Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)
|
Africas Role in World History
Post Reply 
|
Page <1 3456> |
| Author |
 Share Topic Printable Version Google Delicious Digg StumbleUpon Windows Live Yahoo Bookmarks reddit Facebook MySpace Newsvine Furl Topic Search  Topic Options
|
|||||||||
Guests 
Guest 
|
 Topic: Africas Role in World HistoryPosted: 11-Feb-2008 at 14:17 |
|||||||||
|
I don't agree with that. Just a consideration in geography: Egypt was not only in contact with the Ferlile Crescent, but it is PART OF IT.
Some influence could have existed. However, doubfully Mali was more important to Egypt than Mesopotamia, that was right beside it and not a continent away.
That comes from the Middle East.
That may be so.
|
||||||||||
 |
||||||||||
|
Rakasnumberone
Shogun 
Suspended Joined: 14-Aug-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 211 |
Posted: 11-Feb-2008 at 14:38 |
|||||||||
|
CHANNEL 5, FRIDAY MAY 2ND AT 9PM DISCOVERY NETWORK USA, FEB 17 2003 hi low hi low The programme explores the enigmatic central Saharan society which once spanned the entire north African continent. We unravel their tale through the story of the discovery of the black mummy, Uan Muhuggiag. It soon becomes obvious that these people were responsible for an extraordinary array of innovations which later became famous under the Egyptians. Their presence re-writes the history of Egypt and of the entire continent of Africa. The background: the lost society of the central Sahara and the rise of ancient Egypt The origins of ancient Egypt are archaeology's greatest unsolved mystery. What prompted this remarkable culture to develop such distinctive rituals as mummification? Where did they get their ideas? As far as we know, Egypt was only preceded by one great civilisation: Mesopotamia. Although Mesopotamia is a far older culture there is no evidence to suggest that these people had developed any similar funerary practises. But if Egyptian innovations did not come from earlier known civilisations where did they come from? The answer has come from an unlikely quarter the barren Sahara desert. In the last few decades evidence has been mounting that the Egyptian civilisation was not the first advanced society in Africa. At the same time as Mesopotamia rose in the near east, another culture thrived in Africa. Although few people have heard of it this central Saharan culture is providing evidence for the invention of ritual activity which had previously been attributed to the Egyptians. The first clue for archaeologists was the abundant rock art found all over the central Sahara from Libya to Egypt to Mali. The rock art depicts animals like crocodiles and rhinos which do not live in deserts. It also shows scenes of hunting and rituals involving men wearing animal masks. All of this art was a firm clue that this area was once a hive of activity. It spurred archaeologists to dig and over the past fifty years they've uncovered an entire unknown society. The society was nomadic groups of animal herders wandered all over the region and eventually spread their uniform culture throughout the continent of north Africa. They lived in huts and had time to make art and invent rituals. By the time the culture reached its pinnacle around 6ooo years ago these people had invented rituals which indicate a fairly complex world view. They were communicating with the heavens and using funerary rituals like mummification to treat their dead. But all of this evidence indicated an Eden-like place one with trees, grasses and abundant running waters. And yet nothing could be further from this picture than the Sahara today. Although archaeologists had already assembled the clues, the science of climatology solidly confirmed what all had suspected: this area was once a lush savannah landscape. Changes in the tilt of the earth's axis had caused drought in the Sahara and brought this thriving society to an end. But with the demise of the central Saharan culture, people wandered all over northern Africa in search of greener pastures. The Nile valley was an obvious destination. Around 6000 years ago central Saharan ideas arrived in the Nile valley adding mummification and other rituals to the potent mix which was to become the Egyptian civilisation. The mummy and archaeology in Libya: An Italian team of archaeologists first explored the Libyan Sahara almost fifty years ago. In 1958 they struck gold. Professor Fabrizio Mori discovered the black mummy at the Uan Muhuggiag rockshelter. The mummy of a young boy, Uan Muhuggiag was destined for controversy. He was older than any comparable Egyptian mummy and his mere existence challenged the very idea that Egyptians were the first in the region to mummify their dead. Although the Italian team from the university of Rome "La Sapienza", has since discovered other mummified tissue, they have not yet discovered another complete mummy in the region. But Uan Muhuggiag was no one off. The sophistication of his mummification suggested he was the result of a long tradition of mummification. Investigations in the area continue under the direction of Dr Savino di Lernia and Professor Mario Liverani. Climatology: Professor Mauro Cremaschi of CIRSA (University of Milan and University of Rome "La Sapienza") heads the Italian Climatology team which focuses on the Acacus area of Libya. Dr Kevin White (Reading University) heads an English team focussing on the nearby Fezzan region. Both teams are using the latest satellite technology to clarify our picture of climate in the central Sahara over the past several hundred thousand years. Another lost Libyan civilisation: The Fezzan project, headed by Professor David Mattingly (University of Leicester) focuses on the Garamantes civilisation which thrived from 1500bc-500ad. The Garamantes were known by the Romans as barbarians but evidence from the Sahara shows a large, sophisticated civilisation. Remains show substantial architecture and a complex society replete with numerous luxuries. Almost 100,000 tombs litter the Fezzan escarpment to date these bodies are the most concrete testimony to this little-known people. further reading Mummies, Disease and Ancient Cultures by A and E Cockburn & T Reyman l Ancient Egypt: Life, Myth and Art by J Fletcher l Rock Art of the Sahara by H Hugor & M Bruggman l Holocene Settlement of the Egyptian Sahara by F Wendorf l Archaeology of Sub Saharan Africa by J Vogel l Archaeology and Environment in the Libyan Sahara by B Barich l Garamantes of the Fezzan by Charles Daniels interesting links Www.cru.uea.ac.uk Http://i-cias.com/e.o/fezzan.htm Www.countryreports.org/history/libhist.htm Www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/herod-Libya.htm credits l narrator: kerry shale l exec prod: tracey gardiner l prod: gillian mosely l dir: chris hooke l ed: benedict jackson & sue outlaw l research: sophie mautner l head of prod: martin long l prod manager: sandra leeming l prod co-ord: donna blackburn l sales enquiries l please contact martin long, head of production l t 020 7689 4248 l f 020 7490 0206 l e info@fulcrumtv.com http://www.fulcrumtv.com/blackmummy.htm |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Rakasnumberone
Shogun
Suspended Joined: 14-Aug-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 211 |
Posted: 11-Feb-2008 at 15:17 |
|||||||||
|
Originally posted by Rakasnumberone
... The Pharaonic culture originated in the area of Southern Egypt and and Northern Sudan. Yes they did have contact with the fertile crescent but their culture shared much more with those of the continent they are located on. I don't agree with that. Just a consideration in geography: Egypt was not only in contact with the Ferlile Crescent, but it is PART OF IT. ***The part that is on the African Continent. And as I said, which is well known. The cultuer of Dynastic Egypt originated in the South and then spread north. This is just plain historical fact.*** Second, archaelogical finds show clearly the influence of the Middle East into Egypt. Remember that the Middle East earlies cities started circa 8.000 years ago, when Egypt didn't exist. ***Even if this is so, like I said, it does not matter. Is Greece therefore NOT a European civilization despite the heavy cultural and technological influences from the Levant Anatolia and Egypt? Of course not. Greece IS a European civilization regardless. Yes they received influences Asia, but they also had many more aspects of their culture that was native to the European continent. This is the process of civilization all over the world and Egypt is no exception. It is an African civilization and culture.*** Originally posted by Rakasnumberone ... In fact the most recent findings show that a great deal of their culture was introduced by the culture of the ancient Sahara which stretched from Mali and Niger in the West to the Nile Valley in the East. Some influence could have existed. However, doubfully Mali was more important to Egypt than Mesopotamia, that was right beside it and not a continent away. Originally posted by Rakasnumberone ... Animal domestication, That comes from the Middle East. ***The most recent evidence coming out of the Sahara shows that Africans already had animal domestication as far back as 10,000yrs ago. The practice entered Egypt via the Sahara, not Mesopotamia. That is what we know now.*** Originally posted by Rakasnumberone ... mummification, a great deal of their religious practices, social practices such as male and female circumcision is still practiced in Egypt to this day as it is still practiced in all of the countries of the Sudanic belt. None of these practices are found in Asia, they are African. That may be so. ***Not maybe but is. Other aspects, matriarchal society structure where as Mesopotamian was patriarchal. If these were a poeople of Asiatic origin, they would have retained this most fundamental aspect of their world view. Egyptian society was noted for the great deal of personal, economic and social freedom of its women, which was very, very different from that of women in Asiatic cultures. However, this is common with to cultures across the Sudanic belt. So much so thatIbn Batuta was shocked to see how free West African Muslim women were compared to Arab Muslim women. The Arab Muslims in the north, Morocco, where he was from, retained the patriarchal world view of their Arab ancestors and still do to this day. Now Egypt is a lot closer to Mesopotamia than Morocco is, yet thousands of years later, we observe a documented Asiatic migration into North Africa and we see that across North Africa, the pateriarchal social structure was retained by their descendants and those who adopted the culture of those migrants. Why then did this not happen earlier in Egypt if these were in fact a fundamentally Asiatic people? Where do we find puberty cercumcision rituals of males and particularly females, as well as matriarchal social structures anywhere in the Fertile Cresecent? No where, yet it is shared by a vast geographical area across Africa from East to West.*** Originally posted by Rakasnumberone ... The earliest periods of dynastic history saw an Egypt that was far more concerned with interacting with it's southern neighbors to the South. Although in time that attention did shift to the northern and Eastern regions. There might have been some borrowing of ideas from the slightly older civilizations of Mesopotamia, but the vast majority of their culture came from within the continent not out. Even if the influences where greater than what they were, it wouldn't make Egypt any less an African civilzation than Greece's and Rome's interaction with the Levant and Anatolia makes them European civilizations. Egypt was an African civilization in culture, history and geography. That may have an easy explanation. The passing from tribal culture to large kingdoms open large scale trade with Asia, and then Egypt changed, moving from a modest culture to the civilization we admire today. ***By the early dynastic period Egypt was NOT a simple tribal society. It's civilization had been well established and would be the standard by which all the subsequent periods judged themselves. Whenever , there had been periods of instability, the revival was alwas marked by a return to the cultural standards of the Old Kingdom. The last time this happend was during the 25th dynasty when the Nubian monarchs restored Egypt's cultural artistic and religious traditions after years of foriegn domination. So yes, there was trade, but all the evidence shows that the hallmarks that made it the impressive society it was were native innovations. For example, they may have borrowed the technology of mud bricks from MEsopotamia, but the innovation of stone architecture the invention of colums and the arch were entirely native innovations. Egypt was an African civilization. As for being part of the fertile crescent. Let's examine that. The land in those latitudes were plagued by desertification with the exception of Mesopotamia, the coast of the Levant and the Nile Valley. The Levant boardering the Mediterranian still receives adequate rain fall and has some water from the Jordan River and smaller streams. Mesopotamia is dry and only receives water from the Tigris and Euphrates which originate in Anatolia. Egypt is bone dry. What allows it to sustain life is the Nile Rivier which originated deep in the heart of Africa, NOT Asia. Therefore, what allows it to be part of the "Fertile Crescent" is the water from the African continent of which it is a part. Egypt is a part of Africa. The Nile IS an AFRICAN River whose waters do NOT nourish the soil of ANY Asiatic region. Egypt is an AFRICAN civilization, culture and country, regardless of being adjacent to Asia.*** |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
drgonzaga
Colonel 
banned Joined: 15-May-2005 Online Status: Offline Posts: 612 |
Posted: 11-Feb-2008 at 16:28 |
|||||||||
|
Apparently, what we have here is an argument over labels (Asia, Africa, Europe) that did not exist in early history together with the resucitation of false racial dichotomies. The discovery of the mummified remains in the Lybian Sahara by Fabrizio Mori in 1959, now called by some the "black" mummy has taken wing of late as an Internet fantasy all of its own deeply intertwined with the palaver over Black Africa. I doubt any have taken time to read Professor Mori's study:
Mori, Fabrizio. Tadrart Acacus: arte rupestre e culture del Sahara preistorico. Torino: Giulio Einaudi Editore, 1965
Nor his other work on the Paleolithic Sahara, which have nothing to do with Sub-Saharan Africa.
Likewise, a statement such as this one is historically unsustainable:
"The earliest periods of dynastic history saw an Egypt that was far more concerned with interacting with it's southern neighbors to the South."
Egyptian expansion beyond the first cataract belongs to the New Kingdom dynasts, while the substantial records of the first six dynasties record extensive contact within the Mediterranean ambit. It is rather difficult to obscure the activities of the Theban dynasts against the peoples beyond the first cataract under Ka'mose and Ah'mose in their conflict with "Kush". By that date, an unique Egyptian identity was well-fixed and what occurs is the spread on an Egyptian milieu southward and not the reverse. Hatshepsuts funerary temple Djeser Djeseru provides ample documentation of the interest southward as well as the non-Egyptian characteristics of these neighbors.
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Rakasnumberone
Shogun
Suspended Joined: 14-Aug-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 211 |
Posted: 11-Feb-2008 at 17:13 |
|||||||||
Please provide a link if any exist to his work. As for the racial identity of the mummy, I'm only quoting what the archologists who found it said. They claimed that it was of the physical type considered "negroid", not a term that I myself feel comfortable with or use. This is what THEY said. As for its connection to Sub-Saharan Africa, this culture was SAHARAN. It stretched from Mali to Egypt and Sudan. It was an AFRICAN culture. Honestly, I don't know why people get so bent out of shape over this fact? Do people get bent out of shape if we say the Romans or Greeks were European? Do we ever have drawn out debates about, Oh well the Greeks didn't consider themselves European, no one use the term European back then etc, etc? No we don't. Why then should this be the case with Egypt. Egypt, Sudan and the Sahara are all located on the landmass we now call Africa, period. As for the early relation to Nubia, they werte trading with Nubia before there was any attempts at conquest. This is a fact that can be read in any basic history book. Yes, the two cultures eventually developed their own identities, but so what? The world is full of cultures living side by side on the same continent that developed their own identities. Phonician were not Hitties Mesopotamians were not Persians, Romans were not Greeks. Another thing to consider is the scarcity of knowledge we have of early Nubia due to the fact that it was largely neglected by archologists and that the majority of it is now under the wateres of Lake Nasser. Therefore, we can't rule out the possibility of stronger influences from the south in earlier periods just because haven't to date found the evidence. What we do have regardless is a lot of evidence showing cultural elements with other African societies that exist to the present time which share no similarities with cultures found in the east. As for the racial thing. Egypt lies at a crossroads. They were a mixture of peoples from various parts of Africa as well as Western Asia. By today's standards, a great deal of these people were of a physical type we would consider black. And as I said in other posts, the concept of what makes a person a black or negro has never been dependent on a concept of racial purity, since the people we consider to be blacks or negros in the Americas and Europe are infact anywhere from 30% to 90% European. However, when we encounter multi racial people in Africa and the Middle East we are quick to point out how "UNAfrican" they are in facial architecture. Does Lena Horn have an "African" facial structure? Does Alicia Keys? Does Rosa Parks? Does Thurgood Marshal? No one anywhere in the world denies the fact that these people are of African origin, even if they are as white as Adam Clayton Powell was. We don't call these people "Caucasian" no matter how much European blood they have, so why do we feel the need to do it with Egypt? A people of clear African origin as can still be observed today not only in Upper Egypt, but all over the country from Alexandria to Aswan. If African animals such as hippos, crocodiles, ostriches, lions and many more could find their way all the way to the Nile Delta, what in God's name would have prevented humans from East Africa or other areas to do the same? If the flaura and fauna of the ancient Sahara was also African, why, then why is it so hard to fathum that just as animals migrated from the south into the sahara once it became green, so too did humans? Even when archologists find the mummified remains of a physical type they themselves call "negroid", people's feathers are still ruffled. What the hell is the world afraid of for god's sake? |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Posted: 11-Feb-2008 at 17:38 |
|||||||||
|
I wonder why one should look for a typical "African" civilization in one at the frontiers, at border of Asia. I also why there is a desperation to push Egypt into "Africa" when everybody knowns in here that Egypt was part of a network of civilization that spread from the Middle East to India, Turkey, Egypt and Crete, and that touched SS Africa only marginally. Why to twist things?
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Rakasnumberone
Shogun
Suspended Joined: 14-Aug-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 211 |
Posted: 11-Feb-2008 at 18:07 |
|||||||||
With regards to Greece: I wonder why one should look for a typical "European" civilization in one at the frontiers, atborder of Asia. I also why there is a desperation to push Greece and even Minoan Crete located in the middle of the Mediterranian Sea into "Europe" when everybody knowns in here that Greece and Crete was part of a network of civilization that spread from the Middle East to India, Turkey, Egypt and that touched Europe only marginally. Why to twist things? Sharrukin has told you and many other many times that Egypt was essentially geographically and culturally an African civilization. It is what it is, was where it was. Why do you have such a hard time just acknowledging that it is what it is? I tell you what, When you take Greece and Rome as well as the Phonecian colonies os Spain and Italy out of European history and no longer find the need to relate them to Europe, despite the fact that culturally those cultures looked to the East and the Mediterranian rather than to the heartland of the European continent, (except for conquest), then we can remove Egypt from Africa. The flaura was African , the Fauna was African, the overwhelming cultural traits, religious practices, kingship structure and world view was Africa, and I'm not the only one here who has adequately pointed this out, (only the most sarcastic perhaps)  and the people were clearly a mixture of Africans and Asiatics, and is located on the African continent, why then do you feel so threatened to place it where it belongs? Should we separate Mexico from Latin America because it boarders the USA? Or should we consider Japan a western outpost of America, and not an Asian civilization because the overwhelming majority of its technology and popular culture came from the USA?
you're reasoning makes no sense when applied to other civilizations niether past nor present. Rome and Greece ARE European, regardless of contact or influences from anywhere else, Egypt is African for the same reasons and Modern Japan IS an Asian society/civilization, no matter what they borrowed from the U.S.A by way of technology and culture. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Rakasnumberone
Shogun
Suspended Joined: 14-Aug-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 211 |
Posted: 11-Feb-2008 at 18:13 |
|||||||||
I looked up Fabrizio Mori. His books are dan expencive and all in Italian. Since I don't speak Italian, perhaps you can tell me what he said in his work that pertains to the statements I made? Also, since his area of excavation was in the central Sahara, why in God's name would he be dealing with Subsaharan Africa culture? You know there is a lot more to Africa than West Africa. One continent many cultures, many people. It is what it is. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Posted: 11-Feb-2008 at 18:50 |
|||||||||
|
What is your point? Europe didn't exist at those times."Europe" is a modern term.
No desperation at all. Actually, who cares?
What does mean "essentially geographically African". For me that's just rethoric.
Rethoric. Civilizations are count by people, not by continents. You don't talk about an Asian civilization, but a Chinese or Indian. Got it.
Who say so? You. The Mare Nostrum covered all the Mediterranean. Saying that Rome was an European civilization is to be very badly informmed. Besides, half Greece is in today's Turkey. Gimme a break.
Egypt is also part of the Middle East and the Fertile Crescent, not matter how much some people wants to convert in the jewels of the "Black History".
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Posted: 11-Feb-2008 at 19:05 |
|||||||||
That's a good point. Mexico nor Latin America existed before the 19th century. In the Americas people know we should't mix pears and apples. We speak of three different time frames absolutelly unconected.
(1) Pre-contact Americas.
(2) Colonial Americas.
(3) Modern Americas: Anglo America, Latin America, West Indies.
In other words: The Inca empire has nothing to do with the Aztec. Got it?
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
drgonzaga
Colonel
banned Joined: 15-May-2005 Online Status: Offline Posts: 612 |
Posted: 11-Feb-2008 at 20:16 |
|||||||||
They are damned expensive because Dr. Mori wrote most of these over 35 years ago. Yet, he at no time maintained or asserted that he was dealing with sub-Saharan "African" culture nor did he himself ever declare the mummified remains of the child he discovered, the "black" mummy--all mummies are essentially "black". Mori's pioneering work with the petroglyphs and rock painting of the Sahara laid the foundations for the chronology of Northwest Africa as well as underscored the major thesis on the desertification of the region between 8,000-4,000 BC. With his work at Tadrart Acacus, he made clear that the fauna now associated with the African savannah had actually ranged through the Sahara, as evidenced by cave art. Further, the cultural complexes represented by the art indicated a habitation period affected by climatological changes during a chronological window of some 8,000 years:
1. Carvings on the rock face depicting the outline of large animals from the African savannah and clearly paleolithic in orientation (around 12,000 B.C.), 2. Stylized paintings using yellow, green and red pigments of clearly asexual hyperbrachycephalic figures, with the pigments generating a carbon-14 date of 8000 years BC. 3. Polychromatic representations of bovine animals and Mediterranean-type human figures (around 4000 B.C.) clearly indicative of the pastoral ambiance later found in the Nile Valley. 4. Representations of horses and carts datable to 1500 B.C., and generally associated with the Garamantes tribes mentioned by Herodotus. 5. Monochromic paintings corresponding to the introduction of camels into North Africa at the beginning of the Christian era. Doctor Mori never once proclaimed he was dealing with "African" cultures as expressed by the notion of sub-Saharan and essentially, his research is being misused and inverted (or should we say perverted) for tendentious racial polemics.
Now there exists an English edition of his magnum opus: The Great Civilisations of the Ancient Sahara: Neolithisation and the Earliest Evidence of Anthropomorphic Religions. Roma: l'Erma di Bret Schneider, 1998. This work is really a compilation and updating of his many essays on the subject all in English.
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
red clay
Administrator 
Tomato Master Emeritus Joined: 14-Jan-2006 Online Status: Offline Posts: 10226 |
Posted: 11-Feb-2008 at 21:17 |
|||||||||
|
To support Rakasnumberone- Egypt is part of Africa, not the middle east, not Asia, Africa. Get over it. The Red Sea divides Africa from the Middle East. Egypt, Africa left side, Middle East right side. Got it?
 |
||||||||||
|
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Posted: 11-Feb-2008 at 21:37 |
|||||||||
|
Please read the thread before saying things nobody denies.
Besides, everybody knows Egypt belongs to:
(1) the Fertile Crescent
  (2) the Middle East
 (3) The Afroasiatic languages region in yellow (in contrast with the Bantu)
 (4) The Mediterranean
 And, of course, to North Africa (and therefore Africa) as well. That's no brainer.
Get over it  Edited by pinguin - 11-Feb-2008 at 23:39 |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Rakasnumberone
Shogun
Suspended Joined: 14-Aug-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 211 |
Posted: 12-Feb-2008 at 07:23 |
|||||||||
I know that Penguin. I was making reference to today's world, not ancient or colonial history. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Rakasnumberone
Shogun
Suspended Joined: 14-Aug-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 211 |
Posted: 12-Feb-2008 at 08:17 |
|||||||||
I see, so you are reading things intyo his work that aren't there. As I stated before, Subsaharan Africa is only one section of the the continent. It represents a perspective. We can divide the continent in many ways. We could talk about the eastern vs the western hemisperes, we could talk about a norther vs southern hemisphere, we could talk about a central area, as versu all the rest. The Sahara is in AFRICA, for God's sake look on a map where in tarnation do you think it is the dark side of Mars? Or maybe it's in New Jersey? Why does he have to identify the Saharan culture as an African culture when everyone already knows exactly where the Sahara is? Its an African desert, so logic would say it goes without saying that a civilization located in Africa, no matter which section of Africa, must in fact be an African civilization. Why does he have to say it? It's obvious. "Mori's pioneering work with the petroglyphs and rock painting of the Sahara laid the foundations for the chronology of Northwest Africa as well as underscored the major thesis on the desertification of the region between 8,000-4,000 BC. ". Didn't you read what you wrote? NOrthwestern WHEEEERE? Who is saying anything about Sub-SAharan Africa? HE didn't do his work in that region, so why would he be talking about it? If I'm doing a study of popular culture in New York City, do I have to tell everyone this is an aspect of American culture? If they're that stupid that they don't know New York isn't in France, then they probably won't understand my book anyway will they? For that matter, if my focus is New York, I'm going to go to New York to do my field research. One wouldn't expect me to start talking about the popular culture of Miami South Beach would they? Does that mean New York isn't part of America?, no, but Miami is irrelevant to my focus, just as the developement of Sub Saharan African cultures are irrelevant to his geographical focus. If he were writing a book about the prehistoric developement of the entire continent, then it would be, but that's not the focus of his research, so your point is mute. With regards to the mummy. Not all mummies are black. Ramses's mummy isn't black, neither is the mummy thought by some to be Queen Tyi. Some mummis are black in color, some are brown and some are an off white color. The mummy was called black not for the skin color but because of the craniofacial features. as I said before, the archeologists and Egyptologist called the mummy black, or as they said NEGRO, because it had the craniofacial structure of the type they consider NEGRO. THAT'S WHAT THEY SAID REPETEDLY IN THE DOCUMENTARY IN THEIR OWN WORDS. This isn't the rantings of wild eyed Afrocenticists. None of the scientists in the documentary who examined the mummy were African American. They were all WHITE EUROPEANS. That is why they called the documentary MYSTERY OF THE BLACK MUMMY. Deal with it. You have a very warped and distorted view of not only Africa, but Africans. Sub Saharan Africa only referes to the part of Africa below the Sahara. You speak of SUB SAHARAN AFRICA as if it were one whole cultural block. Honestly, what you know about Africa could fill a thimble and it shows. The area below the Sahara is home to many peoples of differeing skin tones, facial and physical features, different cultures languages and climate zones each as different from eack other as Hungary is from Holland. It is a CONTINENT, NOT a country. For crying out loud educate yourself! The only problem here is the irrational threat that some people feel, (not naming any names), when ever anyone speaks of African history in a way that does not conform to the race politics of a colonialist mentality of bumbling savages running around naked or swinging from trees. Suggest that the dark skinned people of the continent, (who have been slandered for so long all over the world by the colonial powers) actually had a history that influenced or came in contact with other great civilizations and ther's a problem. The notion of the primitive African is so deeply ingrained in the conciousness of some people that wherever you find a dark skinned African people who achieved anything, we have to find an explanation that fits our preconcieved notion of what Africa and Africans are all about. When they are in East Africa, no matter how black the skin, how kinky the hair, these learned scientists, experts, magically turn them into CAUCASIANS, yet at the exact same time people of the same craniofacial measurements and skin color in their own countries are classified as NEGROS. They point to PROBABLE caucasian mixture in the far far past, and declare that these people are not really black, they are more white, they just have black skin. Yet in their own country a person who is only 10% black, and to all external apperances, is European, is classified A NEGRO. So you explain to me what kind of scientific logic is that? 35% Negro in Africa = 100% CAUCASIAN, yet 90% European in LAtin AMerica, U.S.A, Europe =100 NEGRO? How does that work? Am I the only one who see's that this is a psychological mind f*&%? Am I the only one who see's the Emperor has no clothes and is walkin butt ass naked down the street in broad daylight? HEEEEEEEYYY! THE EMPEROR AIn'T GOT NO CLOTHES! If this is racial polemics well damn it, its needed becauses the emperor's going to catch his death of cold if he don't put some damn clothes on! This is why black people are so damnd pissed off. Because people are out here playing mind games. The SAhara is in Africa, Egypt is in Africa and so mother f&*%(% WHAT? it is what it is is where it is. Did I say that that makes black people some kind of master race or super beings? NO! It just means they are also human like anyone else. They have the same capacity for intelligence and stupidity, nobility and savegery, as anyone else. What you fear, and it is fear, is having black people turn the tables and claim we are the master race. well relax, we are not. We are just humans, like anyone else who have done the same things that ALL humans have done, no more, no less, SO RELAX AND GET OVER IT ALREADY! Puleez! |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Rakasnumberone
Shogun
Suspended Joined: 14-Aug-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 211 |
Posted: 12-Feb-2008 at 09:24 |
|||||||||
|
Originally posted by Rakasnumberone
... With regards to Greece: I wonder why one should look for a typical "European" civilization in one at the frontiers, at border of Asia. What is your point? Europe didn't exist at those times."Europe" is a modern term. Originally posted by Rakasnumberone ... I also why there is a desperation to push Greece and even Minoan Crete located in the middle of the Mediterranian Sea into "Europe" when everybody knowns in here that Greece and Crete was part of a network of civilization that spread from the Middle East to India, Turkey, Egypt and that touched Europe only marginally. Why to twist things? No desperation at all. Actually, who cares? Yes, I know that Greece roots are in Asia. You are the one denying the link between Egypt and Asia that's another matter. ***No I'm not denying it. I even go so far to admit that although they were an African people, they did have an Asiatic input in their gene pool. What I am saying is that although there was contact and borrowing, it doesn't change the fact that the culture was essentially African because it was located on the African continent and shared many fundamental cultural similarities with other African societies around it and was influenced by them as well. The only one denying anything is you.**** Originally posted by Rakasnumberone ... Sharrukin has told you and many other many times that Egypt was essentially geographically and culturally an African civilization. What does mean "essentially geographically African". For me that's just rethoric. Egypt was always located in the fertile crescent, very close to the place where world civilization started in the Middle East. ***Geography: Having to do with the location of places on the globe or dealing with the topograhical features of areas of the earth. Egypt is located on one of the large landmasses on the Earth's surface called continents. Continents are divided into political entities known as countries. The country of Egypt is located on the large landmass we now call Africa. Egypt owes its existance to the waters of a river called the NILE which originates in the center of the continent we now call Africa and empties into the Mediterranian Sea, which is on the norther coast of the continent called Africa. In the period refered to as Ancient Egypt, the flaura: plant life, and fauna: animal life, were consistant this that found in areas of the continent to the south and west as well. Therefore it is essentiall and geographically African. Middle East is a political term created by the colonial powers of Europe in the 19th century. Ask yourself this: If the world is round...and it is...THE MIDDLE OF WHAT THEN? East in relation to WHERE EXACTLY? Rather Eurocentric wouldn't you say? Why not Middle North or Middle South. Why isn't it the Middle West? Who the hell says that should be the Middle any way? Middle of what? Fretile Crescent? Okay. I'm looking in my text book and I see that part of the crescent is in the continent and the other half is in the continent we now call Asia, and the world keeps turning.*** Originally posted by Rakasnumberone ... It is what it is, was where it was. Why do you have such a hard time just acknowledging that it is what it is? I tell you what, When you take Greece and Rome as well as the Phonecian colonies os Spain and Italy out of European history and no longer find the need to relate them to Europe, despite the fact that culturally those cultures looked to the East and the Mediterranian rather than to the heartland of the European continent, (except for conquest), then we can remove Egypt from Africa. The flaura was African , the Fauna was African, the overwhelming cultural traits, religious practices, kingship structure and world view was Africa, and I'm not the only one here who has adequately pointed this out, (only the most sarcastic perhaps) and the people were clearly a mixture of Africans and Asiatics, and is located on the African continent, why then do you feel so threatened to place it where it belongs? Should we separate Mexico from Latin America because it boarders the USA? Or should we consider Japan a western outpost of America, and not an Asian civilization because the overwhelming majority of its technology and popular culture came from the USA? Rethoric. Civilizations are count by people, not by continents. You don't talk about an Asian civilization, but a Chinese or Indian. Got it. ***Well tell that to all the European powers who created the concept. It is they not I who coined the term African civilizations, (although we had to drag them kicking and screaming to admit there was even such an idea), you don't seem to have a problem talking about SUB-SAHARAN Civilizations, I never see you correcting anyone for using the term. By the way...isn't this section of the forum termed AFRICAN HISTORY?...Why, yes it is. Hey, look at the top of the page. Why those silly moderators. What were they thinking? They've went and divided all this history not only in time periods, but REGIONAL HISTORY. God lordy me, what's the world coming to? Thank goodness we have people to correct their foolish ways. I expect to see all the civilizations of this forum promply categorized by people. You are right though. Civilizations are made up of specific people, but people...well...they live on continents Penguin. Therefore, We refere to Asian CIVILIZATIONS, not civilization because Asia is made up of many civilizations. Therefore, when I took an introductory course in Asian Civilizations in collage, I knew it was a survey course that was going to look at a few civilizations on the Asian continent, but not all of them and not in depth. The same was true of African Civilizations, European Civilizations, and Civilizations of the Americas. I think all people pretty much understand and take for granted this fact Penguin, it's kind of obvious.*** Originally posted by Rakasnumberone ... you're reasoning makes no sense when applied to other civilizations niether past nor present. Rome and Greece ARE European, Who say so? You. The Mare Nostrum covered all the Mediterranean. Saying that Rome was an European civilization is to be very badly informmed. Besides, half Greece is in today's Turkey. Gimme a break. ***No, not me, but ever historian and text book maker on the planet. Don't forget, I use to be a high school history teacher. Every textbook starts the history of European civilization with Crete, Greece and Rome. But don't take my word for it, get a textbook. I'm just telling you what the White man learned me. They all seem to think Greece and Rome are European civilizations. So I guess since they aren't European civilizations, but...they were the civilizations that influenced much of Europe.....Western Europe....doen't have a history.....I mean...how could it be Western European history if...Sooo then, It's Turkish history! Yes. That's it. Because Greece isn't located on the Peloponisian penninsula, it's actually in...ANATOLIA, yeah that's it. My map's broken. I need a new one.*** Originally posted by Rakasnumberone ... regardless of contact or influences from anywhere else, Egypt is African for the same reasons and Modern Japan IS an Asian society/civilization, no matter what they borrowed from the U.S.A by way of technology and culture. Egypt is also part of the Middle East and the Fertile Crescent, not matter how much some people wants to convert in the jewels of the "Black History". ***See my pervious comments regarding the Middle East and Fertile Crescent. The White man declared that all dark skinned people were black. They call the East Indians Black. Go rent the movies Ghandi and watch as the South African conductor tells him to get his BLACK ass back to 3rd class even though he had a 1st class ticket. Its the scene right before they kicked his BLACK ASS off train. They declared that the Maori people of New Zeland are BLACK. Go rent the movie Whale Rider. It's been the White Eropean all along classifying people. Calling this on yellow, that one red, that one Brown. This one a Negro, that one a mulatto, the other one a mongoloid. I asked several times, WHO MAKES THE RULES? You never answered me. No one did, so I'm telling you. WHITE, COLONIAL EUROPEANS, from Chritopher Columbus. They've gone all over the world with a pencile disregarding the identities of people and their cultures and putting them in the neat little boxes that fit their agendas. That's why we call people in America Indians, when in fact they have nothing to do with INDIA. They were Taino, CAribe, Aztec, Chippawa, Mohawk, but along comes the white man and now they all become INDIANS. Okay, what can I do about it? Nothing really, I have to accept it. Even though my father's skin is white as snow and his eyes are as blue as saphires, he's black, a negro, because the White man and his governmemt says so. And because my father is Black and a negro, I too am a negro. Even though I look nothing like a Sub-Saharan African. But hey, those are the rules. And since its was White Europeans who declared that dark skinned people were black, (or any descended from such a person), and that mysterious continent is called Africa, then dark skinned people in Africa must be Black Africans. Therefore Egypt is a civilization on the African continent and since I see dark skinned people running all over Egypt they must be black, 'acuse the same white man tells me that people in his countries who look like tehm are black, hey, I look just like them and he tells me I'm black, even though my skin is really beige. Therefore Egypt is a jewel of Black History....it's just not the only one. Black history is filled with many jewels not only in Africa, but where ever her people have migrated, whether voulentarily or by force. So yes, I see how rediculous this all is. And I understand your anger. I'm angry too because this is all male bovine feces. So get angry Penguin, but outraged, be offended, but know where to direct your outrage. Not at us, we so called black people, because we aren't the ones making the rules. You have to take on the univerities, government agencies, schools, churches, hearts and minds of the White Ruling elite class of Latin America, the United States and Canada, Eastern, Western and Southern Europe, as well as thir representative in the former colonies of Southern Africa and the Pacific regions. When they decide to redraw the map, reclassify things to your likeing and standards, then I will follow...Or amybe I won't. Maybe I'll still be the rotten little brat screaming the Emperor's got no clothes. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Rakasnumberone
Shogun
Suspended Joined: 14-Aug-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 211 |
Posted: 12-Feb-2008 at 10:27 |
|||||||||
Since you obviously dont know it, Ill let you in on a little secrete. These terms, Fertile Crescent and Middle East you keep throwing around, are imprecise terms. Not all scholars agree on what they mean or what is or is not a part of these regions. THEY ARE CONCEPTS. You do know what concept means dont you? It means its just an idea. Something made up. For a person who complains so much about the fact that Africa is a recent term, how you fail to realize that these are also, recent terms, (created in the 19th century), is beyond rational understanding. But what do I know? Im just a wild eyed Afro-centric nut with an agenda. So I think I better look at some non wild eyed Afro-centric nut with an agenda sources. Lets start with Fertile Crescent. Ive included some links for you to look at. Forgive me for not knowing how to embed them in the post, thus forcing you to look at them the tedious, messy low-tech way. So, Let's see what this Fertile something is, or where it is, or..oh whatever, here's the link. http://www.mrdowling.com/603mesopotamia.html The Fertile Crescent Civilization developed slowly in different parts of the world. People began to settle in areas with abundant natural resources. A section of the Middle East is called the Fertile Crescent. The Fertile Crescent is a rich food-growing area in a part of the world where most of the land is too dry for farming. The Fertile Crescent is a quarter-moon shaped region that extends from the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea to the Persian Gulf. (According to them Egypt isnt part of it) ************************************************** http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/prehistory/middle_east/ http://killeenroos.com/1/mesodata.htm (None of the sites above included Egypt. Damn Afro-Centrics are up to no good again! 
http://www.fsmitha.com/h1/map00-fc.html : Map of the fertile Crescent. Egypt doesnt seem to be on it http://home.cfl.rr.com/crossland/AncientCivilizations/Middle_East_Civilizations/middle_east_civilizations.html : These people are of the opinion that Egypt for some reason is in Africa and the Fertile Crescent is in Southern Asia. According to these people Egypt isnt part of the Fertile Crescent. I guess you should tell them hugh? Next question: WHAT IS A MIDDLE EAST? A CONCISE HISTORY OF THE MIDDLE EAST 7th Edition Arthur Goldschmidt JR. Apparently hes associated with Penn State University in some way? Wonder what he does there? http://books.google.com/books?id=DHw0NzygOHoC&dq=where+is+the+middle+east&pg=PP1&ots=zdBy3jUQhk&source=citation&sig=223ERQMVqG7vRoDt0TcGLfuN49Q&hl=en&prev=http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Where+is+The+Middle+East&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sa=X&oi=print&ct=result&cd=1&cad=bottom-3results : Hit table of contents then scroll down to page one paragraph one of the introduction and see what it says. Then scroll down to page 6 of the Introduction where it says THE PHYSICAL SETTING and read what it says. They didnt include page 7, but no matter. Continue on to the top of page 8. They seem to place part of this Middle Something in Africa, and part of it in Asia, go figure. Scroll down to page 9. READ IT. Continue on to the end of the paragraph on page 10. They state that this region is home to an amazing variety of peoples, physical types, belief systems, languages and cultures. Well can you imagine that? 
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
drgonzaga
Colonel
banned Joined: 15-May-2005 Online Status: Offline Posts: 612 |
Posted: 12-Feb-2008 at 12:12 |
|||||||||
|
It is getting rather difficult to follow the train of thought here or the actual destination although I fear the train derailed long ago the minute tripe such as this entered the discussion: "Honestly, what you know about Africa could fill a thimble and it shows." After employing the term "African Civilization" repeatedly, the tangential diatribe against the "evils of the white man" in their racial madness calling everything Black does raise rather discomforting implications. Get over it. And as a postscript stay away from movies and TV documentaries as sources for historical analysis.
Edited by drgonzaga - 12-Feb-2008 at 12:13 |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Posted: 12-Feb-2008 at 12:26 |
|||||||||
All geographical terms are imprecise... simple.
If you want to agrupate cultures, you better go for language and similar people, rather than geography. And even then most of the agrupations are arbitrary.
What does mean "Eurasia" or the "Indo-European countries"? I got no idea. Pick a country like Spain or Britain and you will find that a Basque or Catalan don't consider Spaniards and some Irish or Welsh don't go British.
The term Africa is only a geographical entity, like America is. Just imagine in the later, for Latinos America is the Western Hemisphere, but for U.S. people America is theirs country
Suggestion: let's studdy the Bantu expansion, Madagascar, the Maghreb, Ethiopia and Egypt as different entites, and it will make more sense.
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Posted: 12-Feb-2008 at 13:05 |
|||||||||
|
. Well, in . If for white man you mean gringo, well, you may be aware Latinos dont follow theirs model of the world at all. Even more, it is traditional in the countries with roots in Souther Europe to consider blond Nordic as the new commers to the Western Civilization. Remember many of them were "savages" (non-Christians) up to the Middle Ages
They call the East Indians Black. Go rent the movies Ghandi and watch as the South African conductor tells him to get his BLACK ass back to 3rd class even though he had a 1st class ticket. Its the scene right before they kicked his BLACK ASS off train. They declared that the Maori people of New Zeland are BLACK. Go rent the movie Whale Rider. . They are not example of very educated people, after all. I won't say a Southern racist in the U.S. is an example of the intelligence and culture of the West, either. . You can read in the writings of
They've gone all over the world with a pencile disregarding the identities of people and their cultures and putting them in the neat little boxes that fit their agendas. That's why we call people in America Indians, when in fact they have nothing to do with . European ignorance. What you would expect from low payed sailors. . Why to accept the rules of the gringo?
And since its was White Europeans who declared that dark skinned people were black, (or any descended from such a person), and that mysterious continent is called Africa, then dark skinned people in .
So yes, I see how rediculous this all is. And I understand your anger. I'm angry too because this is all male bovine feces. So get angry Penguin, but outraged, be offended, but know where to direct your outrage. Not at us, we so called black people, because we aren't the ones making the rules. . Once again, Latinos dont follow gringo rules.
You have to take on the univerities, government agencies, schools, churches, hearts and minds of the White Ruling elite class of Latin America, the . In
When they decide to redraw the map, reclassify things to your likeing and standards, then I will follow...Or amybe I won't. Maybe I'll still be the rotten little brat screaming the Emperor's got no clothes. Well, I will start first to redraw the map of the |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1 3456> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.
