About the study of african history.
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: African History
Forum Discription: Talk about African History
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=19034
Printed Date: 28-Apr-2024 at 20:13
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: About the study of african history.
Posted By: Guests
Subject: About the study of african history.
Date Posted: 06-Apr-2007 at 11:31
Hi!!
My first post 
My question is simple.
There is something that I have seen ocurring alot in studies about africa:
The exclusion of the natives from their own history.
before you start labeling me as an afrocentrist or something, please hear me out.
The observation is a simple one. If we take east africas swahili states, their architecture to be more precise. The design was middle eastern influenced but the "enginering" was native. So they had middle eastern influenced architecture. But the craftmanship was "native". Why does it feel like that the craftmanship is downplayed.
I noticed this is a very strong trend. If it has outside influence downplay the "african" part.
Well. Perhaps it is me that do not see the whole picture. I am not a scholar. I am just kind of interested in the subject.
Anyway I hope that somebody can answer my question.
|
Replies:
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 06-Apr-2007 at 14:04
|
You could post this question in the "History of Africa" section. You'll notice there that nobody downplay the history of subsaharan Africa. At least, not in here Pinguin
|
Posted By: Cywr
Date Posted: 07-Apr-2007 at 13:14
|
Mali rocks for mud buildings.
-------------  Arrrgh!!"
|
Posted By: Decebal
Date Posted: 08-Apr-2007 at 23:27
|
Well, I think that there's a couple of things to consider here. If one talks about Byzantine architecture in a place like Italy or Romania, no one talks much about the craftsmen, they just say: this is a byzantine style building, and not "this is a byzantine style building built by Italian or Romanian craftsmen". That is usually not needed.
Now, in the case of Africa, this happens to tie in with another element, that of a general disregard for African cultures and achievements, which is a remain of the colonial era. This common omission becomes conspicous in the context of this cultural condescendence, and in one's search to find an African contribution to world civilization. You see, the African cultures which are known in the west, even to most historians, are those who indeed have had extensive influences from Eurasia, or are even considered culturally more Middle-Eastern than African: Egypt, Ethiopia, and even Ghana/Mali/Songhay (which had strong Islamic influences). This led historians as well informed (for the time) and famous as Arnold Toynbee to remark that out of all major regions, Sub-Saharan Africa is the only one which did not develop an original civilization. The error, while in part due to racism, is also due to the isolation of some African cultures, and most importantly to the lack of work done in the fields of African archeology and history. The African component of the above-mentioned civilizations has been little studied and there's the additonal issues of racism on one side and Afrocentrism on the other, involved. And there's many African cultures and civilizations which have barely been studied at all. I think that another hundred years may need to pass until we have a picture of African history which is as complete as the one we have of European or Asian history, or it may never even happen at all. ------------- What is history but a fable agreed upon? Napoleon Bonaparte Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi 
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 08-Apr-2007 at 23:54
|
Well, I don't think Toynbee is wrong.
Subsaharan African didn't develop an atonishing original civilization. I don't think that is racism but just stating a fact. Other peoples like the North Central Asian Nomads, the Samis, the Ainus, the Australians, the Amazonians and the Polynesians didn't develop an original civilization either. They developed cultures but not original civilizations.
That doesn't mean they are "inferior" people at all. It is just the way it was.
Now, that doesn't mean the Subsaharan Region don't have marvels that are worth to study, starting by Zimbabwe, Eredo and the Ife brozes.
Pinguin
|
Posted By: Decebal
Date Posted: 09-Apr-2007 at 09:50
|
I used to believe the exact same thing, penguin, until recently. But I've started to become aware of the lack of proper study in many areas of African civilizations. For instance, Nubia has traditionally been depicted as Egypt's poor cousin, a caricature of its advanced northern neighbor. But recently, a picture emerges which shows Nubia to be just as ancient as Egypt, and nearly as powerful. And what do we really know about the civilizations in Niger's inner delta before the advent of Islam? Not a whole lot, though archeology indicates urbanization in the region dating back to 200BC if not before. Basically my point is that due to political instability in current Africa, and European attitudes during colonial times, archeology in Africa is not well developed at all, so we can't expect our current level of knowledge to provide us with a complete picture of its history. It is not out of the realm of possibility that somewhere on the continent, a major discovery may be made which could change our whole concept of how African civilizations developed. Look at the Indus valley civilization: it was only in the 1920's that this civilization, arguably the equal of Egypt or Sumer was even discovered. The same might happen in Africa. ------------- What is history but a fable agreed upon? Napoleon Bonaparte Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Apr-2007 at 10:15
|
Yes, it is possible. For instance, I just recently knew about a network of trails that crossed southern Africa, and that probably contacted the Swahili region with Congo and Niger. There is also the very real probability of influences comming from the Indonesian colones in Madagascar as well.
All this while looking for the origin of the Marimba. I think further studies are needed and I agree with you on that.
Pinguin
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 22-Apr-2007 at 04:11
What do you mean that sub-Saharan Africa never developed an original civilization? BS! |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 22-Apr-2007 at 10:16
|
Oh no. Once again! Sorry Decebal, I leave it now. I going to get concentrated in the history of Americas thread. I know Blacks Olmecs are comming
 Good luck with your new fellow
Pínguin
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 22-Apr-2007 at 14:26
| The architectural designs found in the Swahili States have been found no place else but there, so they are not Miidle eastern in origin, they are distinctly Swahili. Pinguin, don't set up strawmen arguments to knock down, no on said anything about Black Olmecs. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 22-Apr-2007 at 15:10
The Swahili region is a quite interesting culture. If you have more info, just post them.
But does them developed large urban complexes before they entered in contact with Arabs and Indonesians?
That's the question to answer.
Every human group have a culture. Civilization is a term restricted to urban cultures that develop complex architecture, public highways, large regular armies, universities, and things like that, and where large social problems have been solved, and there has been development of specialized skills, formal religion, writing, mathematics, metalurgy, etc. It was a level that was achived without external help in Egypt, Nubia and perhaps Ethiopia in Africa, but that was induced in other places of Africa. For instance, the Kingdoms of West Africa (Mali, Ghana, Sonhai) developed under the influence of Islam.
So, the critical question is: does the Swahilli region got a level of complexity enough to be classified as a civilization, without external help?
Pinguin
|
Posted By: Tk101
Date Posted: 22-Apr-2007 at 15:39
|
X-ras.. i think i have heard of you before on another thread...but i tend to go with the idea that sometime in the future when people get over their bais behavior... more pieces of the puzzle known as african history wil appear... who knows what kinds of things they will discover... there could be large urban expanse under the ocean of sand in the Sahara or even in the central rain forests... i believe last year or using satelite imagery they discovered ruins of city in either south america of in africa..i forget which...My memory of it is hazed right now... ------------- there is only one truth - Conan [IMG]http://www.architecture.org/shop/images/402036lg.jpg[IMG] |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 22-Apr-2007 at 16:18
Civilization wasn't introduced to those West African kingdoms. Islam played a part only in trade and in the wealth and influence of the Upperclass, but most of the citizens were *NOT* Muslims themselves. Islam is only a religion, nothing more. Urbanism in West Africa *PRECEDES* Islam, the same with the Swahili states. If you ever the Peripulus of the Erytherean Sea you would know that coastal rding cities existed before Islam. The information is there to be found just search. As for influence, Greece and Rome received influences from the Near East so are they less of a civilization because of this? No. Interaction and trade enriches a civilization, it doesn't dilute it. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 22-Apr-2007 at 21:49
Writing was introduced by Muslims, ship building Arab style was introduced by Muslims. Madrasas (centers of learning or universities) where introduced by them as well, together with libraries. Even more, West African Kindoms developed thanks to transaharan commerce, particularly of gold, salt, ivory and slaves.
So, there was a link between that region and the outside world, from which influences travelled. That's why many historians don't agree that those kingdoms represent a local civilization but more a variation of the Mediterranean civilizations, spreaded by Islam.
Nothing wrong with that. There are quite a few places that are considered original civilization: China, India, Mesopotamia, Egypt, Mesoamerica and Peru are the places usually mentioned and no more. For instance, Greece is not considered original either, but derivated of ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt, through Crete. Rome is even more detached from being original.
The celtic and germanic peoples of Northern Europe are not considered the creators of a civilization either. They developed interesting cultures but not civilizations.
Pinguin
|
Posted By: Tk101
Date Posted: 23-Apr-2007 at 00:10
|
hmm so far this tread has been interesting... i think to take it to the next level by adding sources for claims...this sources of course would have to be acceptable....
and Pinguin nice stunt on biodiversity forum.... ------------- there is only one truth - Conan [IMG]http://www.architecture.org/shop/images/402036lg.jpg[IMG] |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 23-Apr-2007 at 00:39
How do you like it?
I hope you agreed with me
 |
Posted By: Tk101
Date Posted: 23-Apr-2007 at 19:21
|
lol..i laughed at the whole thing...but you shouldn't battle against Bayou. he seems to know what he's talking about...but i can't say i perticularly agree with what you said though... I also though about the reasons why civilization didn't come about in certain places around the world. Perhaps for some of africa's cultures perhaps we can list reasons towards SOME cultures on the continent didn't develop into states.... i know in general for the central and tropical regions... the local populous had to deal with living away from water ,which is one of the main catalysts to civilization.Bodies of waters in tropical regions usually have an abondance of life and that includes mosquitos with malaria... From memory i can observe that not many civilizations sprang up in any of the worlds tropical forest regions...but i due recall 1 or 2 coming about in central rain forest region... ------------- there is only one truth - Conan [IMG]http://www.architecture.org/shop/images/402036lg.jpg[IMG] |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 23-Apr-2007 at 21:16
|
Look, I believe all humans are equaly smart. Some were lucky enough in developing civilizations and others were not. In the case of Africa I admire the arts of Subsaharan Africa, the architecture of Zimbabwe and people like the Zulu warriors that defeated the British army once.
However, I don't like people think the Moors belong to Subsaharan Africa, because they don't. Now, Bayou could know a lot about Africa but I doubt he knows as much as I do about Spain, that's my culture.
We know the Moors, TK101, because they are part of the genetic pool of Spain even today. Millions of Spaniards today look like theirs fellows across
the Gibraltar Strait. Most Kabyles can pass for Spaniards without problem, for instance. They were the Moors of Spain, and they are still called Moor in Spain. No matter than Spaniards also called Moor to any Muslim.
So, when someone want to "teach me" or "revealing me" Spain's history I get upset. For that they should have read the "Mio Cid", The works of Henry X the Wise, and all what I do know about Spain. After all, most of my ancestors came from there.
That's it :)
Pinguin
|
Posted By: Tk101
Date Posted: 24-Apr-2007 at 09:33
|
hmm
Pingiun
I tend to agree with most of waht you said. sometimes things aren't always what they seem... all becuase people look like you does that mean that they are genetically similar to you? if what you say is true...would it be safe to say that most spainish are N. African variants?
also is their something wrong with NAfrians Moors being related to SSA's? they have been both on the continent for thousands of years so..it is only to be expected that they would be related... also what does it matter if MOors were mixed or not?
also now that i think about it...when ever we would quote genetic tests and such...do we as laymen REALLY understand whats is being stated and also can what the scientist say is trust worthy?
also what was the reason why after the 12th century, iberia had the most advanced kindgoms in Europe? ------------- there is only one truth - Conan [IMG]http://www.architecture.org/shop/images/402036lg.jpg[IMG] |
Posted By: Decebal
Date Posted: 24-Apr-2007 at 09:55
|
Actually tk101, I would say that Iberia had the most advanced kingdoms in Europe before the 12th century, and not after. The fundamentalist Almoravids and Almohads snuffed out the cultural brilliance of Al-Andalus. It was during the Ummayad Caliphate of Cordoba and even during the Taifas states that the so-called Moors in Spain were at the peak of their culture. The reasons are numerous and it's a lengthy discussion, but suffice to say that Islam was more advanced scientifically and culturally than Western Europe until about the 12th century, when Europe started to catch up. By the 16th, Western Europe was clearly ahead of Islam in most respects. On an added note, some of the moors, specifically the Al-Murabit, or Almoravids, did come from Sub-Sharan Africa, as opposed to the Maghreb. They started out as a warrior monk group in the Senegal valley, before they conquered the Maghreb and Al-Andalus. ------------- What is history but a fable agreed upon? Napoleon Bonaparte Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 24-Apr-2007 at 10:32
Simple. For Spaniards exists the Moors and the Blacks. Two distinct peoples. If not a matter of drops more or less. Is a matter that the people is different. Actually, you find people related to the Moors all around the Mediterranean from the Middle East to the Canarias and from Spain to Turkey. That's the Mediterranean people, of race if you wish.
Muslim Spain was founded by Arabs and most of the Muslims were local Spaniards. Mediterranean berbers were part of the troops. Almoravidis have nothing to do with the Golden Age of Al-Andalus. Actually they were, perhaps, the cause of the cathastrophe.
That's the history and those are the facts.
Why don't you accept them?
Pinguin
|
Posted By: Tk101
Date Posted: 24-Apr-2007 at 20:13
|
well pingiun i dont really care for one sided biased views of the past...the only clear cut ideas of the past is an omni-version..besides its not a matter of what i accept...I really dont care for Spanards or N. africans... the only thing i'm interested in is the truth... hence my signature..
medit race? oh ok...sounds very strange to have everyone on the Medit sea related? sounds like a biased view to me... ------------- there is only one truth - Conan [IMG]http://www.architecture.org/shop/images/402036lg.jpg[IMG] |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 24-Apr-2007 at 22:34
not stranger than having all 'white' or 'black' people related ------------- |
Posted By: Tk101
Date Posted: 24-Apr-2007 at 22:39
|
hmm if i understood you correctly then i agree with you... its strange that people people would say new guineans are realted to africans, or african americans just becuse they look similar...the same is true for so called european looking people of the levant, Nafrican, and south west asia...
i think they can look like them all they wont but they could never be ( white) like them ------------- there is only one truth - Conan [IMG]http://www.architecture.org/shop/images/402036lg.jpg[IMG] |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 25-Apr-2007 at 15:20
|
If you have ever heard about Mediterranean diet, Mediterranean architecture, and Mediterranean family style, you will realize that people of the Mediterranean sea are all related, not only by genetics by also by culture and ancient traditions. Is not that Italy is the Lebannon of Lybia is Greece; they are different, but they have more thing in common that people usually believe.
That's the point
Pinguin
|
Posted By: Tk101
Date Posted: 25-Apr-2007 at 16:47
|
i highly doubt that...
whats the validation of such a term?
your personal intuition? ------------- there is only one truth - Conan [IMG]http://www.architecture.org/shop/images/402036lg.jpg[IMG] |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 25-Apr-2007 at 18:34
Sorry fellow but if you don't know is YOUR fault, not mine.
Ask any person born in the Mediterranean sea about the relations between the people in there, and they will tell. There are even songs that speak about that.
The idea that the world is divided between BLACKS and WHITES comes from the U.S. and from the North of Europe. People that don't have a clue about the peoples that live sourrounding the Mediterranean from Gibraltar to Turkey and the Levante. Those were the same territories UNIFIED by the Roman Empire!
Lol! It is so disgusting people of Anglo-Saxon culture keep repeating theirs ignorance about other cultures. More so, that they try to lecture in history to the subject of them.
Yes, you'll say I am a South American and not a Spaniard or Italian. But you are WRONG if you believe Latin Americans don't know the history of the Mediterranean peoples of Europe.
Sorry but I get upset when White and Black people of anglosaxon culture pretend the Mediterranean peoples don't exist
 Pinguin
|
Posted By: Tk101
Date Posted: 26-Apr-2007 at 10:56
|
well pingiun i'm quite informed on the genetic diversity and allelic frequencies in many populations across the planet and i know that the world isn't black or white...the only thing i question is the use of the term "mediterrenean" to under mind such a high culturally diverse and heterozygous populous around the sea. To label the romans, greeks, cretes, egyptians, moors and the others as a medit race is quite ridiculous..i'm sure a person well informed of that area, such as you self would know of that factor.... ------------- there is only one truth - Conan [IMG]http://www.architecture.org/shop/images/402036lg.jpg[IMG] |
Posted By: Maharbbal
Date Posted: 26-Apr-2007 at 11:15
|
Tk 101 Don't believe Pinguin, read The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World at the Time of Philip II by Fernand Braudel (t.1) that book is one of the best piece of history and has been recognized as such since… 1949. Incidently Braudel and Pinguin agree. I don't know if Braudel uses this expression but he might have: "the mediterranean regions are the organes of a unique body". The French terme charabia (un-understandable speach) comes from the fact that arround the Med mostly in ports for everybody to be understood by all they used an awful mix of Arabic, Spanish, French, Turkish, Greek and Italian during the pre-modern period. That is also why Algerian has a lot of French words, that some Corsican dialects sound Greek, some Italian ones Spanish and some Spanish ones Italian. It is the reason why lot of the Turkish vocabulary comes from the Greek (starting by Istanbul) and why in English you use such arabic words as Admiral, Caravan, Algeber or Arsenal or the Turkish one Karamel. Conserning physical resemblence lets just say that Northern Portuguese call southern Portuguese Moros (Moors). But this are mostly cultural traits when it comes to genetics I wouldn't be so sure about mixity in most places and certainly not at the scale of the Mediterranean. It is more a wild guess than anything else but remember that most of the Mediterranean regions are landlocked montains with little contact with each others but the fact that environmental similarities may have induce cultures to adopt the same traits. ------------- I am a free donkey! |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 26-Apr-2007 at 12:16
They are not identical, and I never say so. What I have said is simple that they all share most things between themselves, rather than with the people of the mainlands that sourround them.
For instance you can't explain the history of Spain in terms of Europe only, although Iberians, Celts, German existed in there, but above all you should remember that Phoenicians, Carthagians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Jews, and many other Mediterranean people went there as well.
There is a common heritage, that's what I mean. And the idea to divide peoples and cultures in continents does not make much sense in the Mediterranean.
Pinguin
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 26-Apr-2007 at 12:38
Why is it more ridiculous than lumping together Irish, Bengali and Nenets in a single race? Or Kazakh, Japanese and Inuit? ------------- |
Posted By: Tk101
Date Posted: 26-Apr-2007 at 20:17
|
Pinguin,
I dont doubt that the people along the sea had a bond but as the say that this bond was so strong that it fused into each and everyone one of the over 20 states of the area is seems silly..
at the most you can say is that they came form distinct backgrounds but just came together due to their proximity, own growth, power and influence each other towards some extent
i never give large regional names credit...its best to address the components of the regions individually becuase they are after all, invidividual components... ( why should the focus of the already culturally rich state be focused on outside influence)
when you say it that way pinguin it sounds as if your using the labeling methodolgy as people who label everyone in africa as "black"... africa is composed of all worlds phenotypes ( most anyway) hence the diversity of outside africa is only a subset of within...
Mixcoatl ...i hate to say it at the risk of being flamed but...these things you call races are more like clines....just a difference in the range of phenotypical allele freqencies in a perticular area...
i can concur with Maharbbbal, i think people confuse parallel evolution with the concept that becuase people have similarities, they must be from the same place ( one origin)... an example is the Indo european origin concept... that book sounds like a good read. i think i will take i look at it... ------------- there is only one truth - Conan [IMG]http://www.architecture.org/shop/images/402036lg.jpg[IMG] |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 26-Apr-2007 at 22:23
|
I sort of agree with you in many respect. However, in the Mediterranean there are SOME cultural and genetic patterns in common. That's undeniable.
It is not silly to believe so at all. There are common things, more that meet the eye. And more that is perceived by people of other places, that have no roots in that area.
Come on, Most of my ancestors are Spaniards, and when I met Greeks, Italians, Palestineans, some Jews or Arabs, they believe I am one of them. Definitively there is something in common between these peoples.
You should read the lyrics of Mediterraneo by Joan Manuel Serrat, Spanish singer. It say it all. Please, read it carefully.
Mediterráneo
Joan Manuel Serrat (Spanish singer) Perhaps because on your beaches my childhood still is playing, And concealed behind the swaying Reeds my first love lies asleep, Your light, your smell are what I keep Wherever I may be staying. And on your sand I've been piling Love and games and pain and smiling. I Carry the bitter taste of those tears in my skin and sinew, That your cities have poured in you From Gibraltar to Istanbul, So you may paint, like blue wool, Those winter nights that continue. Your fate has been sad and serious; Your soul is deep and mysterious My eyes have become accustomed To your red sky when the dusk comes, Like the thimble to the tailor. I sing, I cheat and I gamble, I like wine, and like a sailor, My soul wants only to ramble. I can't help that I'm a man Born on the Mediterranean! And you come and go, but first you kiss my town with your laughter. You play with the tide, and after Come back as though you repent, Like a woman, with a scent Of tar that seems to draft her, Who inspires love and yearning, Who is known and feared like burning Fire! If death comes for me one night when I'm asleep on my pillow, Push my boat into the billow, Into an autumn east wind, And let its white wings be pinned By the tempest, like a willow. And bury me without mourning Where beach and sky lie aborning. Up on a mountainside, rising High up above the horizon, I want my view to be mellow. My body will be a crossing, I'll give the pines their green mossing, And the Scotch brooms their bright yellow. Near the sea, for I'm a man Born on the Mediterranean. Pinguin
|
Posted By: Tk101
Date Posted: 27-Apr-2007 at 11:25
|
this preception you have of others that live on the sea...seem only through your internal zeal to be appart of such a region that you dont see the difference between so called brotherhood and them being nice...
the things you speak of is true for just about any area of the planet... it doesn't justify the use of the world medit race or culture for over 20 states that come from diverse backgrounds... ------------- there is only one truth - Conan [IMG]http://www.architecture.org/shop/images/402036lg.jpg[IMG] |
Posted By: Tk101
Date Posted: 27-Apr-2007 at 11:26
|
this preception you have of others that live on the sea...seem only through your internal zeal to be appart of such a region that you dont see the difference between so called brotherhood and them being nice...
the things you speak of is true for just about any area of the planet... it doesn't justify the use of the world medit race or culture for over 20 states that come from diverse backgrounds...
by the way it seem like a nice song... i like david brisbol better though..
If your from chile then you dont really have any relativant ties to that region? the only would be that you have family that currently lives over there... the equvalent to an african american views towards "pan- africanism" ------------- there is only one truth - Conan [IMG]http://www.architecture.org/shop/images/402036lg.jpg[IMG] |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 27-Apr-2007 at 12:05
First, it is not a "personal" perception. It is a concept widespread in all the cultures of the region.
Second, it is not less valid that the concept of "African" or "European", that are also geographical regions.
Third, the idea of brotherhood is no sense. Think in how much Europeans have kill earch others in endless wars. That does not mean they are not related somehow.
The word "race" was used in a figurative way. As you know, races don't exist. Peoples exist.
And the people of the Mediterranean sea share a history. That's all.
No. The situation is different. Not only most Latinos are descendents of Spanish, Portugueses, French, Italians, and some of Greeks, Arabs and Jews, but the very Spanish, Portuguese and Italian cultures are ALIVE and well in Latin America. It is because of the language, religion and common traditions.
It is not the case of African Americans who lost theirs culture in the Middle Passage. We have not lost the Mediterranean culture at all, besides enrich it with our local Native american cultures.
Come on, in high school we read exactly the same books our fellow Spaniards read in Spain: our common heritage.
Pinguin
|
Posted By: Tk101
Date Posted: 28-Apr-2007 at 09:53
|
"And the people of the Mediterranean sea share a history. That's all."
the above is true for all people of earth.
I'm sorry but there is nothing special about the Medit sea region... and theres no legit reason to justify the use of Medit. culture and words of that sort to describe the over 20 states of that area...i'm not even sure if it can be used to describe the BOND itself....
I''d like to know how this culture that came to latin america and maintained and unchanged for the past few centuries...
all of what you said seems only subjective and blindsighting
i think its better for us to just agree that we disagree...
------------- there is only one truth - Conan [IMG]http://www.architecture.org/shop/images/402036lg.jpg[IMG] |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 28-Apr-2007 at 11:05
Of course there is something very special about the Mediterranean region for US, Latinos. Because most of our ancestors came from there.
I don't know what are you motivations to put in doubt what I have been trying to tell you, but it is OBVIOUS to me that you are not familiar with the common thread in those cultures.
If you want to believe they are disconnected, or that there is more relation between a Japanese and a Congolese rather than between a Greek and Algerian, is YOUR choice, but that does not mean you are right at all.
For me, as a Latino, it is quite obvious there are things in common in customs, architecture, music, food and a common history. The Mediterranean was the place were Western civilization started. It was first a Phoenician sea, then Greek and then Roman. It was only AFTER the fall of the Roman Empire and the victory of the blond barbarians, that the world was divided in Europe, Asia and Africa. Before, the Mediterranean was the Mare Nostrum, and people of all its borders travel everywhere else.
Ignoring that, and ignoring all the reasons I gave you won't change the facts. If you consider the region is not important, because Europe or Africa are the things that matters, is just impossing your worlview to everyone else.
So, when you notice similarities in peoples in the Mediterranean in faces, music, foods and customes, IGNORE THEM. They are just coincidences according to you.
Pinguin
|
Posted By: Tk101
Date Posted: 28-Apr-2007 at 17:43
|
hmm no i do realize that there is a bond..i have stated many times before... but even if you are latino...the bond of states in that part of the world is no more special than the bonding or coming to together of europeans in early america, or the unification of china...
I dont agree with the idea of classification of the diverse area of the sea under the name medit....thats all...
a better comparison, Pinguin would be the closeness of the Greeks to the Turks compared to the Japanese and congelese..
and by the way...western civlization didn't start from phoenicia but from ancient greece ------------- there is only one truth - Conan [IMG]http://www.architecture.org/shop/images/402036lg.jpg[IMG] |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 28-Apr-2007 at 20:14
|
Well, I bet cultures of Northern Europa has a different perspective. Anyways.
In any case, Western civilization is formally Greek-Roman and its religion is Jewish-Christian.
If you take note, you will agree that the origins of that civilizations are in Mesopotamia and Egypt through Crete. At the same time those events happened Phoenicians were trading through the mediterranean, bringing with them some very important "western" cultural patterns like the alphabet. Influencing with that not only the Greeks but all the peoples of the mediterranean, founding Carthago and destroying Tarsis.
When Greece was born, it received strong influences from Persia, the Phoenicians, Egypt, Mesopotamia. That's undeniable. And when the Roman Empire was created, the influences of other semitic people, the Jews, it was felt strongly.
So, all of it was interrelated. It is not the case of the barbarians of Northern Europe that were incorporated to the West gradually during the following centuries.
So, the West indeed was founding on top of the experience of lots of Mediterranean peoples, not only on Greeks, although they were the onces that gave the final touch to that civilization.
Greeks and Turks are close, indeed. But it is quite easy to find links between almost all the peoples around the sea. Turkey host Sephardites of Spain, for instance. The Moors of the Maghreb share its musical origins with Andalucia. The most important Roman philosopher, Seneca, it was Spanish. Pablo preach in all the Western Mediterranean. etc.
It was only after the Germanics took power that the concept of Europe was born. There after peoples that share a common culture were divided between Muslims and Christians, and afterwards between Europeans, Middle Easterners and North Africans.
But those are just political decisions of historians. The common patterns and the common heritage still exist. That's all.
Pinguin
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 17-Jun-2007 at 04:09
your definition of civilization seems a little 'old' for my tastes. And I don't think you fully grasp the complexity of those regions civilizations.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 17-Jun-2007 at 11:10
|
Civilization: urban culture based in cities.
Some caracteristics:
* Stone building
* highways
* Writing
* Large scale burocracies.¨
* Hierarchical armies
* Formal religions based on "writings"
* Large scale commerce and money.
* Intensive agriculture
* Large civil works.
* Original style of arts
* Original literature
* Phylosophy and science
As I say before, there can be outstanding cultures without being civilizations. For example: Easter Island culture
|
Posted By: Cywr
Date Posted: 17-Jun-2007 at 14:56
|
You don't really need stone buildings, besides, that would exclude early Mesopotanian cities, they didn't have access to much stone, so they developed the most sophisiticated ancient brick making industry to compensate for it. No, building material is irrelevant, its the pattern of settlement, division of labour (along with the hierachies and whatnot) and supremacy over other settlements that makes the City what it is, and this gives you civilisation. Arguably writting isn't necessary either, just an accounting system of sorts, Inca knots being perhaps the most famous example. ------------- Arrrgh!!"
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 17-Jun-2007 at 16:32
|
Yes, you are right. I forgot Mesopotamians. It is a matter of pattern of settlements, division of labour and compexity of the society. Pinguin
|
Posted By: think
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2007 at 06:17
yet does that even include Spain or Portugal, were these "blond Barbarians" much different from the Barbarians in Your ancestral region. Honestly,Ancient Greece gets too much glory in the West when they had little effect on the majority of europeans. So in that i guess Greece is sort of more of Medditerranean power/culture but your ancestral homeland of Spain is not in the same boat as Greece because your culture, history etc etc came well after the Greeks an even the Romans (Just like the rest of the Barbarians) an the only reason Spain achieved greatness was because they kicked out their "fellow" medditeranean Muslims. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2007 at 16:52
Curious way to see things that doesn't match reality. You should visit Andalucia.
Spain is a country both Mediterranean and "European". Yes, Iberians, Celts and Germans colonized Spain, but also Phoenician, Carthagian, Jew and Arab; besides Greek and Roman.
When Spain kicked out Muslims, they kicked out their own people, because there wasn't a racial barrier between the Muslims that when out and the Spaniards that remained. And Spain achieved a mediocre greatness that could have been a lot greater if it would kept its Muslims but particularly its Jewish people.
The blond barbarians of the North also have certain peculiar way of being that Spain inherit. Particularly the warrior spirit of the reconquista and of the conquistador come from those germanic roots. But, to tell you the truth, the culture was in the South a lot more than in the North.
By the way, the last Moor of Spain was pale and blond blue eyed.
Pinguin
|
Posted By: think
Date Posted: 12-Jul-2007 at 01:43
How did the reconqista come from Germanic roots ? |