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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-05-2013, 12:44 AM
 
Location: Vineland, NJ
8,483 posts, read 10,465,793 times
Reputation: 5401

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Motion View Post
^

jtur88...


Do you apply all that to the Inca of Peru who had no writing but still had an impressive civilization?
Apparently in his eyes they were not a true civilization, which is absurd to say the least.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-05-2013, 09:47 AM
 
Location: Maryland
18,624 posts, read 16,428,799 times
Reputation: 6348
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
That is the central crux of the thing. A written language is essential to any civilization in the post-Sumerian sense of the word. There have been a few cultures that have left behind an interesting artifact or two in the absence of a written language, but they simply cannot be thought of as "civilizations" in the modern form.

The well -known kingdoms of Africa, Benin and Ghana and the rest, were possible only because they had a system of writing and record keeping with borrowed Arabic. Prior to the incursions of cultures bringing written languages from the north, Africans simply had no means of organizing advanced cultural institutions.

Africans were basically Stone-age, until about the 8th century, when Arabs began importing slaves and gold from Sahelian Africa, and left the Arabic language and other cultural residue for the Africans to utilize in establishing formidable empires.

The point is, anything that is in any way "cultural" in Africa was brought there by non-Africans from the north, which constitutes, in one fashion or another, Colonialism -- whether continuously enforced with political boundaries or not. "Pre-colonial Africa" was before the Arabs in the eight century, and before then, there was nothing that anyone could stretch into any semblance of what would be called culture today.
I'm glad you wrote this reply. I toyed with writing a similar reply but decided against it. Why rain on their parade?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2013, 09:55 AM
 
Location: Maryland
18,624 posts, read 16,428,799 times
Reputation: 6348
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly View Post
Apparently in his eyes they were not a true civilization, which is absurd to say the least.
They weren't civilizations in the modern sense. They don't hold a fig to the Chinese, Indian, various Middle Eastern or even Ethiopian cultures. Sorry developing a written language is essential to advancing culturally there simply is no way around that.

Where are the Incas now? That should be all the proof you need. Why wasn't Ethiopia ever colonized? Why was it sending ambassadors to Europe in the Middle Ages? You need a written language to communicate effectively with the outside world. I can only think if one major power today that did not develop their own written language organically, the Japanese.

The Black Africans couldn't even develop a wheel making wholesale trade impossible. They hand no suitable draft animals and developed no seafaring ships. It's debatable if they even had a calendar or could even fasten together a sun clock. These are basics really.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2013, 09:59 AM
 
574 posts, read 1,670,750 times
Reputation: 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
That is the central crux of the thing. A written language is essential to any civilization in the post-Sumerian sense of the word. There have been a few cultures that have left behind an interesting artifact or two in the absence of a written language, but they simply cannot be thought of as "civilizations" in the modern form.

The well -known kingdoms of Africa, Benin and Ghana and the rest, were possible only because they had a system of writing and record keeping with borrowed Arabic. Prior to the incursions of cultures bringing written languages from the north, Africans simply had no means of organizing advanced cultural institutions.

Africans were basically Stone-age, until about the 8th century, when Arabs began importing slaves and gold from Sahelian Africa, and left the Arabic language and other cultural residue for the Africans to utilize in establishing formidable empires.

The point is, anything that is in any way "cultural" in Africa was brought there by non-Africans from the north, which constitutes, in one fashion or another, Colonialism -- whether continuously enforced with political boundaries or not. "Pre-colonial Africa" was before the Arabs in the eight century, and before then, there was nothing that anyone could stretch into any semblance of what would be called culture today.
Ok, Africans were stone age until about the 8th century AD. Fair enough.

But how do you explain the Ancient Egyptians, Nubians, Somalians, and Ethiopians. Civilizations which all predate Arab colonization of the African continent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2013, 10:03 AM
 
Location: Maryland
18,624 posts, read 16,428,799 times
Reputation: 6348
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdiggs1 View Post
Ok, Africans were stone age until about the 8th century AD. Fair enough.

But how do you explain the Ancient Egyptians, Nubians, Somalians, and Ethiopians. Civilizations which all predate Arab colonization of the African continent.
None of the peoples mentioned are sub-Saharan African or Bantu. Got anything else?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2013, 10:22 AM
 
574 posts, read 1,670,750 times
Reputation: 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdwardA View Post
They weren't civilizations in the modern sense. They don't hold a fig to the Chinese, Indian, various Middle Eastern or even Ethiopian cultures. Sorry developing a written language is essential to advancing culturally there simply is no way around that.

Where are the Incas now? That should be all the proof you need. Why wasn't Ethiopia ever colonized? Why was it sending ambassadors to Europe in the Middle Ages? You need a written language to communicate effectively with the outside world. I can only think if one major power today that did not develop their own written language organically, the Japanese.

The Black Africans couldn't even develop a wheel making wholesale trade impossible. They hand no suitable draft animals and developed no seafaring ships. It's debatable if they even had a calendar or could even fasten together a sun clock. These are basics really.
Sir, are you aware that Ethiopians are black? Are you aware that Ethiopians originate from this continent we call Africa? Are you aware that Ethiopians are Black Africans? Are you aware that Ethiopians have a written language?

Are you also aware that Black Africans in the ancient city states of Somalia used to trade extensively in the Indian Ocean in ancient times. They did it with these things called ships. You just stated that Black Africans developed no seafaring ships, however it is historical fact that Egyptians, Nubians, Ethiopians, and Somalians all had ships, and all used to trade with each other, and with various cultures in Asia.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2013, 10:29 AM
 
574 posts, read 1,670,750 times
Reputation: 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdwardA View Post
None of the peoples mentioned are sub-Saharan African or Bantu. Got anything else?
Ok, so your argument is that Black Africans who live south of the Sahara and that were Bantus were stone age before Arabs. Ok, fair enough.

Are you aware that Ethiopia and Somalia are below the Sahara? If I am not mistaken, 'sub' means below. 'Sub-Sahara' means 'below the Sahara.' Do you own a map? If you would look at a map, I would GUARANTEE you that Ethiopia and Somalia are both below the Sahara.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2013, 10:32 AM
 
574 posts, read 1,670,750 times
Reputation: 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdwardA View Post
None of the peoples mentioned are sub-Saharan African or Bantu. Got anything else?
Another question: Do you see Egytians, Nubians, Ethiopians, and Somalians being markedly different from other Black Africans?

Ancient Egyptians were black, and Nubians are still black; but we separate these two groups from other Black Africans when we discuss black civilizations. Why is that?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2013, 10:56 AM
 
2,777 posts, read 3,030,743 times
Reputation: 2312
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdiggs1 View Post
Ancient Egyptians were black
It's amazing how people with no roots will latch on to whatever they can for some sense of legitimacy, but this a bold-faced lie.

Nubians were slave to the decidedly non-black Egyptians, and half-assedly stole what little culture they possessed from the Egyptians (see the laughable Nubian "pyramids" for example; essentially vaguely conical piles of rocks).




Most of these busts (like above) depict decidedly un-black features, such as longer noses and thin lips.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2013, 11:05 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,663 posts, read 74,251,141 times
Reputation: 36087
Quote:
Originally Posted by Motion View Post
^

jtur88...


Do you apply all that to the Inca of Peru who had no writing but still had an impressive civilization?
Yes.

The Incas were not a culture, they were an empire that acted colonially over a large number of diverse cultures. The Incas imposed their language and some aspects of their technology on the various cultures of the region, which otherwise remained distinct, and retained much of their original cultural traditions.

Yes, the Incas made remarkable accomplishments in the absence of writing, although the quipus were in some way analogous to writing. However, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that anybody in western Africa developed a culture anywhere near as advanced as Inca culture, prior to their contact with Arabs in the 8th century. Nor is there any compelling evidence that the Egyptians had any significant genetic connection to any black-skinned peoples.

Last edited by jtur88; 09-05-2013 at 11:39 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