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 10-29-2013, 08:48 PM
 
2,241 posts, read 2,685,723 times
Reputation: 424

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by travric View Post
You know be curious to know if the look back to Africa's past is 'disproportionate' to say the look to the present and its future. Africa as shown here in post and threads has a glorious past. But I'd suggest that to navigate the modern day with its perils and advantages more of look should be put on what is 'good' in its societies and how the continent can transform and adjust itself to face the future. If you ask me and this is just my opinion Africa just isn't able to conduct itself globally at all compared to the major powers. And that's because it's so concerned with its own internal concerns that have the tremendous 'dust' of centuries behind them. Time to shake it all off and get out there and compete to make a better life for its people, no?
ďAfrica is not an UNDERdeveloped continent, it is an OVERexploited one.Ē ó Dean Steed
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-29-2013, 08:50 PM
 
2,241 posts, read 2,685,723 times
Reputation: 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by travric View Post
You know be curious to know if the look back to Africa's past is 'disproportionate' to say the look to the present and its future. Africa as shown here in post and threads has a glorious past. But I'd suggest that to navigate the modern day with its perils and advantages more of look should be put on what is 'good' in its societies and how the continent can transform and adjust itself to face the future. If you ask me and this is just my opinion Africa just isn't able to conduct itself globally at all compared to the major powers. And that's because it's so concerned with its own internal concerns that have the tremendous 'dust' of centuries behind them. Time to shake it all off and get out there and compete to make a better life for its people, no?
"Charity is not helpful for Africa, Haiti, or wherever else simple minded people decide needs aid. If you see African children with no shoes, donít send them shoes, you send them teachers who will instruct them on how to make shoes. Teach them how to build houses and computers. Thereís a reason why Thomas Sankara rejected all Western aid and preferred that his people made their own clothes and grow their own food. If you canít make your own clothes and grow your own food, you are a slave to the master who feeds you. Charity has never eliminated poverty anywhere. Self-empowerment eliminates poverty." ~ I.L.B.P
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2013, 04:10 AM
 
3,564 posts, read 2,547,060 times
Reputation: 6878
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
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.

Thanks for mentioning the quipu (my girl is a Peruvian!). It is increasingly being studied as the world's only known example of three dimensional writing.

In all fairness, even putting Geez and Meroitic aside, Africa did have some forms of proto-writing.

Nsibidi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As you well know I hate the black Egypt nonsense, and hate the black Olmec nonsense even more, but there are honestly things in West Africa that I like to study. I am impressed by the Sahelian kingdoms and the trade networks through the desert. Also, as has been noted on both sides, writing really only originated in 4 places, so that fact that the Africans largely adapted it from Arabic is not a problem in appreciating their culture.

Last edited by cachibatches; 10-30-2013 at 05:10 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2013, 04:21 AM
 
3,564 posts, read 2,547,060 times
Reputation: 6878
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly View Post
There are so many contradictions in your post but there is another thing that hasn't been addressed yet. The problem is that you are putting way too much emphasis on color when it comes to the continent of Africa. Looking at it from simply skin complexion is very short-sighted to say the least. The whole concept of race in general is a Eurocentric concept that doesn't really hold much weight in regards to the culture and ideologies of African people, especially when looking at it from a historical perspective.

Also in general(to everyone) what is up with some of these posters who feel the need to disassociate Egypt as if it is not an African Civilization. News flash! they are indigenous people of Africa!. Whether you like it or not, they are part of Africa just like any other ethnic group in the continent. It's so absurd how people go out of their to disassociate Egypt and North Africa from the rest of the continent. Some people think North Africa is not the "real" or "true Africa" like the Sub-Saharan region. The so called "Sub-Sahara or "Black Africa" is not the true Africa, it's just Africa. If I started disassociating civilizations like the Romans and Greeks as being part of European culture, I would be crucified by many of you. Why is it that we can look at other continents for what they are but when it comes to continent of Africa, most always have to use race or skin color?
The problem is that this isn't really true. Almost every geneticist that has looked at it has concluded that there has been massive Eurasian back migration into Africa in the stone ages- which is why most Egyptians statues and mummies look Caucasian. I used to post a lot of the studies, but recently ran afoul of copyright infringement polices. If you are interested, I can give you the names of the studies and you can research them yourself.

The two problems that I have with "black Egypt" are:

A) Geneticists and anthropologists agree that Egyptians are largely the same people that they have always been. Even the much cited Keita agrees that there were no magical other, "blacker" Egyptians.

Shomarka Omar Keita: What Genetics Can Tell Us (EGYPT) - YouTube

B) African Americans are descended from West Africans, and I for one like the West African civilizations. Lets study those. we all know who the Egyptians were, it is West Africa that needs the attention.

Last edited by cachibatches; 10-30-2013 at 05:15 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2013, 04:26 AM
 
3,564 posts, read 2,547,060 times
Reputation: 6878
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Style View Post
One has to be careful when they speak about so called "Sub Saharan" Africa, because its really a eurocentric term, that truly means nothing. Most of the populations that are currently in West Africa were not there prior to 500BC, which really isn't that long ago in the grand scheme of things. They were in North Africa, the Sahara, the Nile Valley and some even came in from the Middle East.

I base my statements on a few things. For starters the history most groups in W. Africa tell of themselves is that their forefathers migrated from other locations. The second is, eye witness accounts and archaeology. For example, Herodotus (5th century BC historian) recounts a story he was told by Libyans, who claimed they encountered Pygmies or "little men" in present day W. Africa. They make reference to a great river, which most likely would have been the Niger River. You can find the reference to that here link Herodotus also tells a story of a Persian expedition to circumnavigate Africa. During this expedition they too say they encountered Pygmies. You can read about that here link I didn't include the archaeological evidence but if you are interested I can provide that too.

So what is my point? Well the things many people attribute to so called North Africans were done by present day W. and E. Africans. As invaders moved in i.e. Arabs, Turks, Greeks, Romans etc populations pushed south. This doesn't include earlier migrations that took place as a result of the Sahara becoming a desert (it sustained life at one point).

So now, lets get to African Writing. You can listen to this podcast (you need to have a audio program that can play .ram files here link

You should also research the Mande writing scripts, such as found in Komo, Poro etc. They are very ancient. There is also the Begum Script, there is the Adinkra Script found among the Akan and to many other writing systems to name. African writing is also logographic (like Chinese and Japanese) as opposed to the phonogram scripts you find in the west and middle east. Although early on, you did have later developed phonogram scripts before Westerners were even writing as found in Egypt and in Kush.

The difference between Africans and Europeans is, Africans use writing in secret societies to discuss esoteric and spiritual matters, they don't generally use it to leave behind messages for later generations to see. At least not out in the open. Most African scripts are tied to secret societies and only initiates are taught them.
Mande Script is modern. The idea of it being ancient is pushed only by cranks like Clyde Winters, who points to random chicken scratch. Ancient Mande script is not taught in any classroom anywhere.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2013, 04:33 AM
 
3,564 posts, read 2,547,060 times
Reputation: 6878
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Style View Post
Let me get this straight, you think someone who probably knows about as much on the history of Africa as you do (which apparently isn't much), makes a silly video and it refutes a PROFESSOR whose articles are PEER reviewed? Do you understand what the term "peer reviewed" means? Also the articles Dr. Winters site in his foot notes are also peer reviewed. I don't think someone like yourself, who clearly knows little to nothing about Africa, has the prerequisite knowledge to refute him. Silly videos wont do the trick. What will do it is, you providing peer reviewed articles from other academics that can show definitively that Dr. Winter's is wrong, and not only that, you will also have to provide proof that the articles that are in his foot notes are also wrong. A task I don't believe you are up too.

They are not "peer reviewed," as his "works" are not recognized by academia. When he claims that they are "peer reviewed," he means that they are well liked by other cranks.

If you had bothered to watch the video, you would know as much.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2013, 04:38 AM
 
3,564 posts, read 2,547,060 times
Reputation: 6878
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Style View Post
I don't have the time right now. However, the first people in South America seem to have been "negro" of some sort, not the current day "mongloid" people that we see today. Secondly Clyde Winters is not the first people to bring up that the Olmecs may have been African, it was a German researcher. You can watch this video, you will see him speak in his own words, about what he felt about the Olmecs. From there you will have to do your own research into this German researchers findings.


'Olmecs' They Came Before Columbus - Dr ivan Van Sertima, Part 2 - YouTube

Also, this is a short clip but listen to what they say about the oldest skull found in South America


1st ANCIENT AMERICANS Were BLACK! - White Archaeologists Discover - YouTube


I am not saying the Olmecs were African, I don't know and I don't care. But my point in showing this is, you don't know enough about history, researchers or their findings to have a intelligent opinion or conversation and I assure you, it will take more than a half day of google searches, for you to intelligently discuss the topic, because it is very very intricate. You need to know archeological evidence, linguistic evidence, cultural evidence etc etc. That takes years my friend. Thats why there are people with Ph Ds in the subject.

As for taking a statue and pointing to someone today as having the same features, thats not very scientific in approach and doesn't prove much. There are African's with many of these same features, so it is going to take more than that. Unless you have been to Africa, seen all its people and understand physiology, you comparing features like that doesn't mean anything.
This "German researcher," Wiercinski, was a crank who did not think a single skeleton that he found in Mexico was indigenous.

Seriously, it is sad that you believe this gibberish. You have bought into an entire alternate reality.

Debunking "Black Olmec" in 23 Seconds - YouTube

The Face of a Tzotzil Does Not Lie - YouTube

Last edited by cachibatches; 10-30-2013 at 05:21 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2013, 04:48 AM
 
3,564 posts, read 2,547,060 times
Reputation: 6878
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Style View Post
Ok, so what archaeological studies can you point us to that would negate the claims that Olmec were at least partly African? Can you provide a study for us? I don't care one way or the other if it is true or not. My point in saying all this is, one should be careful about making claims; unless they have really done the research necessary to definitively say one way or the other if it is true or not. Trust me, it will take TONS of research and TONS of time.
This is not how history is done. You are making a claim that would alter accepted fact by saying that a black African civilization crossed the Atlantic and influenced Mexico- the burden of proof is on you, and you haven't got any.

You cannot prove a negative. A cannot prove to you that Santa Klaus does not exist.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2013, 10:11 AM
 
2,241 posts, read 2,685,723 times
Reputation: 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by cachibatches View Post
Thanks for mentioning the quipu (my girl is a Peruvian!). It is increasingly being studied as the world's only known example of three dimensional writing.

In all fairness, even putting Geez and Meroitic aside, Africa did have some forms of proto-writing.

Nsibidi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As you well know I hate the black Egypt nonsense, and hate the black Olmec nonsense even more, but there are honestly things in West Africa that I like to study. I am impressed by the Sahelian kingdoms and the trade networks through the desert. Also, as has been noted on both sides, writing really only originated in 4 places, so that fact that the Africans largely adapted it from Arabic is not a problem in appreciating their culture.
POLYTOPICITY:


Polytopicity - YouTube
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2013, 10:14 AM
 
2,241 posts, read 2,685,723 times
Reputation: 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by cachibatches View Post
The problem is that this isn't really true. Almost every geneticist that has looked at it has concluded that there has been massive Eurasian back migration into Africa in the stone ages- which is why most Egyptians statues and mummies look Caucasian. I used to post a lot of the studies, but recently ran afoul of copyright infringement polices. If you are interested, I can give you the names of the studies and you can research them yourself.

The two problems that I have with "black Egypt" are:

A) Geneticists and anthropologists agree that Egyptians are largely the same people that they have always been. Even the much cited Keita agrees that there were no magical other, "blacker" Egyptians.


Shomarka Omar Keita: What Genetics Can Tell Us (EGYPT) - YouTube


B) African Americans are descended from West Africans, and I for one like the West African civilizations. Lets study those. we all know who the Egyptians were, it is West Africa that needs the attention.
But it is true that Egyptians were diverse in skin colors and that among them did include darker skinned Egyptian peoples as well as lighter ones and ones who ran the skin color gamuts and everything in between.
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