains of Kilwa Kisiwani cover much of the island with many parts of the city still unexcavated. The substantial standing ruins, built of coral and lime mortar, include the Great Mosque constructed in the 11th century and considerably enlarged in the 13th century, and roofed entirely with domes and vaults, some decorated with embedded Chinese porcelain; the palace Husuni Kubwa built between c1310 and 1333 with its large octagonal bathing pool; Husuni Ndogo, numerous mosques, the Gereza (prison) constructed on the ruins of the Portuguese fort and an entire urban complex with houses, public squares, burial grounds, etc.

The ruins of Songo Mnara, at the northern end of the island, consist of the remains of five mosques, a palace complex, and some thirty-three domestic dwellings constructed of coral stones and wood within enclosing walls.

The islands of Kilwa Kisiwani and Songo Mnara bear exceptional testimony to the expansion of Swahili coastal culture, the lslamisation of East Africa and the extraordinarily extensive and prosperous Indian Ocean trade from the medieval period up to the modern era.
Ruins of Kilwa Kisiwani and Ruins of Songo Mnara - UNESCO World Heritage Centre
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2013, 04:06 PM
 
45 posts, read 76,569 times
Reputation: 104
Here's a short documentary of the confusion some people have of the Swahili people's ethnicity:



Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2013, 10:33 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,432 posts, read 11,933,106 times
Reputation: 10539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Style View Post
The earliest Blacksmith forge found in Africa is around present day Niger. It dates to about 3,000 BCE, well before anyone in the middle east was smelting iron. You can read about that in the peer reviewed article "West African Prehistory" by McIntosh and McIntosh. There was a recent article published that showed findings from a French time that found a forge dating to about 4,000 BCE. Africa is a huge place though, and they haven't even uncovered 80% of it, so God knows whats on that place. You can also read more about African metallurgy here:
Project MUSE - Did They or Didn't They Invent It? Iron in Sub-Saharan Africa
I was aware of these findings. However, some of my sources suggest they are still slightly controversial, whereas there is undisputed historical evidence of ironworking in Central Africa at least 200 years before Europe. My main point is Africa was not "stone age" even if it was preliterate - it was equal or superior in technology in the early Iron Age to Europe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Style View Post
You have things a bit backward. The Axumite empire expanded out of Africa, no one expanded in. The axumite empire was quit large, it ruled over the middle east and if we are to believe the Kebra Nagast, even parts of India. We also know that Roman merchants were allowed to live and trade on the coast of Ethiopia. My point is, because of ancient Axum's importance and large geographical area of rule, they would have naturally brought people in from the outside (as slaves), and also there would have been people coming in to trade and from this the admixture would have naturally occurred. Secondly, Semitic language is a Afroasiatic language and has its start in Africa, not outside of it. I do not know of any linguist that says other wise. One of the worlds most renowned Afro-linguist Christopher Ehret talks about that here:
The entire Afro-Asiatic language family almost certainly started in Europe, since all branches but the Semitic branch are found in Africa. That said, the Semitic languages may be an exception - a group which migrated out of Africa, and then later back into Africa again. After all, the modern Ethiopian Semitic languages are deeply nested in the language family - more closely related to modern South Arabian languages than other Semitic languages like Arabic, Assyrian, and Hebrew. In addition, many linguists have suggested the data suggests the Semitic languages were introduced to East Africa around 800 BC - which fits with the genetic data I linked to in the last post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Style View Post
Also Falasha being supposedly "Jewish" doesn't prove anything. Especially considering you would have a tough time proving that there was anyone calling themselves "jews" prior to the rule of King Herod, and the Falsha pre date Herod's rule. I will even go so far as to say, you would even have a hard time proving a supposed Israel existed prior to Herod as well. So we have to be careful when dealing with biblical "history" if we can call it "history".
The point is that Axum and other early Ethiopian polities had extensive cultural exchange with the Near East via South Arabia. Indeed, until the rise of Islam isolated the Ethiopian highlands they were arguably one of the furthest outposts of "western" civilization (as they were Christian and had an ultimately Near Eastern script) - with the native African elements subsumed within. I tend to think of Ethiopia as more akin to India however, a society where Near Easterners and locals mixed together long ago and formed their own hybrid culture.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Style View Post
Also, genes can not tell you when they were introduced into a population. There have been peer reviewed papers written on this fact, along with a call for all geneticist who publish work to stop making claims that genes are N number of years old in a particular population. Because, again they can't tell you that with any accuracy. So this whole 3,000 yrs old gene pool thing is a load of none sense. I am trying to find a recent article that was written discussing this fact, when i get my hands on it, i will post it.
These are always estimates based upon presuming that a "generation" (e.g., time from birth until your child is born) is a set number of years. In addition although the math involved has gotten much better, these analyses tend to pick up only the latest date of admixture. Some Near Eastern blood indeed probably mixed into Ethiopia around 3,000 years ago, but the bulk of it may have come in much earlier.

Another complicated factor is it's unclear if modern day Arabs are "pure" even when clear modern black African ancestry is included. Genetics now think there may have been an "Ancient South Arabian" population which was closely related to modern East Africans, which farmers from the fertile crescent displaced and hybridized with. Thus some of the ancestry in modern Ethiopians which comes up as "South Arabian" may actually be a mixture of a much smaller proportion of "white" blood and now-extinct populations like this.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Style View Post
Not sure where you are getting any of this from, in terms of you claiming "Berber populations in the Maghreb consistently show less African admixture than their Arab-speaking neighbors". I would like to introduce you to world renowned geneticist Omar Shomarka Keita, who works for the Smithsonian Institute, whose reputation and scholarship is beyond reproach. He presented at a conference at Chapel Hill last year, talking about the genetics of Africa, it was VERY interesting to say the least. He addresses the things you're talking about exactly, however he shows that the data shows anything but what you are claiming. You can watch the video here:
I can't watch the video now, but my source was the genetic study I linked to before, which showed that Tunisian Berbers show little to no African (or for that matter European or Arab) ancestry, whereas Arab populations in the region are mixed. This makes sense, considering Berbers tend to be more rural, whereas Arabs were cosmopolitan. The Arab slave trade was equal-opportunity in terms of race, shipping black slaves across the Sahara and sending raiding expeditions as far afield as England to the North.

Here's another recent genetic study of North Africa. Note the second picture. Different colors are assigned to proportions of individuals genome based upon ancestry, and the individuals are sorted by ethnicity. Greenish-yellow is black African, green is Arab, blue is European, and red is the rump - presumed indigenous North African ancestry. The Tunisian Berbers have nearly nothing but this, although all the populations in North Africa have some. This component is only found in very small levels in Southern Europe, suggesting it spread from Africa to Europe (both in the Roman era and due to the Islamic invasions of Spain), not the other way around.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Style View Post
The earliest eye witness reports say that North Africa was black. You don't find mixed populations in North Africa until the 700s AD and thats because black africans and arabs invade Europe and start bringing in millions of white slaves. One professor says the number was at least 1.5 million European slaves, being introduced into Africa in a 200 year time span, and in his book "christian slaves, muslim masters" he admits that his numbers are actually far less than what written records state. But I think he had a hard time swallowing the sheer number of europeans brought into africa. Another thing to note about his book, he only looks at a 200 year time span, but the trade went on for almost 1,000 years. So if its 1.5 million every 200 years, we are talking something like 7.5 million whites, being introduced as slaves into North Africa. That is enough to change the look of ANY place. We also should recall that adaptation does not explain why whites are in N. Africa. Why you may ask? Well, if you have blacks, mixed people and physically white looking people in North Africa, there is no theory that would explain how you have all these groups in one area, the theory of Adaptation wouldn't explain that. These European Slaves also find their way into the interior of the continent. There were 200 white slaves soldiers brought into the bagam kingdom in Cameroon, at least that many or more were brought into ancient Malian empire as well. This doesn't include the women that came in as well. There is another book that has actual european slave narratives for those who were able to gain their freedom, its called White Slaves, African Masters. You can also watch this video, that gives you just a small glimpse into this:
I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. At minimum, by the Roman era, you think we'd have numerous accounts of North Africans being commonly black if it was the case - but we do not. The Romans did not describe Carthaginians such as Hannibal as being black (and, since they were the descents of Phoenicians, you wouldn't expect them to be). Romans routinely moved soldiers and slaves all over their empire. Your example of Cerne, which was in North Africa, is technically true, but this was a trading town where many Ethiopians, along with Carthaginians, lived. Keep in mind the accounts are based upon Hanno as well, who was a Carthaginian, and (by your own logic) presumably black. Why would he note the local population was black if he was black himself?

Romans clearly knew what black people looked like, as black people were known throughout antiquity. But they were not as common as you would have expected given close to half of the Roman Empire was African. In addition, the Romans did not have modern racial consciousness, and did not see a "black race" as existing.

I do believe it's plausible that the ancient Egyptians were blacker than modern Egyptians, given the Nile acted as a natural conduit which allowed people to migrate from further south in Africa, while the Mediterranean coastline allowed peoples from the Near East to migrate into the Nile Delta. But there's no salient reason why (even in the period where the Sahara was Savannah instead of desert) you'd expect a hard and fast line between "blacks" and "whites at the Sinai.

It's also worth noting that the historic maps for skin color in Africa fairly closely approximate the shades you see in Arabia and India. Indeed, the current shades in north Africa are pretty much ideal in terms of shade for balancing solar radiation and needs to produce vitamin D through sunlight. That's not to say ancient North Africans couldn't have been darker - Tasmanians were black despite living at a high latitude - but only there is no reason to think even if the indigenous population was African that it would have had dark skin.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Style View Post
Why shouldn't people focus on what Africans invented? The very notion is absurd. Chinese, Japanese, Europeans, and many other groups of people have entire departments in Universities devoted to uncovering what their forefathers did before them. So I am not sure why you think Africans should be any different.
Japan and China are countries. Europe shouldn't all be lumped together, but the history of Europe (bound together by Christianity, the legacy of Greece and Rome, and Indo-European Languages), gives it some sense of a cohesive whole.

Africa is different. There are 3-4 different human races which are indigenous to Africa, which are less related to one another than all non-Africans are to each other. There is no common recently spread language family which binds the continent together (Bantu doesn't even come close). There is no history of common religion or empire. Africa is a geographic feature, and an ideological construct, and nothing more. Even presuming ancient Egyptians were "black" if you are West African or the descendant thereof you have no claim to that history, as it in no major way influenced the development of West Africa.

Does anyone talk about "Asian Civilization" Should a Syrian feel proud of the inventions of China - or a Chinese person the Indus Valley Civilization? If this seems ridiculous, why isn't the same thing true for Africa?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2013, 10:46 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,663 posts, read 74,281,369 times
Reputation: 36087
Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner View Post
You aren't understanding something. Black people have been vilified, hated, and deemed "inferior" by many people. That can do disturbing things to the psyche of many people. Being looked down on, constantly being told "you're nothing" or "you can't do anything without a superior race monitoring you". That is the kind of stuff people have problems with. How hard is that to understand?
There are lots of ways to assuage the disturbed psyches of oppressed people. If Revisionist History works for you, then go for it. If that doesn't work, try Revisionist Mathematics, 2+2=5. Or Revisionist Chemistry, turn lead into gold. Or Revisionist Astronomy, the flat earth is the center of the universe. Or Revisionist Anthropology, or Revisionist Genetics. It's all the same.

I'm white, European ancestry. We have indisputably lower IQ scores than East Asians, and our school children listen dumbstruck to Asians delivering valedictory addresses. We relearned from the Arabs everything we forgot in the Dark Ages. The Chinese are now in control of our economy. Muslims toy with us with impunity and rub our inferior noses in our pornography and substance abuse. Poor Korean and Vietnamese peasants slaughtered a hundred thousand of our heroes defending the Liberty we've now surrendered. How come that doesn't disturb my psyche yet? What historical lies have to be (and are being) told to protect my tender ears from the truth?

John 8:32 " . . . and the truth will set you free.”

Last edited by jtur88; 09-13-2013 at 11:23 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2013, 12:50 PM
Status: "I hate living in Georgia!!" (set 14 days ago)
 
48,211 posts, read 45,506,708 times
Reputation: 15341
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
There are lots of ways to assuage the disturbed psyches of oppressed people. If Revisionist History works for you, then go for it. If that doesn't work, try Revisionist Mathematics, 2+2=5. Or Revisionist Chemistry, turn lead into gold. Or Revisionist Astronomy, the flat earth is the center of the universe. Or Revisionist Anthropology, or Revisionist Genetics. It's all the same.

I'm white, European ancestry. We have indisputably lower IQ scores than East Asians, and our school children listen dumbstruck to Asians delivering valedictory addresses. We relearned from the Arabs everything we forgot in the Dark Ages. The Chinese are now in control of our economy. Muslims toy with us with impunity and rub our inferior noses in our pornography and substance abuse. Poor Korean and Vietnamese peasants slaughtered a hundred thousand of our heroes defending the Liberty we've now surrendered. How come that doesn't disturb my psyche yet? What historical lies have to be (and are being) told to protect my tender ears from the truth?

John 8:32 " . . . and the truth will set you free.
Since when has stuff like the Lemombo bone and the scrolls at Timbuktu revisionist? Since when has Africans being involved in metallurgy "revisionist"?

And something else, perhaps you aren't hurt by anyone saying "Asians are smarter" because in this nation, Whites are the majority and they are the ones in power. "White" is the standard for which everything else is judged against.

The truth will set one free. It also says that we are one in Christ, this means we are all equal in his eyes. That is another reason I don't buy into this IQ stuff.

The reason there is not hurting of psyche from the Korean War and the Vietnam War? Perhaps there is no one rubbing it in ours faces. So called "Black inferiority" has been rubbed in the faces of Black people. And considering so much that I have learned, whenever I hear people say things alluding to "Blacks are nothing", I know said persons are not saying it out of "truth", but to denigrate Blacks. It has worked like that since the days of slavery.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2013, 01:31 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,663 posts, read 74,281,369 times
Reputation: 36087
Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner View Post
Since when has stuff like the Lemombo bone and the scrolls at Timbuktu revisionist?

It is certainly revisionist to claim the Timbuktu Manuscripts predated the introduction of Arabic script in the 13th century CE.

Historical Revisionism consists not of ignoring or denying events, but of the distortion of the historical record (like Lebombo Bone or Timbuktu Manuscripts) such that certain events appear in a more or less favorable light.

The Lebombo Bone, by the way, is nothing but one single bone of a dead animal that happens to have notches on it, and the number of notches is the same as the number of days in the lunar cycle. It might have taken a predator (maybe not human) 29 bites to get all the meat off it. If a similar bone with 26 or 33 notches had been found (and probably was), it would have been thrown away. Nothing as vague and tenuous as that, found in complete absence of any other artifact or evidence, would ever be regarded as anything worthy of building an entire doctrine that the people then and there were the most advanced civilization on earth. You wold be laughed out of Anthropology 101 on orientation day.

Last edited by jtur88; 09-13-2013 at 01:59 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2013, 04:15 PM
Status: "I hate living in Georgia!!" (set 14 days ago)
 
48,211 posts, read 45,506,708 times
Reputation: 15341
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
It is certainly revisionist to claim the Timbuktu Manuscripts predated the introduction of Arabic script in the 13th century CE.

Historical Revisionism consists not of ignoring or denying events, but of the distortion of the historical record (like Lebombo Bone or Timbuktu Manuscripts) such that certain events appear in a more or less favorable light.

The Lebombo Bone, by the way, is nothing but one single bone of a dead animal that happens to have notches on it, and the number of notches is the same as the number of days in the lunar cycle. It might have taken a predator (maybe not human) 29 bites to get all the meat off it. If a similar bone with 26 or 33 notches had been found (and probably was), it would have been thrown away. Nothing as vague and tenuous as that, found in complete absence of any other artifact or evidence, would ever be regarded as anything worthy of building an entire doctrine that the people then and there were the most advanced civilization on earth. You wold be laughed out of Anthropology 101 on orientation day.
I never said the Timbuktu scripts predated Arabic script. Among the scripts were manuscripts showing the earth revolving around the sun.

Well, tell me this. Can you prove that the Lemombo bone was bitten off by a non-human predator? Can you come up with proof?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-14-2013, 08:27 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,663 posts, read 74,281,369 times
Reputation: 36087
Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner View Post
I never said the Timbuktu scripts predated Arabic script. Among the scripts were manuscripts showing the earth revolving around the sun.

Well, tell me this. Can you prove that the Lemombo bone was bitten off by a non-human predator? Can you come up with proof?
A. So the scripts are not "ancient", in that they do not predate exposure to the culture, technology and philosophy of an external influence in historical times. The Sumerians reached the same astronomical conclusions, and wrote them down, before 4000 BCE. Long before Timbuktu, this was suspected on every continent. There was nothing unique about Africans hypothesizing thousands of years later that the earth revolved around the sun.

B. I never presented my proposition as proof or evidence of any thesis. I said "maybe not human", and now you demand that I prove that it was indisputably non-human. YOU said it was proof. And these two Erich von Daniken Discovery Channel conjectures are the only things you have, to "prove" an entire thisis that African culture in ancient times was comparable to Sumerian, Indian, Chinese, European, Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Andean, etcetcetc.

Last edited by jtur88; 09-14-2013 at 08:56 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Africa
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top