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.
Here are the direct links to the videos by Gomez & Kittles.
These lectures are from a conference featuring geneticists, linguists and many other scholars who deal with African history, in addition to politicians from various African nations.
Good to see such an eclectic cast of characters come together in a conference such as this one.
Thank you very much to the lead organizer, whose name I can't recall but is the woman who appears towards the middle of this opening video.
Well this has certainly been a learning experience for me as dealing with this historical topic has enlightened me as much about ancient societies as it has about modern American society. There are certain similarities, particularly when it comes to competing dualities (excellent study on this human social/political phenomenon is A Tale Of Two Factions).
For instance its common for Americans to frame the various divisions of society in terms of Republican vs. Democrat; liberals vs. conservatives; left wing vs. right wing; North/Northerners vs South/Southerners; Blue State vs. Red State (again see 2 factions to see how far back notions of blue vs. red goes); and yes blacks as opposed to whites, an extension of this being afrocentrism vs. eurocentrism. These notions are very much a part of how individual & group identities are shaped in America, its how Americans understand themselves and the world around them. It is virtually impossible for many to see the world outside these parameters. In fact one can call this particular worldview Amerocentrism.
Well this is not unique to America since from my studies of northern African history, one can find divisions such as Branes vs. Butr; Zanata vs. Sanhadja; badawi (bedouin, country folk) vs. hadari (sedentaries, city folk); those who fought on behalf of the coastal powers of the Tell such as the Azougah vs. the various nomadic qabilas/tribes, south of the limes such as the Lawata; and so on and so forth.
So having competing dualism in societies is neither new nor unprecedented. The only way to get rid of them would be to establish some type of totalitarian regime and that is not the type of society I want to live in.
So I have already done this in private but I would like to state publicly that I have apologized to Dd714 & to Wild Style. Its ok for others to have different views on historical topics and as long as they are not making calls for violence against fellow Americans (unlike certain others), then their 1st Amendment Rights should be respected.
I would just like my fellow Americans to understand that too much partisanship & polarization is not necessarily a good thing as the split between the 2 sides can wind up destroying the community if the fracturing gets out of hand.
So now that's out of the way time to continue on.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by kovert
The population of the Horn & the Sahara are often classed as part of the Caucasian/Caucasoid race, in particular the sub-branch variously called Hamitic, Mediterranean or Brown. This branch was once thought to have originated somewhere in southwestern Asia. One of the main reasons for the inclusion of Horn/Saharan Africans under the term Caucasoid was because they had a relatively straight and narrow nose.
Thus the oldest evidence of the phenotype associated with Saharan/Horn Africans is nowhere near the Mediterranean Sea, even farther away from the Caucasus Mountains, nor is it even in Ethiopia (I don't think writers who use Ethiopoid are doing anything useful). And this is not even counting the inconsistency in which the terms Negroid, Caucasoid & Mongoloid are applied.
Gunter Bräuer's, The morphological differentiation of anatomically modern man in Africa, with special regard to recent finds from East Africa, provides confirmation of the "Mediterranean/Caucasoid/Brown/Ethiopiod/Europoid" phenotype going back to around 16,000 - 14,000 B.C.E. Given that this early find comes from modern Tanzania, this is why I have stated that terms like Mediterranean, Brown and the various 'oids should be abandoned because they are misleading and have a lot of historical baggage.
Brace & Hiernaux were truly men before their time and their ideas on clines seem to be on the money, and I will further elaborate on these ideas very soon.
Bolder dash, white people did not arrive into north africa until 600 bc when the romans, greeks, persians and celts and alike started their invasions and occupations. The original inhabitants are black african, since the 1000 year turkish occupation of north africa that ended when the french italian and english split up their empire around 1800s the population of libya is essentially of mixed race(white and black) however outside of coastal areas the majority of the population is black as they were not really colonised as turks/italians/romans etc only took over the major cities. there is also a huge illegal immigrant population of libya that is mostly black african as well. Of all of the north african states Libya is the most african as even the leader identifies himself more with africa than arabs and the middle east and they gennerally look more black than their arabic counterparts
Whites arrived in North Africa FAR earlier than that. The fourth Dynasty of ancient Egypt (kemet) brought in a LOT of slaves from the middle east during their time period. The enslavement of Euroasians continued under the Kemetic (Ancient Egyptian empire) until its final days. Also remember the Hyksos/Amorites who ruled in Egypt for 100 to 200 years around the 17th dynasty which was round 1800 B.C. or so.
Also in the Sahara desert there is rock art of the people who inhabited the Sahara when it was a wet land. They were naturally black, as that is what they painted themselves. HOWEVER, there are a FEW paintings of whites, which could have been traders, slaves etc. We don't know. Now the genetic make up of what we call "Berbers" today are of two stock. In the southern portions of all those north African countries you have black Africans living. Those are the indigenous people of those areas. Then you have mixed people generally speaking the are African on the father side, as this is what the DNA tells us and on the mother's side (X chromosome) their is generally eurasian DNA. But that makes sense given the history. African enslaved tons and tons of whites in Africa starting around 700 A.D. until around 1600 A.D. which is why north Africa looks the way it does now.
Here are some videos of the people who populated north Africa way back then:
this is a video with Mummar Ghadaffi's Son. but listen to what he says about the demographics of Libya. its long but if you have the patience you will see.
^^
That video was done at a symposium in Chaphill, some of the worlds top professors on Africa were there discussion Africa, its people etc.
Then you can check out this goes video. He is a author and VERY eurocentric (and foolish) as he is calling people in Mauritania during the time in question "Arabs" and this is bull-crap. Mauritanians were and are just as black as they always have been
There is also a book called Muslim Masters Christian Slaves. Now again the book is eurocentric so they try to say the turks were the ones doing all this but that's a lie. Outside of Egypt the Turks didn't have much say so at ALL in Africa.
Also there is a video from BBC about the Moors and who they were. Although they tried to beat around the bush, if you know Africa history you know who they are talking about, and the groups they are discussing are black Africans.
The problem in Africa is a lot of history has been lost. Initially maybe, i don't know. But you have people who are the descendants of slaves thinking they are the real people from North Africa, but DNA tells us it isn't true. Also history tells us the same. If they brought in Millions of slaves over a centuries and they mixed with the original people, then naturally their look will change.
And slaughtering tens of thousands of people in the process? Need I say more then Rodolfo Graziani. The pathetic Italian Army had to resort to poison gas, concentration camps, and turncoats to beat an almost medieval Ethiopian Army and the stone age Libyan freedom fighters. When faced with a real army like with the British/British Empire, Americans, Free Belgians, the Free French, and the other allied forces in WWII they ended up surrendering by the hundreds of thousands.
We (the US) are at least benevolent rulers, hence the reason why we still have our colonial empire unlike Italy.
YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO KNOWLEDGE ON ITALY AT ALL!! They did not have to resort to gas, they just used it, pretty much just because. The Ethiopians were very modern at the time, all this talk of spears & shields is HORSES**T! & so is talk of the Italians practically losing to them. They had 7 victories out of ten battles, plus the French predicted they'd take twice as long to take over! Plus the Libyan Freedom Fighters were Italy's Taliban, so what, now your gonna blame the US for taking as long as they did to take down Al Qaeda!? Meanwhile the British were being torn apart in Somaliland, Sudan, Kenya & Egypt, then they coincidentally get their first victory when the Commonwealth come to bail their a**es out! You think Rommel was the one with the bail outs, he was just evening the playing fields. Then they again have to be bailed out by the US, & even if Messe was still holding them back for months, but eventually only lost because they were surrounded, & meanwhile was the last general to surrender, AFTER ALL THE GERMAN ONES! Meanwhile, like the British with the US, the partisans just piggybacked on the British, who was already bending the Commonwealth's shoulders!!!
Current evidence indicates that multiple upright-walking, tool-dependent species in the genus Homo co-existed in the Old World (Africa, Asia and Europe) for most of the last 2 million years. Yet only one surviving species of Homo exists today. Even 100,000 years ago, at least four Homo species shared the Old World. One of the enduring questions of human origins is when, where and how we "Behaviorally Modern Humans" emerged and why and how we eventually replaced all the other human-like species. In the past, competing theories have generated much controversy and even some acrimonious debate. This symposium set aside such theories and debates and took a fresh look at the situation today. The focus was on critical examination of the available evidence from multiple sources, including climate proxies, geology, fossils, archaeology, linguistics, immunology, genetics and genomics, as well as evolutionary neuroscience/cognitive archaeology. While the symposium may not have come to any definitive conclusions, it offered the best interpretation of current evidence, and suggested research agendas for the future."
Highly recommended. I find it interesting that many of the conclusions given so far that are now gaining consensus were articulated decades ago by C. Loring Brace (going back to the 60's) and Marta Lahr. These 2 have produced excellent publications on evolution during the late 90's that I also highly recommend.
Can't forget about the new up and coming generation of continental African scholars like this cat, ZERAY ALEMSEGED.
"Zeray's family life may be in the States, but the heart of his research still lies 9,000 miles away, in the deserts of Ethiopia. He spends two months every year combing the sands, hunting for clues about how and when we became human.
Until recently, most of the people finding fossils in Africa were westerners, but Zeray is part of a new generation of African-born scientists, who are leading their own expeditions in the birthplace of humanity.
'My family, in a way, gives me a reference as to who I am as an individual, and my work gives me a reference as to who I am as a Homo sapiens. I think that's a very perfect match, in my view.'"
I'd like to ask...Are the ancient ruins at Leptis Magna ok? Or for tha matter are ALL of the ruins ok in Libya after the violence that occurred a number of months ago in the region? I'd think it would be tremendous loss to the region and to the world if those ancient artifacts were destroyed due to 'differences in opinion'.
I'd like to ask...Are the ancient ruins at Leptis Magna ok? Or for tha matter are ALL of the ruins ok in Libya after the violence that occurred a number of months ago in the region? I'd think it would be tremendous loss to the region and to the world if those ancient artifacts were destroyed due to 'differences in opinion'.
If they are not already, I would like to have them become UNESCO world heritage sites, so they could get funding for preservation & maintenance.
Still the situation is not yet secure. That's the problem when ya take out an alpha.
All the betas come out of the woodwork and all hell breaks loose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The cats who do the PBS site really need to reconsider their user friendliness skills.
"Ethiopian anthropologist Zeresenay Alemseged struggled against all odds to make one of the biggest recent discoveries in human origins: the fossil bones of Selam, a 3.3 million year hominid child. Born and raised in Ethiopia, Alemseged grew up in a closed society with no media. Even attending school was a struggle. Today, life isn’t any easier—he endures scorching heat, flash floods, venomous snakes, and tribal warfare to continue his research in the remote Afar Triangle in Africa. His work has made him a national hero and the leader of a new generation of African-born anthropologists."
f they are not already, I would like to have them become UNESCO world heritage sites, so they could get funding for preservation & maintenance.
Strange why they do not 'qualify' for inclusion. Those ruins are spectacular. I'd like to see them first hand one day though I wonder if they can survive the next 50 years after surviving centuries.
Strange why they do not 'qualify' for inclusion. Those ruins are spectacular. I'd like to see them first hand one day though I wonder if they can survive the next 50 years after surviving centuries.
Only time will tell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kovert
UPDATE 18 Barbary Period
Couple more recommendations.
i. Travel Knowledge: European "Discoveries" in the Early Modern Period has a great section on Leo Africanus, a Grandian of Amazigh descent who was part of the early wave of refugees that fled Iberia during the 1490's. Although there is an English translation of Africanus it is noted to have significantly differed from the printed version by Ramusio and a manuscript found in the 1930's.
Oumelbanine Zhiri is a Moroccan born scholar who now resides in the states and has done a wonderful sampling of English translated extracts from the Italian originals. Hopefully Zhiri will do a full English translations of the original Italian texts in the future.
ii. An early modern dialogue with islam is an English translation from Spanish of Antonio Sosa's experience in Algiers. Excellent piece of work courtesy of Maria Antonia Garces & Diana de Armas Wilson. Hopefully this 2 ladies will produce English translations of Marmol's Description of Africa or of Diego Torres work on the Sharifian dynasty.
A lot of info out there that could use translating, something a grad student pondering what to do with him or herself should take into consideration.
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.
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.
YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO KNOWLEDGE ON ITALY AT ALL!! They did not have to resort to gas, they just used it, pretty much just because. The Ethiopians were very modern at the time, all this talk of spears & shields is HORSES**T! & so is talk of the Italians practically losing to them. They had 7 victories out of ten battles, plus the French predicted they'd take twice as long to take over! Plus the Libyan Freedom Fighters were Italy's Taliban, so what, now your gonna blame the US for taking as long as they did to take down Al Qaeda!? Meanwhile the British were being torn apart in Somaliland, Sudan, Kenya & Egypt, then they coincidentally get their first victory when the Commonwealth come to bail their a**es out! You think Rommel was the one with the bail outs, he was just evening the playing fields. Then they again have to be bailed out by the US, & even if Messe was still holding them back for months, but eventually only lost because they were surrounded, & meanwhile was the last general to surrender, AFTER ALL THE GERMAN ONES! Meanwhile, like the British with the US, the partisans just piggybacked on the British, who was already bending the Commonwealth's shoulders!!!
