Africa�s Role in World History

Europe was coined by the Greeks, so yes they considered themselves part've Europe, but always Greeks first.

Egypt they considered  Asian.

Originally posted by Maharbbal lol never saw a post so difficult to read in all my time on the forum� One thing is for sure, Americans are funny.

There's a lot of interpersonal history behind that rant. It's nothing you need to worry about. It was personal, very personal and that is why I'm walking away. I have yet to master the art of being diplomatic in the prescence of bold faced bullshit.

Good day.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

...
Do you realize how much you're contradicting yourself? Western civilization, European Civilization, it's the same thing Penguin and everyone knows it.

It is not the way history is teach in my country, at least. Just realize it is very dumb to call European a civilization like Hellenistic Greece that was spread in Asia, or to consider Pythagoras an "European" when his father was Phoenician. What more "Western" than Christianity but the Bible was writen by Jews in the Middle East and translated in Alexandria! And what about the Roman Empire, when the most important part of it was for long time in Turkey.

If you think that Europe=Western Civilization, I am afraid to inform you, you are wrong.

***Wow, you don't read do you? It's not me. That is the way THE WORLD SEES IT PENGUIN. The White world of White textbook maker and Ivy league professors***

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

...
You say you can only speak of peoples and not continental civilizations. Which people are the West people? West of What Penguin? Islamic civilization is paralell? Are you kidding me? Islamic culture sprang up in the area people now call the "MIDDLE EAST" which includes the Fertile Crescent. You're talking all over yourself and going in semantic circles.

Well, I understand you may be blind by the way Anglosaxon schollars see the world. But just realize I come from a country that is linked to Spain, and Spain was a multicultural society of Christians, Jews and Muslims. Perhaps the fault is us, because we don't see Arabs or Persian that much different to ourselves at all.

***ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Are we talking about the same Spain ruled by La Loca Isabela? The Same Spain that inagurated the panish Inquisition? The Same Spain that kicked the Muslims out of Spain and told the Jews CONVERT OR DIES? The Same Spain that persecutes the Gitanos? ARE YOU SERIOUS? You're not serious! ***

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

...
So how can the Fertile Crescent be Western Civilization on second and a Middle EAST civilization the next? You are not making sense.***

If I am not wrong, I said that the West has its roots in the Fertile Crescent. I didn't say that the Fertile Crescent was part of the West. It is not the same.

***HELLOOOO, THAT"S WHAT I SAID TOO. That's the point I was making. Greece is located in Europe, therefore a European civilization no matter what the influences. IT DOES NOT MATTER!***

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

...

***OH BULL FECES! Western Nordics were NOT SAVAGES.

Some where. Never hear the saying "God, save us from the fury of the Vikings". "Never knew about the Norse torture called the 'angel'". Well, they may have not been "savages" but they were Barbarians, according to the definition of the Greeks.

***More bullshit. Who was more Barbaric than the Romans whouse to watch people kill each other by the thousands for entertainment, or the Greeks that would expose their hnady capped young to the elements. So the Vikings killed people. LORD HAVE MERCY, THAT HAD NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE. Ever read the Bilble? Read Leviticus. All peoples everywhere have been guilty of both savegery and sainthood. Singeling out the Vikings is the hight of stupidity and hipocracy.***

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

...
They had their own civilizations and cultures.

Cultures? Yes. Not civilizations. The term civilization is applyied only to large urban societies, not to tribal agricultural societies like the ones of the ancient Gauls and Celts.

***WHATEVER****

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

...
A simpler technology prior to contact with the Mediterranian influences, but they were not running around eating each other any more than Sub-Saharan Africans were.

I am afraid you have an idealized ideas of people. Let me tell you one thing, not only some groups of the Americans and some Polynesians practised cannibalism. The Norse of northern Europe have very bloody human sacrifices practises. Ask some informmed archaeologist and you'll be surprised. And, don't tell me canibbalism was unknown in Subsaharan Africa because it was.

***The Romans also practiced human sacrifice, so did the Phoenicians. What was more bloody than the coloseum. What was more bloody than the lynchings of Afro Americans in the South, What was more bloody and crule than the Witch burnings of Europe, or the Spanish inquisition? I'm not looking at the world or Africa with rose colored glasses. It wasn't some damnd dysneyland. Not even Egypt with all its pyramids was a place I would ever have wanted to live. Same goes for Greece Rome and all the rest.

Ancient Egyptian history has examples of canibalism too. All societies do, but it is the exception rather than the rule. Even if it was common practice among one specific group, it was not a common aspect of any culture in Africa. Suggesting otherwise is just pure rediculous. Maybe your ancestors were swinging from Andean vines, blowing darts and eating each other, but the Bateki, weren't nor were the Yorubas, or the Coramantes, or the Twi, or the Manding, or the Akan who are my ancestors. This statement is just rediculous

Wake up. Humans all over the world were quite brute in ancient times. Don't idealize them, please.

***No shit really?***

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

...
Savage is a very ethnocentric term. I don't accept it for my people and I don't accept it for Europeans either, who ironically, are also my ancestors.

Well, what if I apply the term to the Nazis of WW II? Or to the Mongols that devasted the Middle East and Europe?

***When used in the way that you used it, yes it is. As I said history is full of examples yesterday and today that show our capacity for brutality***.

"Savage" is not ethnocentric, is just a synonim of brutality. Brutality existed all over the world in the past. Right besides some very peaceful tribes you found some very hateful people. If you want to know about it, just ask me the most gruesome details of the history about my ancestors in Spain and the Americas and I'll be glad to wake you up.

***when used out of context to define an entire people it is. The Nazis were guilty of barbaric acts, but that is not to say that I can go to a German and call them Barbarians. Such terms must be used within context. The Nazis commited barbaric acts, the German people as a whole are not barbarians.***

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

...
Now, why I consider your initial statement BULL. The very notion of racial classification was initiated by the Spanish who were the first to colonize the Americas. They are the ones who came up with terms like NEGRO, MULLATO, SAMBO, PARDO, MESTIZO, etc, etc. In other words They came up with hundreds of categories to describe people based on the amount and combination of African blood in an individual.

Wrong. Spaniards were not dumb focus in the African blood. They defined there were three races in the Americas, and not just two like in the U.S. So, those terms just describe the possible combinations among those.

****Penguin go read a book for god's sake or stop opening your eyes in salt water. In Coloumbia alone there were over 100 different castas based on a person's racial composition. The inmortant question which you just don't get is WHY WAS IT NECCESSARY TO CLASSIFY PEOPLE IN THE FIRST PLACE? You know, when I go to Egypt I( see a country full of people of all races and mixtures of races, they all consider themselves EGYPTIAN, PERIOD. CATEGORIZATIONS ARE BULLSHIT, THERE IS AN AGENDA BEHIND THEM WAKE UP!***

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

...
They know a person of African descent when they see one, how come they can't see it when they're looking at North and East Africa?

Spaniard know coastal North Africans are the Moors.
It is quite easy for an Spanish to see if some Moor have Black blood. It is also quite easy for an Spaniard to see when a Black has White Blood.
And what about it? North Africans aren't the same people South of the Sahara. Even more, the Moors of North Africans were the ones that started slave trade. For the Spaniards, at least, they are two different people.

***OF COURSE IT IS BECAUSE THEY WERE THE ONES WHO STARTED THAT WHO CLASSIFICATION OF CASTAS TO BEGIN WITH SO OF COURSE THEY KNOW WHEN THE SEE ALL THOSE NAPPY HEADED EGYPTAINS AND NORTH AFRICANS, THEY KNOW DAMN WELL WHAT THEY ARE LOOKING AT, THAT'S MY POINT! So talikng about them and calling the Caucasians, when they don't have a problem seeing the Africa in a person in Cuba, Puerto Rico or the Domincan Republic no matter how white the skin straight the hair or bule the eyes. Its then rediculous to look at an Egyptian, Moroccan, Algerian, Lybian and call a dark skinned nappy headed man a CAUCASIAN. Oh God save me!***

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

...
The only this Latin American Whites are not guilty of is the terrorism that was inflicted upon Afro Americans. Gringo? Please give me a damn brake! They al recognize each other as WHITE PEOPLE, different cultures, different language, BUT SAME COLOR and that is what they base position in society on, skin color. Everyone knows this, so give this a rest and stop trying to pretend that Latin Americans are not just as guilty as Anglo Americans when it comes to racism. They started it in the first place. Who initiated the African slave trade, SPAIN, who was the first to initiate codes composed of laws restricting the rights of black people and people of African descent SPAIN, who was the last European power to abolish slavery SPAIN! For crying out loud already!***

Did you know that Spain bough theirs slaves to Britain and Portugal?

***WHAT THE HELL DIFFERENCE DOES THAT MAKE THEY WERE STILL ENSLAVED!***

In any case. If you intention is for Latin Americans to hate Spain, I bet you will always fail. Because we are also partially Spaniards.

***NO SHIT! SO AM I, AND ENGLISH, AND FRENCH AND SO WHAT!***

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

...
It's not just "THE GRINGO", it's the mentality shared by all those who believe that the color of their skins are indicative of their superior intelligence and the defacto lack of intelligence of people who are darker in color, or not of pure White European Christian origin. And for the recored, I DON'T ACCEPT IT. I recognize that that is the way that I and people like me are perceived, except when they think I'm an Egyptian, which they often do because of the way I look and my profession. These same numb nuts when they know I'm Jamaican cliam I'm black, when they think I'm Egyptian, or Moroccan, or Saidi or Yemeni, think I'm "WHITISH", CAUCASIAN, NOT BLACK.

Gringo mentality, once again.

***I GET THE SAME THING FROM BOTH SPANIARDS AND LATIN AMERICAS AS WELL SO WHAT?****

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

...
I know what I am. I'm not black, I'm not white, I am by ethnicity a first generation American of Jamaican origin. RAcially, I'm multi-racial of African, European, East Indian and a slight, very slight touch of Taino. I'm Multi-Racial, or a Multi-racial person of African descent and that and a metro card gets me on the subway: BIG FRIGGIN DEAL! It's not my race or naltionality that makes me anything but the hard work of my own two hands and my own mind. So when I point otu the fact that Egypt is African, and the people were and are Multi-racial Africans, I don't do so to glean greatness from them, or to prove that I am part of a MASTER RACE. That's bullshit. I do so to just tell the truth and be able to look at the issue objectively. It is what it is, It is where it is, the people are who they are. I do it to show the hypocracy of these notions of race and history, which people fall down and eat up without question as if it were gospel truth because it flatters their sense of self and their world view. A world view which implicitly puts them and their culture on top of the heap and all others below it. There is no white supremacy, there is not Black supremacy. History is the story of ALL MANKIND, what we are capable of at our greatest and lowest.
The Greatest sicientis in the world are a reflection of what I am capable of if I work to my fullest potential, the most savage criminal is a reflection of what I am capable of if I focus my energy on the lowest, nothing more nothing less.***

If you ask my humble oppinion, you are just another human of this wonderful hemisphere called The Americas. Like 99% of us, and in one way or the other, you are a multi-racial individual. And like most of us, sometimes you wonder about your identity. I read in your writings the same feelings most people in here have: the desire that people forget races and embrace universality. That will come.

***Not as long as people continue to uphold rediculous notions of race and color and continue useing the vocabulary that supports and perpetuates those notions. I don't wonder about my identity, I know exactly who I am. I simply refuse to play this bullshit game that society insists I
do. They can call me whatever they want consider me what they want, I will not support or perpetuate it.****

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

...
�.
And since its was White Europeans who declared that dark skinned people were black, (or any descended from such a person), and that mysterious continent is called Africa, then dark skinned people in Africa must be Black Africans. Therefore Egypt is a civilization on the African continent and since I see dark skinned people running all over Egypt they must be black, 'acuse the same white man tells me that people in his countries who look like tehm are black, hey, I look just like them and he tells me I'm black, even though my skin is really beige. Therefore Egypt is a jewel of Black History....it's just not the only one. Black history is filled with many jewels not only in Africa, but where ever her people have migrated, whether voulentarily or by force.

.

If you ask me, the Jewel of Africa are the mysteries of Subsaharan Africa. Personally, I found the civilization of the mummies pretty boring and even scary. However, I would like to know more about the Bantu expansion and its people.

***All the peoples of Africa are AFRICANS. WHITE BERBERS ARE AFRICANS, BLACK ZULUS ARE AFRICANS, MIXED BLOODED EGYPTIANS ARE AFRICANS AFRICA IS A VAST CONTINENT WITH A VARAIETY OF PEOPLES AND CULTURES AND THAT IS WHAT MAKES IT RICH.***

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

...
Black skin is not a sign that they are incapable of intelligence.

If that is what worries you, that has been proved lots of times. So there is not need to adjust history to prove that.

***Its not a historical adjustment to state obvious facts. If I said that Africans originated Meso American History, that is not only an adjustment but a LIE***

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

...
That is why Egypt and all the other African civilizations are inprtant in this context. The brain washing has to be undone.

Egyptian civilization is the heritage of the people of Egypt. Not of Black of the Western Hemisphere. Sooner or later you will hear Egyptian voices.

****YOU STILL DON'T GET IT****

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

...
The only problem here is when it comes to African civilizations, we have to fight to achnowledge the obvious. If we mention the West African Empire, some numb nuts comes along and says, oh those kingdomes were established by, CAUCASIANS called Berebers.

Well, it is an historical fact that the Moors invaded Black Africa. Tombuktu books were writen in Arab, for instance.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

...
The implicit implication: NEGROS ARE NOT CAPABLE OF ANY ACHIEVEMENT WITHOUT THE INTERVENTION OF SOME WHITE RACE.

You can't distort history to fit needs. Why don't you focus in all the kindoms and achievements done BEFORE the Muslim invasions all over Subsaharan Africa? There are many interesting discoveries in that area. Unfortunatelly, sometimes I think only Europeans know about it. No kidding.

***YOU STILL DON'T GET IT, IT DOESN'T MAtter. NO ONE IS TRYING TO SAY EGYPTIANS ARE WEST AFRICANS. THE LIE IS THAT DARK SKIN IS A SIGN OF LOW INTELLIGENCE. THEREFORE, If i see ANY dark skinned people in Africa who contradict that statement, it show that it is a lie. If I'm an American woman and I'm prevented from running in a marathon becausue I'm a woman and am told that women are too weak to run a marathon, I am being brain washed and lied too. If I see a woman in China, not only running a marathon, but completeing it in record time, then I'm going to shout from the roof tops that what they told me is a lie and hold up a picture of that Chinese woman every chance I get. NOW DO YOU GET IT OR DID THE SALT WATER CLOG YOU EARS TOO?

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

...
Then we look at these "berebers" and see their skins are just as black as a Hershey bar. Well, all your life you've been told that dark skinned people in Africa are BLACK. But now Mr. University professor shows you the thin nose of the skull Oh no, they are White, they are just sun tanned. They are dark skinned white people. Now your mind is spinning because you're skin is as white as butter, yet they tell you you are black, yet tese Africans are black but they tell you they are white. ITS A MIND GAME!

Not really. In Spain, for instance, people know Moors weren't Black people. How? Our literature and even in the language the definition stand. Most coastal Berbers look like Zidane or Omar Kaddafi. The only "Black" Berbers are the Tuareg and groups that established South of the Sahara.

****Senoior, the Berber's they are talking about calling them CAucasians ARE THE FREAKING TUAREGS!***

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

...
You find the remains of sophisticated stone structures in South Africa, which is being ruled by a White European government that denies you access to the very land and resources of your country. Why? because you are infereior, they teach it to you in school, you get the subtle message from the lack of representation of your people in the media etc. Yet when you show evidence that your acestros created something of note, it is deliberately surpressed. It's claimed that they were created, not by your ancestors who have lived in the area for thousands of years, but by Phoenicians, a CUACASIAN people from the FERTILE CRESCENT. It will take years of fighting before you are able to get the ruling elite to admit taht this is in fact a deliberately fabricated lie.

Zimbabwe! That's deserves more study. The Phoenician theory is nuts.

By the way, have you heared about Eredo?

***YOU might consider actually telling me what you want to instaed of asking me a question that goes nowhere.***

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

...�.
So yes, I see how rediculous this all is. And I understand your anger. I'm angry too because this is all male bovine feces. So get angry Penguin, but outraged, be offended, but know where to direct your outrage. Not at us, we so called black people, because we aren't the ones making the rules.

I don't get angry for historical discussion. Just think about me one second, as descendent of two people that killed each other in the more brutish way imaginable. Or just think that in my own life I have to escape from my own country (during the Pinochet dictatorship) in order to progress.

I just can't hate.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

...�.
***Like hell they don't! Tell that to all those Cubans in Miami talking my ears off about how they can't wait for Castro to die so they can go kick the niggers out of their homes.

Those are Americans, not Latinos anymore.

****YOU are Something else. I tell you what, YOU be the one to go to Miami and tell those Cubanos they ain't LAtinos. They were a bunch of segragationist white supremacists before they left Cuba, just like their counterparts in the United Staes Argentina and Mexico and many of them still are today, not all of them, but a great deal of them and there is not a Cubano who doesn't know it. Everybody who comes in contact with that community knows it and so do you.***

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

...�.
***In theory, but not in practice. So what makes your racial pride myth any more valid than the Afro-centric myth? In practice does this hold up? Proud? When was the last time a Latin American country sent a black woman to represent their country in a Miss World contest? The first time it happened it made big news. When was the last time you saw an Africa or Indio face hosting the news in Any Latin American country? I get telemundo here in New York, I see all those Mexican novelas. Only time I see someone that looks like the Mexicans that live arouind me is when she's playing the maid. Wake up papi and smell the Bustelo!***

In practise as well. Why is more valid? Because is inclusive rather than exclusive.

With respect to the Africans respresenting Miss World, ask countries where Africans are majorities and represent theirs countries. Dominican Republic, for instance. In many other countries Africans are minoritary or just simply don't exist.

***BULLSHIT! When was the last time MEXICO was Represented by an INDIA from Puebla? Get real.****

With respect to Amerindians hosting the News, just watch CNN in Spanish. Most of them have Amerindian ancestry; they are Mexicans.

***AN AMERICAN NEWS COMPANY WHERE BECAUSE OF THE WORK OF AFRO AMERICANS THEY ARE NOW REQUIRED TO REPRESENT A DIVERSE POULATION INSTEAD OF DELIBERATELY EXCLUDING PEOPLE NOT OF THE WHITES PHENOL TYPE. WHEN I SEE IT ON TELEMUNDO THEN I'LL BELIEVE IT AND SAY IT'S ABOUT GOD DAMN TIME***

With respect to Whites in TV novelas, they are as representative of Latin American population as the Whites shown on US TV. Even more, Mexico is not even representative of Latin America.


***You know what Penguin, I'm leaving this discussion and this forum for a long time, you know why, because you are a moron and trying to speak logically to you is a waste of precious time. I just had to get all of that off my chest and now that I have, I'm done with it. You are a moron and regardless of what anyone may want to say about me subsequenlty, I think I more than adequately showed what you are about. You need not respond to me because I'm just going to delete the notices in my inbox and stop wasting my time***

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone ... Do you realize how much you're contradicting yourself? Western civilization, European Civilization, it's the same thing Penguin and everyone knows it.

Actually the Pyramid of Hellenikon, Greece is older than the Egyptian ones:



"It must be noted that, according to these results, the Hellenikon pyramid predates, by at least 100 years, the oldest Egyptian pyramid (Djoser - 2620 B.C.) and by 170 years the Great Pyramid of Cheops" (Khufu - 2550 B.C.)


______________________


The Fertile Crescent: the Middle East where the civilizations of the Middle East and the Mediterranean basin began.



http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9034123/Fertile-Crescent



The Egyptians, like the Libyans, are a Berber people are mainly descended from the Capsian people whom migrated to North Africa, or originated there. Its these people which brought in technology and language during the Mesolithic period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capsian_culture



  So if using the Libyans and Garamantians for proof's of "Saharan" civilization, there are certain things which should be noted:

"Wherever or however they live, the Berbers refuse to mate with Negroid lower classes, but human nature being what it is, there evidently has been a certain amount of mixture. In Morocco, the most Caucasoid tribes are those of the Rif and Middle Atlas, in Algeria they are the Kabyles and the Shwia; and in Libya, the sedentary tribesmen of Jebel Nefusa. In certain regions the trickle of mixture with Africans has been balanced by the absorption of Arabs, not so much tribe by tribe but through the establishment of saintly families derived from the earlier of two main Arab invasions." Prof. Coon, THE LIVING RACES OF MAN.



" In the Fezzan in southern Libya live a people--so-called Duwwud or Dawwada(worm-folk)--speak Arabic, hunt jerboas, raise a few dates, and above all harvest the salt lakes, where they live, for Artemesia, a brine shrimp that multiplies into cakes, which the Duwwud trade to Arab caravans. The Duwwud also look like Hottentots. Other partly Bushmen and partly Negro people are also to be found in the Sahara."Prof. Coon, THE LIVING RACES OF MAN



The Garamantian themselves were  Libyans(Berbers) and possible some minor Saharan negroid absorption. Much of their  religion and culture was however based on Egyptian models. They used the Libyan-Berber script  for writing as well.

"Descended from Berbers and Saharan pastoralists, the Garamantes were likely present as a tribal people in the Fezzan by at least 1000 B.C. They first appeared in the historical record in the fifth century B.C., when Herodotus noted the Garamantes were an exceedingly numerous people who herded cattle (that grazed backward!) and who hunted "troglodyte Ethiopians" from four-horse chariots."


"The combination of their slave-acquisition activities and their mastery of foggara irrigation technology enabled the Garamantes to enjoy a standard of living far superior to that of any other ancient Saharan society," says archaeologist Andrew Wilson of the University of Oxford, who has been surveying the foggara system. Without slaves, they would not have had a kingdom, let alone even a whiff of the good life. They would have survived--just--in conditions of relative poverty, as most desert dwellers have done before and since".
http://www.archaeology.org/0403/abstracts/sands.html

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone The movie is reflective of a social reality that existed at the time and still does, therefore, within the context used it's valid, go see the movies. As to my co9mment, Hey I just tell it like it is. Has it verred of, yes it has and the reason it has is that I see its time to call a spade a spade and address the underlying problems that keep surfacing whenever issues regarding African, or people of African descent, their place in history and society. How can we speak about it when people continue to hold fast to irronious notions from by gone eras, which continue to cloud our perceptions of those people. Your statemernts show that your basic perspective of these peoples and who they are is limited, therefore, without the sarcasm, I urge you to explore, not only the variaty of cultures on this continent, but also the the histories and cultures of their descendants outside of it as well. Have a good day.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone �. ***No, not me, but ever historian and text book maker on the planet. Don't forget, I use to be a high school history teacher. Every textbook starts the history of European civilization with Crete, Greece and Rome. But don't take my word for it, get a textbook. I'm just telling you what the White man learned me. They all seem to think Greece and Rome are European civilizations. So I guess since they aren't European civilizations, but...they were the civilizations that influenced much of Europe.....Western Europe....doen't have a history.....I mean...how could it be Western European history if...Sooo then, It's Turkish history! Yes. That's it. Because Greece isn't located on the Peloponisian penninsula, it's actually in...ANATOLIA, yeah that's it. My map's broken. I need a new one.*** .

 

Well, in Latin America we talk about Western Civilization and not European Civilization, because both aren�t the same. The West is rooted in the Fertile Crescent. Even more, we consider Islam to be a parallel civilization to the West, rather than an exotic culture.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone �. ***See my pervious comments regarding the Middle East and Fertile Crescent. The White man declared that all dark skinned people were black. .

 

If for �white man� you mean �gringo�, well, you may be aware Latinos don�t follow theirs model of the world at all. Even more, it is traditional in the countries with roots in Souther Europe to consider blond Nordic as the new commers to the Western Civilization. Remember many of them were "savages" (non-Christians) up to the Middle Ages

 

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone �.  They call the East Indians Black. Go rent the movies Ghandi and watch as the South African conductor tells him to get his BLACK ass back to 3rd class even though he had a 1st class ticket. Its the scene right before they kicked his BLACK ASS off train. They declared that the Maori people of New Zeland are BLACK. Go rent the movie Whale Rider. .

 

They are not example of very educated people, after all. I won't say a Southern racist in the U.S. is an example of the intelligence and culture of the West, either.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone �. It's been the White Eropean all along classifying people. Calling this on yellow, that one red, that one Brown. This one a Negro, that one a mulatto, the other one a mongoloid. I asked several times, WHO MAKES THE RULES? You never answered me. No one did, so I'm telling you. WHITE, COLONIAL EUROPEANS, from Chritopher Columbus. .

 

You can read in the writings of Columbus that he didn�t find Indians to be different from people he knew in the old world. He compares Indians with Canarians.

 

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone �. They've gone all over the world with a pencile disregarding the identities of people and their cultures and putting them in the neat little boxes that fit their agendas. That's why we call people in America Indians, when in fact they have nothing to do with INDIA. They were Taino, CAribe, Aztec, Chippawa, Mohawk, but along comes the white man and now they all become INDIANS. .

 

European ignorance. What you would expect from low payed sailors.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone �. Okay, what can I do about it? Nothing really, I have to accept it. Even though my father's skin is white as snow and his eyes are as blue as saphires, he's black, a negro, because the White man and his governmemt says so. And because my father is Black and a negro, I too am a negro. Even though I look nothing like a Sub-Saharan African. But hey, those are the rules. .

 

Why to accept the rules of the �gringo�?

 

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone �. And since its was White Europeans who declared that dark skinned people were black, (or any descended from such a person), and that mysterious continent is called Africa, then dark skinned people in Africa must be Black Africans. Therefore Egypt is a civilization on the African continent and since I see dark skinned people running all over Egypt they must be black, 'acuse the same white man tells me that people in his countries who look like tehm are black, hey, I look just like them and he tells me I'm black, even though my skin is really beige. Therefore Egypt is a jewel of Black History....it's just not the only one. Black history is filled with many jewels not only in Africa, but where ever her people have migrated, whether voulentarily or by force. .

Yes, anything could be. I also could claim ancestry to Gengis Khan.

 

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone �. So yes, I see how rediculous this all is. And I understand your anger. I'm angry too because this is all male bovine feces. So get angry Penguin, but outraged, be offended, but know where to direct your outrage. Not at us, we so called black people, because we aren't the ones making the rules. .

 

Once again, Latinos don�t follow �gringo� rules.

 

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone �.   You have to take on the univerities, government agencies, schools, churches, hearts and minds of the White Ruling elite class of Latin America, the United States and Canada, Eastern, Western and Southern Europe, as well as thir representative in the former colonies of Southern Africa and the Pacific regions. .

  

In Latin America we have the myth of the Cosmic Race, that tell us we are a new single people product of the fusion of several races and proud of all of them. That myth work for us.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone �. When they decide to redraw the map, reclassify things to your likeing and standards, then I will follow...Or amybe I won't. Maybe I'll still be the rotten little brat screaming the Emperor's got no clothes.

 

Well, I will start first to redraw the map of the Americas, and convince people we are not Latinos but Americans. After all �America� is the name of South America.

It is getting rather difficult to follow the train of thought here or the actual destination although I fear the train derailed long ago the minute tripe such as this entered the discussion: "Honestly, what you know about Africa could fill a thimble and it shows." After employing the term "African Civilization" repeatedly, the tangential diatribe against the "evils of the white man" in their racial madness calling everything Black does raise rather discomforting implications. Get over it. And as a postscript stay away from movies and TV documentaries as sources for historical analysis. 

Edited by drgonzaga - 12-Feb-2008 at 12:13

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

...
With regards to Greece: I wonder why one should look for a typical "European" civilization in one at the frontiers, at border of Asia.
What is your point? Europe didn't exist at those times."Europe" is a modern term.


Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

...
I also why there is a desperation to push Greece and even Minoan Crete located in the middle of the Mediterranian Sea into "Europe" when everybody knowns in here that Greece and Crete was part of a network of civilization that spread from the Middle East to India, Turkey, Egypt and that touched Europe only marginally.

Why to twist things?

No desperation at all. Actually, who cares?
Yes, I know that Greece roots are in Asia. You are the one denying the link between Egypt and Asia that's another matter.

***No I'm not denying it. I even go so far to admit that although they were an African people, they did have an Asiatic input in their gene pool. What I am saying is that although there was contact and borrowing, it doesn't change the fact that the culture was essentially African because it was located on the African continent and shared many fundamental cultural similarities with other African societies around it and was influenced by them as well. The only one denying anything is you.****


Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

...
Sharrukin has told you and many other many times that Egypt was essentially geographically and culturally an African civilization.

What does mean "essentially geographically African". For me that's just rethoric.
Egypt was always located in the fertile crescent, very close to the place where world civilization started in the Middle East.

***Geography: Having to do with the location of places on the globe or dealing with the topograhical features of areas of the earth. Egypt is located on one of the large landmasses on the Earth's surface called continents. Continents are divided into political entities known as countries. The country of Egypt is located on the large landmass we now call Africa. Egypt owes its existance to the waters of a river called the NILE which originates in the center of the continent we now call Africa and empties into the Mediterranian Sea, which is on the norther coast of the continent called Africa. In the period refered to as Ancient Egypt, the flaura: plant life, and fauna: animal life, were consistant this that found in areas of the continent to the south and west as well. Therefore it is essentiall and geographically African.

Middle East is a political term created by the colonial powers of Europe in the 19th century. Ask yourself this: If the world is round...and it is...THE MIDDLE OF WHAT THEN? East in relation to WHERE EXACTLY? Rather Eurocentric wouldn't you say? Why not Middle North or Middle South. Why isn't it the Middle West? Who the hell says that should be the Middle any way? Middle of what?

Fretile Crescent? Okay. I'm looking in my text book and I see that part of the crescent is in the continent and the other half is in the continent we now call Asia, and the world keeps turning.***

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

...
It is what it is, was where it was. Why do you have such a hard time just acknowledging that it is what it is? I tell you what, When you take Greece and Rome as well as the Phonecian colonies os Spain and Italy out of European history and no longer find the need to relate them to Europe, despite the fact that culturally those cultures looked to the East and the Mediterranian rather than to the heartland of the European continent, (except for conquest), then we can remove Egypt from Africa. The flaura was African , the Fauna was African, the overwhelming cultural traits, religious practices, kingship structure and world view was Africa, and I'm not the only one here who has adequately pointed this out, (only the most sarcastic perhaps) and the people were clearly a mixture of Africans and Asiatics, and is located on the African continent, why then do you feel so threatened to place it where it belongs? Should we separate Mexico from Latin America because it boarders the USA? Or should we consider Japan a western outpost of America, and not an Asian civilization because the overwhelming majority of its technology and popular culture came from the USA?


Rethoric. Civilizations are count by people, not by continents. You don't talk about an Asian civilization, but a Chinese or Indian. Got it.

***Well tell that to all the European powers who created the concept. It is they not I who coined the term African civilizations, (although we had to drag them kicking and screaming to admit there was even such an idea), you don't seem to have a problem talking about SUB-SAHARAN Civilizations, I never see you correcting anyone for using the term. By the way...isn't this section of the forum termed AFRICAN HISTORY?...Why, yes it is. Hey, look at the top of the page. Why those silly moderators. What were they thinking? They've went and divided all this history not only in time periods, but REGIONAL HISTORY. God lordy me, what's the world coming to? Thank goodness we have people to correct their foolish ways. I expect to see all the civilizations of this forum promply categorized by people.

You are right though. Civilizations are made up of specific people, but people...well...they live on continents Penguin. Therefore, We refere to Asian CIVILIZATIONS, not civilization because Asia is made up of many civilizations. Therefore, when I took an introductory course in Asian Civilizations in collage, I knew it was a survey course that was going to look at a few civilizations on the Asian continent, but not all of them and not in depth. The same was true of African Civilizations, European Civilizations, and Civilizations of the Americas. I think all people pretty much understand and take for granted this fact Penguin, it's kind of obvious.***

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

...
you're reasoning makes no sense when applied to other civilizations niether past nor present. Rome and Greece ARE European,

Who say so? You. The Mare Nostrum covered all the Mediterranean. Saying that Rome was an European civilization is to be very badly informmed. Besides, half Greece is in today's Turkey. Gimme a break.

***No, not me, but ever historian and text book maker on the planet. Don't forget, I use to be a high school history teacher. Every textbook starts the history of European civilization with Crete, Greece and Rome. But don't take my word for it, get a textbook. I'm just telling you what the White man learned me. They all seem to think Greece and Rome are European civilizations. So I guess since they aren't European civilizations, but...they were the civilizations that influenced much of Europe.....Western Europe....doen't have a history.....I mean...how could it be Western European history if...Sooo then, It's Turkish history! Yes. That's it. Because Greece isn't located on the Peloponisian penninsula, it's actually in...ANATOLIA, yeah that's it. My map's broken. I need a new one.***

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

...
regardless of contact or influences from anywhere else, Egypt is African for the same reasons and Modern Japan IS an Asian society/civilization, no matter what they borrowed from the U.S.A by way of technology and culture.

Egypt is also part of the Middle East and the Fertile Crescent, not matter how much some people wants to convert in the jewels of the "Black History".

***See my pervious comments regarding the Middle East and Fertile Crescent. The White man declared that all dark skinned people were black. They call the East Indians Black. Go rent the movies Ghandi and watch as the South African conductor tells him to get his BLACK ass back to 3rd class even though he had a 1st class ticket. Its the scene right before they kicked his BLACK ASS off train. They declared that the Maori people of New Zeland are BLACK. Go rent the movie Whale Rider.

It's been the White Eropean all along classifying people. Calling this on yellow, that one red, that one Brown. This one a Negro, that one a mulatto, the other one a mongoloid. I asked several times, WHO MAKES THE RULES? You never answered me. No one did, so I'm telling you. WHITE, COLONIAL EUROPEANS, from Chritopher Columbus. They've gone all over the world with a pencile disregarding the identities of people and their cultures and putting them in the neat little boxes that fit their agendas. That's why we call people in America Indians, when in fact they have nothing to do with INDIA. They were Taino, CAribe, Aztec, Chippawa, Mohawk, but along comes the white man and now they all become INDIANS.

Okay, what can I do about it? Nothing really, I have to accept it. Even though my father's skin is white as snow and his eyes are as blue as saphires, he's black, a negro, because the White man and his governmemt says so. And because my father is Black and a negro, I too am a negro. Even though I look nothing like a Sub-Saharan African. But hey, those are the rules. And since its was White Europeans who declared that dark skinned people were black, (or any descended from such a person), and that mysterious continent is called Africa, then dark skinned people in Africa must be Black Africans. Therefore Egypt is a civilization on the African continent and since I see dark skinned people running all over Egypt they must be black, 'acuse the same white man tells me that people in his countries who look like tehm are black, hey, I look just like them and he tells me I'm black, even though my skin is really beige. Therefore Egypt is a jewel of Black History....it's just not the only one. Black history is filled with many jewels not only in Africa, but where ever her people have migrated, whether voulentarily or by force.

So yes, I see how rediculous this all is. And I understand your anger. I'm angry too because this is all male bovine feces. So get angry Penguin, but outraged, be offended, but know where to direct your outrage. Not at us, we so called black people, because we aren't the ones making the rules. You have to take on the univerities, government agencies, schools, churches, hearts and minds of the White Ruling elite class of Latin America, the United States and Canada, Eastern, Western and Southern Europe, as well as thir representative in the former colonies of Southern Africa and the Pacific regions.

When they decide to redraw the map, reclassify things to your likeing and standards, then I will follow...Or amybe I won't. Maybe I'll still be the rotten little brat screaming the Emperor's got no clothes.

Originally posted by pinguin Originally posted by Rakasnumberone ... Should we separate Mexico from Latin America because it boarders the USA? .... � That's a good point. Mexico nor Latin America existed before the 19th century. In the Americas people know we should't mix pears and apples. We speak of three different time frames absolutelly unconected. � (1) Pre-contact Americas. (2) Colonial Americas. (3) Modern Americas: Anglo America, Latin America, West Indies. � In other words: The Inca empire has nothing to do with the Aztec. Got it? � �

I know that Penguin. I was making reference to today's world, not ancient or colonial history.