Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)
Wheres africa been???? |
Post Reply 
|
Page <123> |
| Author |
 Share Topic Printable Version Google Delicious Digg StumbleUpon Windows Live Yahoo Bookmarks reddit Facebook MySpace Newsvine Furl Topic Search  Topic Options
|
|
Decebal 
Arch Duke 
Digital Prometheus Joined: 20-May-2005 Location: Canada Online Status: Offline Posts: 1791 |
 Quote Reply
 Topic: Wheres africa been????Posted: 22-May-2006 at 19:26 |
|
|
Miltarily, economically, stability? Depends on the time period... Nubia around 750BC was able to conquer Egypt. Axum/Ethiopia lasted for longer than than 2000 years. Mali could field an army of 200,000 in the 14th century. The Zulu even managed a victory against the might British empire... It's very subjective.
|
||
|
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 
|
||
 |
||
|
Quetzalcoatl
General 
Suspended Joined: 05-Aug-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 984 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-May-2006 at 04:57 |
|
Well Egypt was fundamentally a black culture which was diluted as they expanded north. It is a fact the military might of Egypt was mostly under the influence of black element, of the southern part. As the latest dynasty was becoming increasing unstable with more asiatics moving into the population, the black militaristic elements did move north to reconquer the territories and restored order. But the elites tended to marry asiatics and gradually became more asian looking. But egytp in essence was black. There features would match more that of the ethiopian than the bantu though. The Egypt could differentiate themselves from nubians and asiatics: they were black but not the type with large noses or big lips.
They would pretty much exactly like those Ethiopian
 Fundamentally one can even say true civilisation started in Africa and expanded into asia and everywhere else.
|
||
|
||
|
Guests
Guest 
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-May-2006 at 13:05 |
|
|
Mmmm i wonder if the above picture has been tampered with |
||
|
||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Jun-2006 at 07:37 |
|
|
There wasn`t any "Great Civilization" in Subsaharan Africa,Zimbabwe could be an exception,but as far as i know it served only as a fortress and maybe as a cult center for the few people who lived inside(And surrounding).We cannot count Nubia,Axum,Napata,The Swahili Coast,etc,because they`re all mixed bloods and they built these civilizations because of external influences(The Portuguese castles in Ethiopia are an example...).In West Africa(Ghana,Mali,Songhai,Kanem-Bornu,The Hausa-Fulani Towns,etc...)only exists clay civilizations,i know in Tombuctu there where few illiterates,but they learn in Arabic,so we cannot count as an African achievement.
 Edited by Abakar - 09-Jun-2006 at 08:56 |
||
|
||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Jun-2006 at 07:55 |
|
The majority of the ancient Egyptians look like the modern Egyptians. Edited by Abakar - 09-Jun-2006 at 14:47 |
||
|
||
|
Decebal
Arch Duke
Digital Prometheus Joined: 20-May-2005 Location: Canada Online Status: Offline Posts: 1791 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Jun-2006 at 12:15 |
|
|
and what exactly does "mixed blood" as you call it have to do with the achievements of a civilization? Saying that "they built these civilizations because of external influences" also misses the point. Using this logic, I could say that Rome never truly constitued a great civilization, because it was based on foreign (Greek, Etruscan and Syriac) influences. But I'd be wrong , wouldn't I? Regardless, of the influences on a civilization, it should get the credit for its own achievements. You really should learn more about civilization such as Axum/Ethiopia before you make such statements. They had an advanced culture starting in the 2nd century BC, and had castles long before the Portuguese. "clay civilizations"... to dismiss a civilization because of the materials of construction which it used is ludicrous. Using your logic, Sumer would not count as a civilization because they would be a "mud civilization", using mud bricks for their buildings... Also, yes, in West Africa, the Arabic language was dominant, but civilizations such as Ghana started way before Islam even appeared (around 400AD), and centuries before it reached the region. Should we disconsider the intellectual achievements of say Egypt before the Arab conquest as well, because they speak Arabic now? |
||
|
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
|
||
|
||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Jun-2006 at 14:41 |
|
Mixed blood means someone with mixed ancestry,in these specific cases, these civilizations were only built just because of these "external influences".
You cannot deny that the caracteristics of these East african civilizations are very diferent of the cultures of the entire continent.
Theyre not pure African,that`s my point!
Sumer is a very diferent case,dont mix things!
The Arabic language wasn`t dominant(Only as a liturgical language.).
I make a mistake,sorry,they dont learn in Arabic(except the Korhan and some other things.),it`s the alfabet they`ve used that was Arabic. Edited by Abakar - 09-Jun-2006 at 14:56 |
||
|
||
|
Decebal
Arch Duke
Digital Prometheus Joined: 20-May-2005 Location: Canada Online Status: Offline Posts: 1791 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Jun-2006 at 15:42 |
|
|
Is that something we know for sure: that these civilizations were built "only because of external influences"? Axum and Ghana had evolved way before Non-Africans got to those lands. What exactly constitutes an African civilization, when we're talking about a huge continent, which has probably the greatest linguistic variation in the world, and where thousands of different populations, each with their own culture coexist? To outsiders, sub-saharan Africa may seem like a homogenous cultural bloc, but it is very far from that. Talking about a "pure African" civilization is a flawed premise: can we talk about a pure European civilization? Should we disconsider Rome's cultural achievements because they were so influenced by Greece? Should we dismiss Japan's civilization because it was so influenced by thos Chinese outsiders? To me, this attitude is another example of the biased approach taken by Western historians towards 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
|
||
|
||
|
Tobodai
Tsar 
Retired AE Moderator Joined: 03-Aug-2004 Location: Antarctica Online Status: Offline Posts: 4310 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Jun-2006 at 04:33 |
|
|
Even assuming Abakar was right (which he is not, just who did the Nubians mix with? There were more Nubians in Egypt than vice versa depsite the political control going the other way) that all these civilizations are mix bloods, Decebal is also right to bring up that one could say the same for any civilization. Monotony is the enemy of progress and all new nations are built on the frontiers of old ones who clashed. Rome was influenced by many other peoples cultures and to deny the foreign element in Chinese culture and history would be preposterous but no one would say Rome and China couldnt be counted as Roman or Chinese acheivements.
|
||
|
"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value." -Alexander Hamilton |
||
|
||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Jun-2006 at 00:18 |
|
|
Whats strange is that some people think Africa had these great civilizations. Yet Western Europeans where just Barbarians who were cavemen until the Romans introduced their ways to them. Alot of people do think this aswell.
Edited by machine - 12-Jun-2006 at 00:18 |
||
|
||
|
Decebal
Arch Duke
Digital Prometheus Joined: 20-May-2005 Location: Canada Online Status: Offline Posts: 1791 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Jun-2006 at 09:25 |
|
|
Well machine, maybe you should browse more of the forum before you start believeing that a lot people just think that Europeans were barbarians before Rome. Here are some topics to the contrary:
|
||
|
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
|
||
|
||
|
Tobodai
Tsar
Retired AE Moderator Joined: 03-Aug-2004 Location: Antarctica Online Status: Offline Posts: 4310 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Jun-2006 at 13:59 |
|
|
Hell Europeans were probably alot better off as individuals under Gaul and German rule than under Roman rule.
|
||
|
"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value." -Alexander Hamilton |
||
|
||
|
edgewaters
Sultan 
Snake in the Grass-Banned Joined: 13-Mar-2006 Location: Canada Online Status: Offline Posts: 2394 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Jun-2006 at 03:30 |
|
Whoa ... name a European or Asian civilization that evolved in a vacuum and didn't have vast foreign influences, then! You can't just discount civilizations because they benefitted from diffusion. If that's the case, then no civilization ever produced in Europe or Asia counts. |
||
|
||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Jun-2006 at 19:23 |
|
|
Living in a time of free will coupled with an abundance of credible literature on just about every subject, I feel that ignorance is a choice. Sometimes ignorance truly is bliss.. If staying ignorant allows one to continue to perpertrate their agenda then it most definately is blissful. What I mean is for some believing that Africa had no civlization, innovations or great leaders serves a purpose for that individual.
Maybe it gives them some sort of false sense of superiorty, so believing in the lowly African and the dark continent helps to facilitate those beliefs. Therefore they really have no interest in learning about African history, but are only interested in perpetuating their stereotypical views in order to feel validated. The African continent has been shun for quite sometime and still holds many secrets that have only begun to be told, but what little that is known is quite fascinating to say the least. Besides what greater contribution could a continent give but life itself? Just my 2 cents. Edited by Poetry25 - 13-Jun-2006 at 19:33 |
||
|
||
|
Tobodai
Tsar
Retired AE Moderator Joined: 03-Aug-2004 Location: Antarctica Online Status: Offline Posts: 4310 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Jun-2006 at 20:20 |
|
|
Thats a very good post, I agree completely.
|
||
|
"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value." -Alexander Hamilton |
||
|
||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Jun-2006 at 14:51 |
|
|
Thank you. I just could never wrap my head around this need for some to deny or dismiss black achievment in antiquity. How is this beneficial to anyone? It reminds me of the my father is stronger than your father spats we have as children. For those of us who enjoy history, isn't the goal to attain a well rounded, balanced, non bias view of history? Or maybe this is the minority view.
Another thing I find interesting is that people speak of Africa as if they have it all figured out. It's not as if there as been this intense interest in Africa outside of Egypt. It's not as if scholars and archaeologist have been knocking each other over trying to get to Africa to study ancient civilizations. Those few scholars and archaeologist that have had an interest Africa outside of Egypt more times that not haven't even recieved enough funding to complete their research.
This leaves us with a very incomplete puzzle, therefore, the information we do have about Africa is fragmented. The last 20 years or so there has been an increased interest in the kingdoms of Nubia, and somewhat in Timbuktu spurred on by SA government and that's about it. I was having a chat with my professor a few weeks back about Nubia and after he scuffeled through his archives, he came across an article that was published in TIME called The Niles other Kingdom by Scott Macleod. French archaeologist discovered exquisite ceramic figurines, bowls and funerary objects at sites in Sudan/Nubia that date from at least 8000 b.c. These findings predate prehistoric finds in Egypt by 3,000 yrs. The article seems to suggest that Nubia not Egypt may have been the first true African civilization.
The excavations still seem to be ongoing. This to me only shows how much we still don't know about Africa, it's shows how much there still is to learn not just in Nubia but the entire continent. I think those of you who want to dismiss black African achievements as less than or inferior need to keep this in mind. Also if it were not for those Africans and that continent none of us would be living and breathing at the moment. I can't think of any contribution bigger than that, I'd think that should garner just a little respect, don't you?
|
||
|
||
|
edgewaters
Sultan
Snake in the Grass-Banned Joined: 13-Mar-2006 Location: Canada Online Status: Offline Posts: 2394 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Jun-2006 at 17:49 |
|
That's simple. It makes the question of why Africa is in the situation it is, a more comfortable one to answer. People don't like to take responsibility for their history! It's a history that can potentially embarrass everyone - imperialists, proponents of free trade, proponents of mixed economies, even African nationalists. All these things have failed and in one way or another contributed to the situation. This way, the fundamental flaws in all these ideas don't have to be examined.
Well, that's a factor of the situation in Africa moreso than disinterest. African governments, for the most part, simply don't have the funds or the stability. Archaeology is usually an investment by the local government, in the interest of promoting tourism. So not only do they not have the funds, but the end is often unattainable even if they did due to the often volatile political situation in those countries. No matter how magnificent the history, tourists aren't flooding Iraq, for instance. |
||
|
||
|
Kapikulu
Arch Duke
Retired AE Moderator Joined: 07-Aug-2004 Location: Berlin Online Status: Offline Posts: 1914 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Jun-2006 at 20:58 |
|
I would say Mali, with all its achievements,richness and glory.
|
||
|
We gave up your happiness
Your hope would be enough; we couldn't find neither; we made up sorrows for ourselves; we couldn't be consoled; A Strange Orhan Veli |
||
|
||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Jun-2006 at 13:48 |
|
|
"That's simple. It makes the question of why Africa is in the situation it is, a more comfortable one to answer. People don't like to take responsibility for their history! It's a history that can potentially embarrass everyone - imperialists, proponents of free trade, proponents of mixed economies, even African nationalists. All these things have failed and in one way or another contributed to the situation. This way, the fundamental flaws in all these ideas don't have to be examined."
Ahhh yes, this makes perfect sense. It's attempt to justify failures and or the mistreatment of a people by rationalizing that these people deserved this mistreatment(slavery, colonialism) due to some kind of an inherent inferiority. So rather than analyze the present situation in Africa in it's entirety, it's much easier to say they are just inferior to begin with and therefore only have themselves to blame, a somewhat of the survival of the fittest mentality. Recognizing black achievement in antiquity would counter these beliefs, therefore black achievement is denied or dismissed. Makes really good sense, thanks.
"So not only do they not have the funds, but the end is often unattainable even if they did due to the often volatile political situation in those countries. No matter how magnificent the history, tourists aren't flooding Iraq, for instance."
Good point.
|
||
|
||
|
edgewaters
Sultan
Snake in the Grass-Banned Joined: 13-Mar-2006 Location: Canada Online Status: Offline Posts: 2394 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Jun-2006 at 14:16 |
|
I think it's even broader than that. I don't think there are many people today who try to justify slavery or the excesses of colonialism. I think a wide variety of systems people have applied to Africa - be it imperialism, or globalized economics, even the independance movements in Africa in the sixties - through their failure to realize promises in Africa, show fundamental errors in each ideology. Africa is above all a place of paradox. If Africa's culture or history were the problem and imperialism were the cure, how come the promises of imperialism never materialized, Africa never industrialized, and there was never the emergence of a middle class or political stability? But if imperialism was the reason for all of Africa's problems, how come things have got much worse in places like Zimbabwe under the independance governments? Every ideology applied to Africa has been wrong. If you can lay the blame on Africa itself you don't have to question your own favorite ideology. |
||
|
||
Didnt true civilisation start in Iran (forgot name) and move to Egypt. Are you sure it wasnt the Arabs that gave the Ethiopians their more caucasoid apperance.|
Post Reply
|
Page <123> |
| 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 0.125 seconds.
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.
