Africa, Bible the untold truth
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=22698
Printed Date: 28-Apr-2024 at 16:52
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Africa, Bible the untold truth
Posted By: joeamonroe
Subject: Africa, Bible the untold truth
Date Posted: 03-Dec-2007 at 19:27
|
This is just a ruff theory on how I feel so far, I left this unedited to see what type of feed back I would receive
Part 1 In my brief study of faith, it has shown how the masses have been misled about the history and the true purpose of religion. We must first look to the continent of Throughout history and even in the bible Africans have been betrayed in a negative light starting with the Jews. The part that makes no sense is the fact that the Egyptian always seem to take in distressed men of the Jewish community. First starting with Joseph who accomplished great things for the pharaoh who in turn allows the Jews to come into Part 2 This piece is not intended to detour anyone from changing their faith or claiming that one is better then the other. The only way to really understand a point of view is to first evaluate as many perspectives as possible to effectively provide an acceptation point of view. Many blacks say that it doesn’t matter what color GOD is and I say that’s an great injustice to our people and way of life. If the color of Jesus didn’t matter why would so many whites have a picture of a white man up in their homes? Let’s look at this from a different perspective Christian is based out of the middle-east off spring of the Judaism faith, which is the oldest surviving monotheistic religion. (Monotheistic – the belief in one GOD; Abraham is traditionally considered to be the first Jew and to have made a covenant with God. Because Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all recognize Abraham as their first prophet, they are also called the Abrahamic religions.) This paper also intends to show how the major religions have put GOD into a box. Most peoples have never doubted it. In modern times an argument has developed regarding who believed it first, and what the justification and rules are, for any particular claim or belief, as religions have turned the worship of the Highest into some kind of competition. Just how and why the worship of God got turned into a competitive act is a true mystery itself. If God be limited in anything, then that God is not Supreme! To say that God can not be known by all (Nations) in the here and now is to place a limitation on God. One may say that this doesn’t change the fact that mankind is limited and far from perfect. But the imperfections of man have absolutely no power whatsoever to confer limitations on God. Whoever says so is incorrect. Also incorrect is the political assertion that the pathways to God are limited, for this also places a limitation on God. Those who have turned the worship of God into a matter of religious competition have done the devil’s work. As do those who have made the worship of God a competitive act. There can be no limitations placed on the seeking of God, and yet most organized religions now do so. The political divisions between competing sects are unending. Part 3 Think of this: 5 See, I have taught you decrees and laws as the LORD my God commanded me, so that you may follow them in the land you are entering to take possession of it. 6 Observe them carefully, for this will show your wisdom and understanding to the nations, who will hear about all these decrees and say, "Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people." 7 What other nation is so great as to have their gods near them the way the LORD our God is near us whenever we pray to him? 8 And what other nation is so great as to have such righteous decrees and laws as this body of laws I am setting before you today?) That never came true in the bible because the people never wanted to follow direction but for some reason thanks to the holocaust we could now make what was written come true. Why of all the places in the world was the Jews put them in the History lesson: Jews have been leaving in the Middle East and all over the world for years and never had any problems until due to US and European influence they decided to move all the Jews to the Now ask yourself why a national of people who went through the holocaust want to commit the same horrors on another national of people. Ask yourself why US and Europe supported all the decision of See whether you believe me or not its happening right before your eyes and many of you support it without even saying a word. ------------- Joe |
Replies:
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 03-Dec-2007 at 20:02
You need to provide the source for that text. Otherwise, it constitutes plagiarism under the CoC.
-Akolouthos
|
Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 03-Dec-2007 at 20:07
|
[Most people reading the bible don’t know geography so they fail to see connection between the locations and the people.]
Seems a sweeping statement and a quite patronising belief to hold.
[How can you not say that the people of
I know of no-one in the world who denies the existence of Ancient Egypt or the even older Sumeria. In fact until today I knew of no-one who thought there was actual people in the world who thought Egypt didn't exist.
[Throughout history and even in the bible Africans have been betrayed in a negative light starting with the Jews]
There were never any Jews in Egypt. The old testament is a story, it's not actually true and the whole Moses, Ramases, leading the people out of Egypt thing just mythology.
[If the color of Jesus didn’t matter why would so many whites have a picture of a white man up in their homes?]
To paraphrase Xenophanes, man made god in his image, the Ethiopians believed god is black, Thracians he’s red headed and blue eyed and that if cattle could speak they would insist he’s a black and white patched bovine with four hooves.
[There can be no limitations placed on the seeking of God]
Atheism is a damn good limitation.
------------- Light blue touch paper and stand well back http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 03-Dec-2007 at 21:27
|
What is your point? ------------- "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. |
Posted By: Brian J Checco
Date Posted: 03-Dec-2007 at 21:35
I found myself asking the same question... The general policy seems to be to ask other people what they think about a subject, allowing some interest in the topic to be generated, before jumping into long winded historical theories/ explanations. As opposed to, well... see above, I guess. |
Posted By: Brian J Checco
Date Posted: 03-Dec-2007 at 21:44
I'm sure there are many other statements that will stick out to other forummers, but this one stood out to me particularly, and having only a limited time to reply, this will be the focus of initial response (lousy classes...) 1- Well, for one thing, I was not aware that he was crucified more than once. Either this Christ fellow was one tough nutter to be able to take more than one crucifixion, which seems unlikely. 2- Although none of the Gospels were written by contemporaries of Jesus, IIRC, Revelations was an even later Canonical text... so if the highlighted first implies chronology of authorship, that point is also unlikely. More than likely, he was crucified only once, in Palestine, at the (wash'ed) hands of Pontius Pilate... not once, or even twice, in Egypt, where a) there was not a sizable Jewish population amongst whom to proselytize, and b) he is not recorded as having traveled to. Why extradite a criminal to a foreign land for the purpose of trying and executing them? Criminals in New York are not extradited to Florida for trial, why send a fellow from Palestine (Judea) to Egypt? |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 03-Dec-2007 at 21:53
 Co-sign. I was thinking the same. ------------- |
Posted By: JanusRook
Date Posted: 04-Dec-2007 at 07:35
Well actually IIRC there is an inscription in an egyptian tomb of the period that lists under known neighboring nations a "wandering people" that coincides with the Exodus of the Bible. A few archaeologists have concluded that these people may be the Hebrews under Moses.
According to traditional belief the Crucifixion is a timeless event, thus Christ is always in a state of Crucifixion, at least spiritually.
The Gospel of John could argue that point.
I believe the OP wrote this as an original document. I will caution joeamonroe that if he wants this to be viewed as a scholarly paper you must use proper citations for your assertions (i.e. the information you used to come up with your theory). Otherwise it's just a rant with no weight behind it.
They did have a great religious system in place, I don't think many people would argue this, they also existed for a couple of thousand years before Christianity, and ultimately faded into oblivion.
I doubt that they were the first as the Ancient Egyptians existed long after earlier civilizations like Sumer, Shang, and Indus Valley. Also the first recognized city Catal Huyuk seems to have had pretty vibrant religious beliefs based on the afterlife.
Masons follow Egyptian teaching in the same way that Wiccans follow Druidic teaching. That being in a completely reconstructed manner created by the founders of the philosophy who never experienced the base culture themselves and mostly used any source no matter how incorrect to create the philosophy.
Not true, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton and John Hancock have never been officially recognized as Masons.
Ever heard of Simon of Cyrene an African who bore Jesus cross at the crucifixion, hardly a negative light. Also the Ethiopian treasurer listed in Acts chapter 8 is treated in a very positive light as an eager convert to Christianity. And in Acts 13:1 an Africans are classified as "teachers and prophets" of the church gathered at Antioch, again not negative.
I have never known anyone to have made the assertion that Ancient Egyptians hated jews. BTW, God sent Joseph and Mary with the young Jesus into "Egypt" (most probably somewhere near Gaza) because it was a fulfillment of scripture that would mark Jesus as the messiah.
It has? See Matthew 2:14-21. Why would the first 5 or 6 years (at most) of Jesus' life be even IN the Bible. The Bible is not an autobiography of Jesus of Nazareth. It is a book of divine teachings, and only the portions of Jesus' life that pertain to his ministry are in the book. It's the same reason we don't hear of the years he spent in Palestine from about 13-30 years old, he didn't do anything out of the ordinary during that time.
Then allow me to explain to you:
Agreed and a very mature viewpoint.
True but it wasn't the oldest monotheistic religion, ironically enough that title belongs to the faith of an Egyptian pharoah, Akhenaten the father of Tutenkhamun, who proclaimed the belief in the Sun-God Aten. At this time the Jewish faith was not yet purely Monotheistic, that would occur later with Moses.
That section of the Bible was never meant as a prophecy, rather it was an instruction on how to conduct their rule in a Godly fashion. That is a perfect vision, and as we all know perfection is difficult to come by.
I would have to disagree with this, no problems? Um....Holocaust? Pogroms? Ghettos? The jews have had a lot of problems since the roman era. Also the Jews NEVER left the Middle East, they may have lost their monopoly on the region but they have always had a presence, I mean Jerusalem has always had a jewish quarter for a reason. Also Zionism was not a product of the US or European thought rather Zionism started as a purely Jewish idea in the growing era of the creation of nation-states in europe, the Jewish leaders thought that they too should have their own home in their original homeland of Palestine. Even after World War II the creation of Israel was aided by Churchill's own zionistic views based on the Balfour Declaration. So if you could say anything it was just Britain who created Israel in the midst of subjugated Arab peoples. Now for some general feedback. I as a reader am unsure at what the main goal of your paper is? This seems more like three independent papers meshed into one with very flimsy connections between the three. The first part is trying to explain a perceived anti-Egyptian bias in Christianity, and how that is hypocritical to what the Bible actually teaches. Personally I wouldn't find much merit in such a paper (as my responses list) but it could be interesting if well researched. The second part seems to be an editorial on how the abrahamic religions (mostly christianity and judaism it seems) have limited the concept of God by the manner of their preachings. You attempt to use logic to explain your position but I feel you could have done in it in a more concise and clear manner, which would better extrapolate on your assertions. The third part seems to be an anti-Zionist (but not necessarily anti-semetic) paper that expresses confusion over the creation and continued support of the nation of Israel in the face of world politics. I personally believe that this wouldn't make a good paper, as your chosen topics on the issue have been rehashed many times before, and express a view that is pretty well established amongst academics. Also I believe your choice in Biblical quotes to base this assertion on is a bit wanting, I'm certain you can find a better one to explain your opinion. All in all it starts out interesting but leaves me wanting at the end. If I were you I would go about the first and second parts and go into more detail. While leaving the third part out entirely. Also I would definitely recommend you cite (or re-discover) your sources so that others can follow up on your papers. ------------- Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative. Unless otherwise noted source is wiki. |
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 04-Dec-2007 at 07:50
Nice, thourough critique, Janus. 
I would note that the origin of all of the Gospels -- if not their authorship -- can be ascribed to Jesus' contempraries.
-Akolouthos
|
Posted By: longshanks31
Date Posted: 04-Dec-2007 at 12:45
|
The bible is like tequila ------------- long live the king of bhutan |
Posted By: joeamonroe
Date Posted: 04-Dec-2007 at 12:57
|
I would like to thank everyone for their response to what I have provided. I have used various sources whom which I agree and make no claim to their insight. This is my first forum and wanted to get some feed back on my thoughts. I will provide a list of the books and websites I have read and referenced to show that I have not in anyway tried to still anyone's work: The Myth of Exodus and Genesis The Africans Who Wrote the bible Papyrus of Ani - The The Squandering of African Origins of Major “Western Religions” Our Black Seminarians and Black Clergy without a black theology A chronology of the bible: challenge to the standard version The Mis-education of the Negro The Negro http://www.opencheops.org/ - www.OpenCheops.org http://www.asante.net/ - http://www.asante.net/
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=880 - http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=880 http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=142&letter=G#525 - http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=142&letter=G#525 http://www.allempires.com/article/index.php?q=africa_history - http://www.allempires.com/article/index.php?q=africa_history http://dickinsg.intrasun.tcnj.edu/diaspora/part1/pwrpnt/Christianity/ - http://dickinsg.intrasun.tcnj.edu/diaspora/part1/pwrpnt/Christianity/ http://africawithin.com/jochannan/dr_ben.htm - http://africawithin.com/jochannan/dr_ben.htm http://www.quranexplorer.com/ - http://www.quranexplorer.com http://www.bookofconcord.org/ - http://www.bookofconcord.org/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/africa/features/storyofafrica/index_section2.shtml - http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/africa/features/storyofafrica/index_section2.shtml http://www.world-mysteries.com/ - http://www.world-mysteries.com/ http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/ancientafrica.html - http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/ancientafrica.html http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=880 - http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=880 http://www.prophetskurds.com/frames.htm - http://www.prophetskurds.com/frames.htm ------------- Joe |
Posted By: joeamonroe
Date Posted: 04-Dec-2007 at 12:58
|
You are right, this is my forum and I have provided a response at the bottom of the page ------------- Joe |
Posted By: joeamonroe
Date Posted: 04-Dec-2007 at 13:03
|
thanks for the feed back ------------- Joe |
Posted By: joeamonroe
Date Posted: 04-Dec-2007 at 13:14
|
I had a few ideas and wanted some feed back and direction to better understand faith, religion and history. I was unable to find that with my friends so I sort out a way to post some thoughts and get feed back in a way that would make me a better person. These are only ideas or feelings I have had and wanted to explore whether or not what I thought was really true and how to go about finding the truth or close to it. thanks again for your response and I will do a better job to make things clear the next time around ------------- Joe |
Posted By: longshanks31
Date Posted: 04-Dec-2007 at 13:21
|
a pinch of salt is required ------------- long live the king of bhutan |
Posted By: Brian J Checco
Date Posted: 04-Dec-2007 at 17:45
I wouldn't go stating that as fact, there's still plenty of debate surrounding that issue. Cheers to Janus; that critique masterful, sir. I also heartily agree with Longshanks, however. In order to be an objective Biblical scholar, the Book must be taken with a grain of salt. When people start distributing a basket of bread and anchovies and are able to feed 500 people, the reader ought to suspect something fisky is going on with the "history" presented therein. That said, there are some wonderful books on Biblical history out there. I'd also like to point out to Janus that the Hebrews had not thoroughly adopted Monotheism by the time of Moses; why in the whole Old Testament do the Israelites keep getting punished by God for their pagan and Canaanite beliefs if they are such "Monotheists?" Kudos as per Akhenaten, by the way. |
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 04-Dec-2007 at 18:07
|
Aye, that there is. I was presenting an argument, which I feel is factual, but you are correct in noting that there is debate. I believe that the preponderance of evidence indicates that the epistles were directly written by contemporary authors, and that the Gospels, if not written by the authors, themselves, were collections redacted shortly after their deaths. There are other, quite erudite scholars, however, who would put the authorship much, much later.
I'll let Janus answer the questions regarding punishments for syncretism in the Old Testament.
-Akolouthos
|
Posted By: jdalton
Date Posted: 04-Dec-2007 at 18:53
|
I don't know why anyone would be surprised that the Egyptians in Moses' time don't come off looking very good. From the Bible's perspective, they have the wrong religion. The Bible is a religious text and an exponent of monotheism. Thus its monotheism is regularly put in contrast to competing religious groups within Judaism/Christianity and without. The Egyptians suffer plagues designed to belittle specific characters in their pantheon (example: the plague of darkness undermines the power of Ra, sun god). The Philistines are in an almost constant state of war with Israel. The Jews in captivity in Babylon find ways to show up Babylonian "idolatry." Alexander the Great is remarkably similar to descriptions of the Antichrist. The Romans go ahead and execute the Son of God simply to maintain their authority over the corrupt Jewish puppet state. Ironically it's the Jews themselves who get it the worst- every time a Biblical personage turns away from God something bad seems to happen to them. The Bible is religion-centric, not race-centric.
------------- http://www.jonathondalton.com/mycomics.html - Lords of Death and Life (a Mesoamerican webcomic) |
Posted By: JanusRook
Date Posted: 05-Dec-2007 at 07:23
Hopefully we helped you out a bit joeamonroe. None of us were saying you were plagiarizing it's just when you list theories that haven't gained mainstream acceptance and don't list where you got them from anyone can come across as a bit of a crackpot.
Yes, but they were under no Monotheistic restrictions until Moses. The Covenant with Abraham was that Abraham and his family would hold God above all other gods. It was not until Moses that the Lord said "You shall not have any other gods before me." Meaning that the Israelites kept being punished for refusing to obey this commandments. Also keep in mind that the Hebrews weren't all "one" people at the time of the Exodus. They were an amalgamation of many different semitic peoples who traced their descent through Abraham. Thus they each had different cultures that were slowly uniting into a Israelite identity. ------------- Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative. Unless otherwise noted source is wiki. |
Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 05-Dec-2007 at 10:07
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/03/news/moses.php#end_main - http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/03/news/moses.php#end_main ------------- Light blue touch paper and stand well back http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
Posted By: joeamonroe
Date Posted: 05-Dec-2007 at 15:28
|
I have always felt like the bible told two stories. Such as man has bent the truth to fit his need (Lust for power) for example: Genesis 1:27 27 So God created man in his own image, Genesis 2:18 18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." In the first book of the bible we are taught that man is made first them women come from him, but as you can read for yourself in the bible it says he made both at the same time not one before the other. This plays into men dominating women and treating them as second class people, why would GOD do that *how could GOD create everything and forget to make man a mate when he didn’t forget for everything else on earth Finally this statement helps to explain how our heritage was taken and why the truth can never come out Certainly, all white men, whether professing Christians or not should welcome the success of missionary efforts in By Professor J. Desmond Clark on the origin and development of man in
------------- Joe |
Posted By: Brian J Checco
Date Posted: 05-Dec-2007 at 16:56
This statement from the Commandments has always intrigued. By implication, he could be stating that, "Yes, there are other Gods, but I'm head-honcho for Israel; forget those other guys." Therein, the implication is that God is just one of many Gods inhabiting the Celestial regions; it does not necessarily imply Monotheism, which is not only the belief IN one God, but the belief that there IS only one God. The Commandment does not lend itself well to the Monotheistic case. That said, there are many Monotheism references in later elements of the Old Testament, but that statement in particular always caught my eye. |
Posted By: Brian J Checco
Date Posted: 05-Dec-2007 at 17:01
I'd agree, joe. Europeans have had some very distressing intellectual positions in regards to Africa and its inhabitants. That being said, so has the Arab world, which had practiced slavery in Africa for about a full millennium before the European slave trade became active. Africa has had a very hard time determining its own future for a very long time, and its history has largely been lost or glossed over in the face of ethno-centric monocultures. That said, the proponents of Afro-centrist theories tend to be going about reclaiming African history in the wrong way. Stooping to the academic level of 19th century European racist historians is a bit of a step backwards... Cheers |
Posted By: joeamonroe
Date Posted: 05-Dec-2007 at 21:09
|
I agree but the thing that hurts the most is that African Americans refuse not all to see the truth right in front of their eyes. Even with all the information out there we still walk around with our eyes close. Truthfully I don't blame white people. I blame us for getting fat and lazy after Martin Luther King Jr. pass and this doesn't mean everyone but I can say my parents and family didn't me my history like I'm teaching my son ------------- Joe |
Posted By: Decebal
Date Posted: 05-Dec-2007 at 21:46
|
To learn history and teach it to your children is very commendable. That being said, one trap that is very easy to fall into is to listen to unfounded claims and extremist viewpoints and base your knowledge on that. I have talked on this forum with countless nationalists, Euro-centrics, Afro-Centrics, Sino-centrics, you name it, and in the end their arguments are not only established on very shoddy foundations, but they become extremist. In the case of people who read Afro-centric works, and who start debating very controversial notions such as the Egyptians and Jesus being black, I always counsel them instead to focus instead on the wonderful and undisputed achievements of the African civilizations. That includes of course Egypt, but also Nubia, Axum, Ghana, Mali, Songhay, Kanem-Bornu, Monomotapa and many others.
It is time that African Americans rediscover the achievements of their ancestors, instead of focusing on how these achievements were portrayed by white racist scholars, or of trying to appropriate the achievements of others. ------------- 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: pekau
Date Posted: 06-Dec-2007 at 00:34
At least tequila is tasty.
Superb critique to Janus, by the way. ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi"> 
Join us. |
Posted By: joeamonroe
Date Posted: 06-Dec-2007 at 17:16
|
the problem I've found is that most of us love money and not each other anymore. I had a conversation with a young lady in which I tried to press apon her to see how her views impact others as well even if they don't believe what you do. Your right many have become so convicted in their views they can't see how they have become extremist as well. My view is that we all love the same GOD but we go about it in different way. I spent over 5 years in various countries due to my military service and the one thing I took from that is a love for others culture and way of life. I think we all have the answer if we take the time to listen with a open heart and mind. Whether Jesus is black or white or anything else the one thing he did do was love everyone no matter what ------------- Joe |
Posted By: joeamonroe
Date Posted: 06-Dec-2007 at 20:58
|
First ask yourself why African history has been hidden to the world in most schools around the world and Greek history has been made to be the beginning. Then you need to look inside to see if the slave trade of Africans has screwed your perception to the point when you read African literature written by African’s can you effectively agree on an unbiased stand point. Finally Africans have contributed so much to all civilization to the point that if you removed us from the face of the earth most knowledge would leave with us ------------- Joe |
Posted By: JanusRook
Date Posted: 08-Dec-2007 at 01:44
The thing is is that Greek history has been seen as part of the succession to the modern era Greek>Roman>French>British>American whereas African history has mainly been relegated to the Ancient Egyptians in our school system, because Africa has not contributed nearly as much to our culture as those other groups (not to say they haven't contributed at all, just not as much as the Greeks for instance).
Well I'd say fathering the Human race removing Africans would remove humanity  . However I'd disagree with that culturally as East Asia lived effectively outside of the Influence of the Western world. So China would still have lost little if Africans disappeared from history. I do agree though without Africa's contributions to history the world would be less than what it is today, but the same can be said about any culture really.------------- Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative. Unless otherwise noted source is wiki. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 08-Dec-2007 at 03:17
|
The fact is, Greek history is central to understanding the development of the world.
Greeks contributed to the West with the following:
(1) The system of writing.
(2) Method of phylosophy.
(3) Axiomatic geometry (Greek invention)
(4) Abstract science (Greek invention)
(5) Pneumatics, Hydraulic, Pumps, Differential gears and thousand of other parts and pieces that are in the foundation of mechanics.
(6) First mechanical and mathematical model, and predictive as well, of the movement of the planets.
(7) The Iliad, Odyssey and most of the Classic works of the Western Civilization, and the oldest theatre recorded, are Greek.
(8) Diagnostic and the origins of rational medicine.
(9) Democracy
(10) Basic aestetics and principles of architecture.
(11) Hidrostatics, the first chapter of mathematical physics.
(12) The first studies of integral and differential calculus by Archimedes
(13) The first study of the conics by Appolonious.
(14) The first analitical study of Grammar
And that's only the beginning of a list that has several hundreds of entries, were the Greeks lead the world.
The fact is people admires Greece because its merits, not its color of skin.
------------- |
Posted By: jdalton
Date Posted: 08-Dec-2007 at 21:40
True, but, there are also many people who will DEvalue the merits of anyone whose skin is not the same colour as the Greeks. As regards education systems: it is natural to include much on Greek and Roman and Western European history into the education of a member of a Western culture (the US, for example). The Greek>Roman>British>American chain of cultural influences is not imaginary. Though really it should go Mesopotamian>Greek>Roman>British>American. The real problem comes when some people, and I include many educators in this, assume that that's the only chain of influence that matters. Ethnically many Americans have entered this chain from other parts of the world (including Africa), there have been many many cross-pollenizations into this chain from outside it, and perhaps most importantly, ignoring the history of any country other than Greece, Italy, Britain, and the US will lead to a worldview profoundly skewed and even potentially dangerous in a rapidly shrinking world. Did you know that the English curriculum includes at least one unit on West African history as required material? I don't know if all teachers in England actually teach about it, but they're supposed to. Canada has no such requirement. I don't know if the U.S. does. It ought to. ------------- http://www.jonathondalton.com/mycomics.html - Lords of Death and Life (a Mesoamerican webcomic) |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 08-Dec-2007 at 22:16
|
Well, how many units of Amerindian history includes the United States curriculum? How many about history of South East Asia? How many about Islamic culture? Or China? (Notice I am not asking about Hispanic culture at all There is two matters going on here going on. One is the historical importance of Greeks that is undeniable. And the second is the lack of knowledge of the people of the Anglo Saxon world about the world at large. Agree that you have to include the history of other places of the world as well, but why to put the strenght only in Africa? I believe it would be a lot more practical to teach the history of all the tribal people around the world, and of all the non-western civilizations as well. That would really show the full picture of mankind to students.
Pushing African studies against Europeans in the curriculum, just as a social justice cause, won't make the trick, and could backfire, as it has already happened in some places.
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2007 at 07:32
|
History is taught insofar as it affects the target audience. With scant regard to anything else. In school I was taught everything about the Greeks and Romans distant civilsations, since they have a direct bearing on my country, the Greeks ruled here for many centuries, there capital is now our capital, Roman law influenced the laws of my country, be they via the British Law or via Islamic law. While we hear scant little about say Chinese history, despite the fact we share a land border with them. Reason Chinese interaction was not as importanat. Perhaps one hundred years from now it will be different. In Bertrand Russels, "A History of Western Philiosphy", he has a whole section on Islamic/Arab/Persian philiosphy. Not because he was being politically correct, but since these civilisations being next to the western ones, have influenced and have been influenced by the west. On the other hand he wrote next to nothing about the "orient". Not because he thought it was inferior (he found it fascinating) but because it was not stricty relevent. ------------- |
Posted By: joeamonroe
Date Posted: 10-Dec-2007 at 12:31
|
the one thing you fail to say is that the greeks where educated in African "EGYPT" for some reason everyone seems to forget to add this part. Also African predates Greece------------- Joe |
Posted By: joeamonroe
Date Posted: 10-Dec-2007 at 12:40
|
The miseducation of the NEGRO by Carter G Woodson good book to read if you haven't. My issue now as I educate myself on my heritage (Africa) I’m disappointed that blacks in Finally the churches are more concerned as they say with saving souls in death then they are while we are alive ------------- Joe |
Posted By: joeamonroe
Date Posted: 10-Dec-2007 at 13:15
|
While your right, we need to know everyone's history but first we need to let the world know how important Africans have been to the world and our history didn't start during or after slavery. ------------- Joe |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10-Dec-2007 at 13:37
Greeks not only studied in Egypt, a country they respected a lot, but also in Babilon. Besides, they had as teachers nothing less than the famous Phoenicians, and theirs heritage go deep into Crete cilivization as well ... All of them predate Greece. No African monopoly on here. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10-Dec-2007 at 13:38
The world already know the relative importance of Africans before the times of slavery. The world also know that Africa is a huge continent, and that not all the regions had the same level of development.
That's nothing new under the sun for people that knows world history. ------------- |
Posted By: joeamonroe
Date Posted: 10-Dec-2007 at 16:04
|
So your telling me that in your country they give Africans their just credit for what they have given to the world that the greeks claim they came up with or is it just a phrase saying they took classes in African lets move on next subject ------------- Joe |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10-Dec-2007 at 16:17
As I say before, in my country we give the RIGHT credit to each people in the world according to theirs merits, and also theirs relation to us.
Nobody is forgotten, but nobody is overstimated either.
By the way, do you have any proof that Greeks didn't invented:
Axiomatic geometry,
The first theaters,
The first differential gears,
The western (Greek) alphabet,
The first chapter in physics (hydrostatics, Archimedes),
Differential and integral calculus,
A mathematical model of the universe (Ptolmey),
The roots of classical literature (Illiad, Odyssey),
Rational phylosophy (Jonia)
Musical arithmetic theory,
The trirremes,
Concave mirrors,
The steam machine,
....
If you got proofs they just copied those matters on other, let me know.
That would be an amazing scientific discovery
 ------------- |
Posted By: Brian J Checco
Date Posted: 10-Dec-2007 at 16:50
| I agree with Joe on many major points. African history is largely ignored in Western curriculum. It is indeed a vibrant and wonderful history, and made many accomplishments. But to claim that the Greeks were just copying the Egyptians implies that the Greeks were not responsible for their own significant cultural developments, which is just not true. While there was a lot of cultural diffusion between the Mediterranean, the Near East and North Africa at this time, these cultures all developed their own individual 'personalities' and while inter-related, were also largely independent of one another. For example, Egypt was a land ruled by God-Kings, with no proto-democratic slants whatsoever, yet in Greece, kings were cast-out in favor of oligarchies, aristocracies, and democratic systems of government. |
Posted By: jdalton
Date Posted: 11-Dec-2007 at 02:25
Some. Not enough.
Did I say anyone should do that? I didn't. This is the African history forum, I was pointing out a lack of education on this subject. Of course there are other subjects not given their due.
This is not the first time you have accused me of some nefarious "social justice cause." I only want what any reasonable historian should want, a fair and balanced view of history. Look at the posts in the AE forum. Europe and Asia and the Americas receive many posts each day sparking debate on specific nations or cultures or events in history. Given the choice I would not take any of those away (well, apart from the flame wars maybe). But all anyone in the African forum seems to want to discuss is "should we bother knowing anything about Africa?" I don't blame AE. I blame the education system. ------------- http://www.jonathondalton.com/mycomics.html - Lords of Death and Life (a Mesoamerican webcomic) |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 11-Dec-2007 at 02:34
|
Well, if you want to discuss African matters, go ahead,
Put posts about the sculptures of Ife, the Wall of Eredo, the religious traditions of SS Africa, on Zimbabwe, on Madagascar, on the African Kingdom, on the development of Iron in Africa, on the Zulu battles against the British Empire, on the African arts and cubism, on the oral traditions of Africa, etc.
Go ahead, design those post and let's discuss them. I bet many people will be interested in those matters if expossed correctly.
I don't do, just because it cost me a lot of effort to keep alive the history of the Americas section. Otherwise it would have as few visits as this part or the South East Asia and the Pacific part of the forum.
Go ahead, do it, and preach with the example.
Good luck and I follow you.
Omar Vega ------------- |
Posted By: Brian J Checco
Date Posted: 11-Dec-2007 at 02:43
| I'd also like to see more stuff in here. I regret to say that I know almost nothing about African history. Spread some knowledge, folks! |
Posted By: joeamonroe
Date Posted: 11-Dec-2007 at 13:48
|
My fustration comes more from American culture then international. I also am fustrated at Black Amercian for getting fat and lazy. So I has a black american put the blame on us for not taking care of us in the end ------------- Joe |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 11-Dec-2007 at 13:58
No fustration is allowed in this site. If you want to earn respect do the homework!
How?
Post well researched posts of topics people could be interested. For example, who won't be interested in the origins of the blues and rock music? Or in the Uncle Remus tales and its links with African religion? Or thousand of other topics that you know
Look for topics that are universal and attrack everybody, and people will come.
You can put well researched articles, too in the seccion of articles. (The only condition is that you cite good sources and not pseudo-historians everybody knows)
It is up to you to change the world... or at least this forum
------------- |
Posted By: Maharbbal
Date Posted: 11-Dec-2007 at 14:53
Blame blame blame blame. Why should you blame anyone? First of all, Egypt is not more the Afro-American's history than mine. Stop for a second and look at realities. One has a limited time in school devoted to history so she should concentrate on what is the most relevant (i.e. closer). Chinese learn Chinese history and Egyptians Egyptian history, nothing else or hardly. Sometimes it appears useful to teach a few other stuff, for instance if a strong minority of the population comes from another place in the world and recently migrated. For instance, learning Indian history in England or Northern African history in France could be a sensible idea. This idea applied to the US would lead US schools to teach about China, Korea, Italy, Germany, and (in respect of the African Americans) Mozambique, Ghana, Angola, etc. Egypt comes last. The Egyptian population in the US is next to 0% so why bother? The reason African Americans today don't care about Egypt is because it is too far away. Teach it to those who care but don't bother the others with that the same way as me (as a son of Ukrainians migrants I don't give a damn about Ukrainian history). Despite what some try to make us think, African Americans are human and as such "their" story is the story of humanity. No invention belongs to any civilization, no man comes from any civilization. One has no pride to take from descending from a civilization that created complex temples, the same way as you'd have no pride to take from your brother passing an exam. The fact he did says nothing about you. So my (humble) advise to you is to stop teaching your kids the history of Africa (which anyway, although very interesting is one of the most complex one) and instruct them in Swedish history, Japanese history and Brazilian history from all periods. Even better, stop thinking in terms of nations or continents or race and teach them the history of economics, demography, agriculture, urban history and such things. Like that you'll be able to draw parallels between what makes a city work in Zimbabwe, California and Ancient Rome. I beg you, don't teach your children division in countries or races, don't teach them nationalism, jingoism and racism. Teach them that all humans work the same way and that the fact that this invention came from Africa have little interest, what matters is how the man who invented it came to that brilliant idea. As a Christian, you should understand the value of unity. We are one flock, ain't we? And the color of the sheep and their origin does not matter. ------------- I am a free donkey! |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 11-Dec-2007 at 15:23
|
Well, I agree with that advice but only in part. In a global society people need to undestand the others, and that's a good attitude. However, people also need an identity, and that's important. But the identity for being worth has to be honest and to honour our real ancestors. I would suggest that Black Americans be proud of theirs heritage in the United States itself, which is amazing by itself. For instance, not many people in the world had produced such extraordinary musicians like Black Americans. In short, evereone should research its own real past, of the people in the land they live. The threasures are there, close to home. Not really overseas. My oppinion ------------- |
Posted By: Brian J Checco
Date Posted: 11-Dec-2007 at 17:57
|
True, but to exclusively focus on your own culture while ignoring the history and significance of others is just Euro-centrism in reverse; this seems to me to be counter-productive. Unfortunately, not every one in the world is a history major, or has the free time to become a well-researched amateur historian. So how do people then learn about other cultures in an un-biased way, especially in a widely diverse country like the United States? After all, there are only 12 years in the American Public School system, and only 10 years are mandatory. So how do you find the time to fit in the history of every single ethnic minority in the United States, on top of the history of Western Civilization, beginning with Egypt and going through Greece, Rome, the Renaissance, British Empire, American Revolution, etc.? Not only that, but the Hispanic population in America is larger than the African American, according to the 2000 census; African Americans number at around 35 million people, making up 12% of the population, while Hispanics number around 41.9 million, making up 14.5% of the total American population. By these statistics, it seems that the real offense in the Public school systems is not teaching Latin American history, as opposed to African History, seeing as how, from a certain logical standpoint, the highest obligation would seem to be owed to the largest part of the population who finds it's history under-represented! Now, of course, that "certain logic" does not seem to be correct, especially in light of the act that since public schools became mandatory in the early 19-teens, African American history has not been taught, while the Hispanics, as relative newcomers in the tides of American immigration have only been ignored by the educational system for a total of 25-30 years or so. So maybe the obligation of the Educational system then falls back to African history, by way of seniority? This all can get muddled up very quickly. How does one determine which histories are relevant, and which one's are not, when there is only so much time with which to teach America's children? Would African American scholars be happy with just having enough to gloss over African History (say, a semester or so), with Latin American history also getting a semester? What about other major Ethnic groups, like Asian Americans, with a population of 12.5 million in 2000? Or Native Americans, who surely deserve a whole year, if this is being decided on the seniority system... It seems almost impossible to cram all of these histories into a 12 year curriculum, especially when serious study of subjects doesn't really begin until the 9th year of school, leaving only 4 years to really cover the history of the entire world, since almost every continent is represented by a large amount of the population in America. It almost seems as though the current system has no real options but to stay the way it is, with individuals who find themselves interested in history responsible for educating themselves in their culture's history. I'm Irish and Italian; in America's educational system, Italy gets no mention after the Roman Empire (just as Africa gets little mention after Egypt's heyday), except in art class when it comes to the Italian Renaissance masters; Irish history is mentioned not at all. A substantial chunk of America's "white" population is Irish (the massive Irish migrations of the 1800's and early 1900's), and another substantial chunk is Italian (from the Southeastern European exodus of the 1910's-1940's), yet they get little mention. Neither do Poles, Hungarians, Russians (except for the history of the Cold War), Germans (oh, they get mentioned, but are certainly not portrayed well in American History...), etc. So one cannot even rightly make the claim that American History is Euro-centric... It is Anglo-centric. What, then, is to be done? |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 12-Dec-2007 at 02:01
No need to teach Latin American history in the U.S.. That's our business. Of course, if there is curiosity is fine, but it shouldn't be mandatory.
What should be is to teach kids the presence of Hispanics in the history of the United States. That's a lot more important for your country, I guess.
That's false. Let me remember that Hispanics have lived in the U.S. long time before the first "white" (WASP) arrived there, and a long before they started to introduce Africans to that country. There were Hispanics both in California and Florida.
Native Americans have 99% of the time human being have lived in the U.S.
Of course you should start to teach U.S. history for them, and put in perspective events like the comming of the Europeans or the landing of the Mayflower.
Well, be more realistic-centric.
If you are going to teach the history of cowboys, for example, be kind enough to tell kids Mexicans charros teach them the trade
. A little bit of generosity won't harm national pride.------------- |
Posted By: joeamonroe
Date Posted: 12-Dec-2007 at 15:52
|
If you were born in your own country then its easy for you to misunderstand my point. As a Black Amercian I have been forced to learn little about my culture and a lot about everyone else's. while this may not be true in your country its true in Amercian. I'm not blaming anyone but us Black Americans for not teaching us our history. So I'm taking the time to learn and teach as many people who want to listen. We are so much more then Martin Luther King while he was a great man we have a lot and yes Mr. King learned from Gandhi his nonvoilent approach to solving problems. Its not about you getting it, its about us knowing who we are ------------- Joe |
Posted By: Brian J Checco
Date Posted: 12-Dec-2007 at 16:08
|
That makes sense, and I agree that the African American community does ave a responsibility to educate itself about its history if no one else will, but I view part of the problem as being that no one else will. I think the opportunity to learn African history should be out there for everyone; it shouldn't be exclusively a "black" thing. Part of the problem with Afro-centrist teachings is that it makes African history seem undesirable and unpleasant to those not of African descent. I had a professor once with some serious Afro-centrist leanings, and being one of the few white people in the class, had numerous faults and atrocities committed by people hundreds of years dead placed firmly on my shoulders. It was awful; the professor would be lecturing about the horrors of slavery, ad looking squarely at me, as would every single other African American student in the class, as if, at some point just a few weeks back, I had been beating my slaves! Not to mention the fact that she claimed that my culture could not have existed without certain developments instated in SubSaharn Africa, which is just not true. Regardless of whether or not this is PC, not many developments in Europe and the Near East had their roots in Sub Saharan Africa. Many of the positions that were presented were vitriol-filled, and had shaky historical-basis as well. The archaeological evidence, amongst other necessary evidence, just seemed to be lacking. That class so soured my experience that I was put off of African history for quite some time, until some of my good friends in the Black Student Union encouraged me to give it another shot on my own, if I was having difficulty with some professors. I've found Africa has a vibrant, expansive history, and I look forward to experiencing more of it; but the Afro-centrist stuff I still think I can do without. |
Posted By: Maharbbal
Date Posted: 12-Dec-2007 at 17:22
|
I agree with Brian. There is nothing worth than professors too involved with their subjects (or students for that matter). "Community" is not a subsidiary for brain. @ joe When learning about USSR you'd not want to have a hard core stalinist as a teacher, isn't it? You wouldn't want to have a professor saying: I'm interested in Soviet history because I am communist myself. Thus having an African American teaching African American because he is African American is wrong. Now I'm not saying African American should not teach African American, I just mean they should be interested in that community's history because, say, they want to understand issues related with housing, culture, work force, what's not. Now you'll tell me that in many unis an Indian professor teaches Indian history , a French one will teach French history. But that simply reflects a cultural and linguistic advantage. All Americans speak African American. In the US I am shocked by the kind of happy apartheid going on. Blacks stick around with each others and whites marry whites. If Blacks go on learning Black history it won't help. Ultimately it only increases the gap between communities and fuels a racially vision of society. Ultimately this African American history for African American is a very little America way of thinking. The same way as gender studies, chicano studies and gay studies are a total loss of time, african american history is (in my view a nonsense). There is history tackling the topics of slavery, social issue from 1860 to 1960 and so on. Taking a community point of view breaks the unity of knowledge and usually leads to nonsensical ideas. Now there are two other issues. Slaves were brought from highly different places in Africa. As a result which African American can say, "my roots are in Sierra Leone". The other issue is the fact that such a thing as African history does not exist (before colonisation that is). To have an history you need a unity. In the case of Africa the unity is whether non-human (all people living South of the Sahara) or a posteriori (countries now called Africa). Just consider Europe before 1400. There was next to now traffic between the different points and thus no common history. The same happened in Africa at an even worst level because of the much greater distances and the lack of coast line. There was no exchange between say Mali and Angola during the 15th century. So talking about pre-colonial African history is non-scientific. African American interested in African history are making a gross mistake. They should be interested in African histories. Teach those you teach the history of Mali, Congo, Eastern Africa, the islamic expansion. That is not to say that cross-country studies are useless but at the end of the day it does not make more sense to compare the early Zoulou empire with the peul kingdom than with Ming China. Often one mistakes history and memory. Memory is personal, many things can fuel it (novels, pictures, voyages and but not only historical research) but it should not be used as if it was objective. History is strictly a social science and can only be used to build up political points. Mixing both leads to the type of situation Brian endured. ------------- I am a free donkey! |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 12-Dec-2007 at 18:15
|
Agree...
The only worthly culture is that which is there for anyone to read, regardless of the ethnic or racial background of the student.
Otherwise me, like westerner, had never got fascinated with the history of China, the voyages of the Polynesians or the teachins of Budha.
------------- |
Posted By: JanusRook
Date Posted: 13-Dec-2007 at 06:18
To be fair we are all allowed to be frustrated, as I mod I can tell you it happens a lot.  However pinguin is right if you want to earn respect you must post reliable information to help others learn about the topics that interest you and hopefully you'll either spark an interest in someone else or someone who shares your interest will join in dialogue with you.
To be fair the American school system did very little to teach about German (my personal) history prior to the Second Reich. In fact if you really look at it, American history is very Anglo-centric. Which makes sense considering we speak English and began as an English colony. And that for the most part English historical literature of the nineteenth century was the basis for all of America's early history classes. And thanks to political correctness in many history books every chapter you'll find a page dedicated to the history of a "minority group" of that period. However unlike non-white minorities "white" culture is apparently homogeneous and uniform and is a unified culture. So we never get to see Irish or German or Italian "blurbs" in our textbooks. It's a little pet peeve of mine and stinks of reverse-racism.
I believe that it is the responsibility of every family to teach their children about the families own personal history including their cultural identity. That a way they learn to be proud of their own history.
You think that's bad try taking a college Women's History course, it's almost enough to make you gay
This actually is a valid point about the "ingrained cultural self-segregation" of the different minority groups of America. joeamonroe (and any other black forum members), if you had a White professor teaching Black and African history would you give him as much credit as a Black professor or would you think he'd be lacking because he wouldn't have the "black experience"? ------------- Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative. Unless otherwise noted source is wiki. |
Posted By: Brian J Checco
Date Posted: 13-Dec-2007 at 16:52
| Some very good points, Janus; but can't we empathize with joe's frustrations? While some steps are being taken to open up the educational system, it was such a taboo subject for such a long time, and one that still doesn't get all that much air-time. It's a frustration that's come from a century of neglect. |
Posted By: Maharbbal
Date Posted: 13-Dec-2007 at 18:12
|
Brian you have a point. Americans of German descent may feel frustrated with the way German history is taught, but that's it. African American understandably see it as yet another infringement on the republican ideal along with slavery, poverty, &c. But here is another problem: text books space is a very scarce resource, how should it be allocated? To the one community who suffered the most? That would turn the debate into a native-black-Asian-chicano war race. There would be a vain concurrence over who suffered the most. In France this issue between mostly Jewish and African people is know as memorial competition. So my point is: yes one ought to understand the African Americans' frustration but one shouldn't act upon it. Or precisely, one should crave to avoid this type of issues to arise again. I can only repeat what I said earlier: stop considering that humans are some trees with any kind of roots or that they are different spices within mankind. I'd say if one wants to explore the challenges African Americans faced in their history a study of slavery through the ages, of world trade in the Early modern period and of poverty in the 20th century would be more indicated. African Americans are not an exception. Their lives and the issues they faced resemble those other faced. ------------- I am a free donkey! |
Posted By: joeamonroe
Date Posted: 13-Dec-2007 at 18:57
|
Thanks again for all the great responses. While its great to learn about as many cultures as possible I thinks its important to first learn your own. The one part most individuals fail to realize is that we wasn’t aloud to learn our history in the states and when we were aloud we learned it from Whites. I also agree that its nothing worst then having an extremist teacher but as a student you have to first walk a mile in that individuals shoes before you judge them. Example most people are taught that blacks are the biggest benefactors of welfare, but if we do the research more whites’ woman have benefited then any race of people. This is the history we are faced with on a daily basis trying to fight the lies. Lastly blacks are sentence to jail time for crack 10 to 1 and whites for the same and powder are given drug treatment programs. This is the history we get on a daily basis not The tea that’s used for golf was invented by a black man.
------------- Joe |
Posted By: Brian J Checco
Date Posted: 13-Dec-2007 at 19:59
|
There definitely are skewed statistics when it comes to American race-relations. For example, there are far more whites living below the poverty line than African Americans; but then again, that's because whites comprise the vastly overwhelming majority population of America. There are definitely discrepancies in the legal system, racial profiling, police harassment, etc. Prt of the problem, however, does not lie with a corrupt system, but with the prejudices of individuals within the system. For example, no police chief gives the order to "harass the darkies" (for the most part, the South excepted), yet individual officers will sometimes go out of their way to run the tags of cars driven by African Americans, pull over African Americans while they're walking, etc. This phenomena, however, is the case in any community where there are high crime rates/ poverty (which seem to be synonymous). Plenty of young white males get ensnared within the legal system as well; the less education and wealth a person possesses, statistically the more likely they are to commit 'blue collar' crime- and the amount of white men in this country with little education and money is astronomical. 67 million Americans are functionally illiterate (i.e. can't read past a fourth grade level), and the vast majority of that population is white, from the Midwest or the South. Interestingly, the overall literacy rate is higher among African-Americans than in any other ethnic group in America besides Middle Easterners and West Asians(including Pakistanis, Iranis, and Indians). However, proportionally, the poverty ratio among African-Americans is the highest per person of any ethnic group; as it is well-known that it is socio-economics, NOT race or ethnicity, that dictates the crime rates of a given area, statistically more crimes happen in African American communities. This statistic however may not be totally accurate, given that the probability of a Black being caught for a crime (committed by them or not), and a white (who often have the system behind them) are far different. The institutionalized racism of the past is largely over (though the Jena Six trial may shed further light on that subject), but the subjective and individual prejudices will live on as long as humanity occupies the planet. As per the teacher, and the accusation that one black student that I was guilty by association for slavery, I calmly informed her that my maternal greatgrandfather, and Irishman, came over in the 1920's from County Kildare, long after slavery had been abolished in America, and that my paternal greatgrandfather and his family came over from Calabria, Italy in 1908; again long after slavery had been abolished. This did little to clear my case in the class; every time the injustices of whites against blacks was brought up, people seemed to look right at me. Heaven forbid that the Irish were held to be "worse than n*ggers" [The Irish in America, Michael Coffey], or that the Italians were also routinely persecuted (Sacco & Vanzetti, the New Orleans Lynching of 1909, etc)... tarred with guilt for the color of my skin. It just goes to show that prejudices can go both ways, man. |
Posted By: Maharbbal
Date Posted: 14-Dec-2007 at 00:13
|
Brian one point I don't exactly agree with you on. I don't believe that the system is OK and only a few officers rotten to the core. I know how dull and unrealistic it may sound but I reckon nothing will change before America changes its way of seeing the world and itself. I know it is only loosely related with what we were talking about but here is what happened to me during my last trip to the US. First I learned that I was not a foreign citizen but a non-citizen which is always very pleasant. Then, as I wanted to register for a course, I was ask to describe my race. I answered I did not wanted to. The official told me that I had to otherwise the computer would not process my form. I thus ticked the African box which is technically correct as my mother is from Algeria. The official looked at me and answer it was not funny. I finally had to ask to see her superior to be allowed not to answer that question. A bit of color blindness is surely needed by that system ------------- I am a free donkey! |
Posted By: JanusRook
Date Posted: 14-Dec-2007 at 02:21
I worked with a woman who was born on an American base in Africa, she said she tried doing that once and received the same treatment as you. Personally I always tick the "Other" box as I refuse to be labeled as "White" since I don't believe in notions of race and only believe in Cultural distinctions. ------------- Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative. Unless otherwise noted source is wiki. |
Posted By: beorna
Date Posted: 14-Dec-2007 at 10:21
|
Yesterday I watched 'the closer' in TV. It's from America. They spoke about Germany and they wondered and smiled that you are a German citizen usually by origin. So it is possible that a grandfather, a father and a son are all born in Germany but are not German. What I cannot understand is that in the US you have to give you 'race'. First of all there are no 'races' at all, we are no cattle. But there is also my problem how you can decide who's white or black or yellow. What is happening if a black wife gets children with a white man? Are they white, black, striped? What's with "mixed people". If they get children? I have to think to the Nazi-regime. There were Jews, and half-blooded Jews, and Quarter-blooded Jews and Eights-blooded Jews. Usually there are photographs in a passport, so I think that would be enough to realize what skin colour a man has. I think it is very difficult for Americans to present their history in school. The roots of America lay in England. So the history of the U.S. is originally English and 'white'. So I think you cannot teach only history in school. But when you want to teach the history of each minority you must to. I think it would be necessary to speak much more of the part of the minorities they played in the US history, the immigrants, the slaves from Africa, the chinese railway workers, the black cowboys, the native American genocide. I don't know if you do this. I could imagine that this would be hard for a lot of Wasps. |
Posted By: jdalton
Date Posted: 15-Dec-2007 at 04:38
*sigh* I've done a few times. And I will again I'm sure. The trouble is, I don't know a whole lot about African history either! Not nearly as much as I wish I did at any rate. If I get upset, it's at least in part because I think my education was far too Euro-centric. Sorry. As regards race: "race" exists in the sense that it's not hard to tell apart someone whose ancestors come from Sweden and someone whose ancestors come from the Congo. Race has been grossly misused by politicians and pseudo-scientists in the last few centuries but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I would say though that there is no such thing as "races." There is no definitive list of how many races there are in the world, no clear dividing lines between even the most isolated groups of peoples, and no gene for race. An American, a medieval Arab, a citizen of the British Empire, and an ancient Egyptian would all give you completely different definitions of "black" and "white" because there is no definition. Only groups of inherited physical traits, and largely superficial ones at that, that sometimes travel together. ------------- http://www.jonathondalton.com/mycomics.html - Lords of Death and Life (a Mesoamerican webcomic) |
Posted By: joeamonroe
Date Posted: 18-Dec-2007 at 13:37
|
while everyone's opinion is valid, you have to take yourself out of your own skin and walk in the other persons life to understand their problem. this has truly been a personal journey of mines to understand my place in life as it relates to history, religion, and economics. I have come to realized that they are co-dependent and if used right you can as they say on cartoons take over the world. ------------- Joe |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 19-Dec-2007 at 01:45
|
Joeamonroe has my sympathy; African history is vastly ignored by people in general. I myself knows very little about African histories. Egyptian Empire, Nubia, and Bantu are the only ones I am familiar with, and that's only because they can be played as major power in the game "Rise of Nations". We should try to undersand that history is merely a prospective. We only learn history for our benefits. Education institutions simply do not have time, budget and manpower to change the history textbooks to open up people's interest in histories and cultures of vastly foreign people.
Look at this scenario; most of the education institutions focus on their own national histories first. Once people have firmly good POW towards their own country, they slowly introduce different cultures and histories that are fairly linked and supporting our POW. And when our brain is firm about what's good and bad, we introduce a bit foreign cultures and histories to look as a contrast. We even start to learn about some fairly foreign cultures and histories due to economic relations, for instance. Africa is easily seen as lawless, chaotic and declining continent, something many education institutions use as example when their own countries start to fail politically.
And to be quite honest, majority of people simply don't care. Many of them simply want to pass the course to pursue different goal... and they have plenty of other things they could do rather than arguing who was right or wrong thousands of years ago. People start to learn a bit when such requirement for knowledge is necessary. Americans slowly learn more about the issues in Iraq because something's going terribly wrong in Iraq that's costing a lot of money, human lives and growth of terrorism around the globe.
There's an old saying, ignorance is a bliss. Some people take this seriously. This era demands immense competition in youth population, and many of them decided not to care how the politic and history are written, but to get good education, get a good job, find happy marriage and so forth. It's a major set-back to historians, but that's the reality. ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |