Africa’s Role in World History
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: African History
Forum Discription: Talk about African History
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2900
Printed Date: 17-Jun-2024 at 12:17
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Africa’s Role in World History
Posted By: Komnenos
Subject: Africa’s Role in World History
Date Posted: 10-Apr-2005 at 12:24
|
What I always wanted to know, but never dared to ask:
What, in your opinion are the reasons that the African continent, and especially the sub-Saharan part of it, has played a rather quiet and secondary role in World history? Correct me if I’m wrong, but apart from the Egyptian, there has been no indigenous African civilization that has made a major original contribution to or impact on world culture prior to the end of colonization in the mid 20th century. With indigenous I mean civilizations whose major cultural impetus did not come from cultures outside Africa, as it did in the Islamic North-African Empires after 650AD. Africa hasn’t produced any Empires or cultures that consequently expanded onto other continents, Africa hasn’t produced any major world religion or philosophy which would have spread out onto other continents, in fact Africa seemed to have served mainly an inexhaustible reservoir of man-power and natural resources which European and Middle-Eastern powers exploited to the full. Sure, there have been a number of highly developed sub-Saharan cultures, in West and South-Africa or Ethiopia, but none of them exerted any great influence outside their immediate area. One could say the same about pre-Columbian America of course, but the continent was geographically isolated, whilst Africa is close to both Europe and Middle-Eastern Asia, from where countless invasions and cultural influences onto the African continent came. But it seems always to have been one-way traffic. So my questions are: Firstly, am I right in my assessment of indigenous African contributions to world culture and history, and secondly, if yes, what are the reasons? Geography must have played a certain role, but there must be some other explanations. ------------- [IMG]http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/komnenos/crosses1.jpg"> |
Replies:
Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 10-Apr-2005 at 12:52
|
A difficult question I can't think of any sub-saharan civilisation that had power outside africa. Madagascar in the 19th century was a quite a power and defeated several European attempts at colonisation. In the Ancient world Numidia and Nubia spring to mind, but are not exactly sub-saharan, both had impact outside of africa though. Then of course there's that old cookie, were the ancient egyptians black? The Barbary coast was quite a power in the rennaissance. ------------- 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: Cywr
Date Posted: 10-Apr-2005 at 15:45
|
I think there is much to be said for an East African influence exerted through the Indian ocean trade system.
-------------  Arrrgh!!"
|
Posted By: Tobodai
Date Posted: 10-Apr-2005 at 20:25
|
WE already have a thread about this in which all of your questions can be answered pretty much but Ill go again. First of all Africa is the most important continent in the world, without it there would be no people (although on AE I would nto be suprised is some idiots claimed Turks or Chinese were the first to have evolved from apes). As for pre-colonial empires of cultural impact: Proto Ethiopia known as Axum conquered large parts of southern Arabia before Muhammad and had maritime power up and down the coast of Africa and was an ally of Byzantium. Eventually they were ejected after about a half century by Sassanid Iran from Arabia. After they withdrew from a martime empire Ethiopia became a landpower and its culture and own brand of Orthodox Christianity was adopted by its southern neighbors who were incorporated. Ethiopia later re emerged onteh world stage as an ally of Portugal against Ottoman-Somali incursions. OPf course in the 19th century they beat the Italians very badly too. The Garamentines were no empire really but lived int he Sahara using an ingenious aqueduct system to stay alive. Eventually they collapsed and migrated west, the Tuareg are possible their descendants. And of course dont forget West Africa, the empires of Mali Ghana and Songhay were wealthier than most European kingdoms of their time and their cities were great centers of Islamic learning where Arabs and Berbers would go to learn. The last of these, the Songhay would collapse to Portugese mercenaries with guns under the command of the Morroccans. And Great Zimbabwe of the Shona people, an agricultural and trading powerhouse with grand buildings that are on par with Mesoamerican stone architecture, collapsed due to climate change. Meroitic Sudan (of which I wrote an article on for this site) was one of the biggest iron prodcuers of the early AD's exporting iron to Arabia Egypt, Ethiopia, and others. Meroe as a kingdom lasted for a thousand years until the massive deforestation caused by so much iron production caused them to collapse, Meroe in terms of economic output was almsot a proto industrial city state. As for why these states never made a big outside of Africa, geography is indeed the answer. The Sahara was a barrier before the camel came in the 600's or so, but more importantly is that Africa is the second largest continent with the shortest coastline (shorter even than Australia) , it is on a raised table that has barely any harbors and almost totally unnavigatable rivers. Thus martime expansion is nearly impossible. The grasslands of Africa which in Eurasia served as a great highways of culture and tech, are in Africa too small to matter and too rich to warrant steppe empire like expansion. Also keep in mind that until recently Africa was a very underpopulated continent, it also has alto of trpoics,not good for technological development. ------------- "the people are nothing but a great beast... I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value." -Alexander Hamilton |
Posted By: Cywr
Date Posted: 10-Apr-2005 at 20:44
Eh, are you sure about that? I can picture if being shorter than Europe (which is like a collection of peninsulars stucktogether with duct-tape and beurocracy), but Australia? ------------- Arrrgh!!"
|
Posted By: Tobodai
Date Posted: 11-Apr-2005 at 02:48
|
yes, Thomas Sowell cites geographic studies in his book, the chapter about Africas geography, maybe hes wrong but it certainly cant be much longer than Australias coastline (remeber indentations and harbors too) Africa is like a table, it slopes off to rapidly to the side. ------------- "the people are nothing but a great beast... I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value." -Alexander Hamilton |
Posted By: Berosus
Date Posted: 13-Apr-2005 at 07:06
|
To answer the first question from Komnenos, the Ethiopians gave us
coffee. Imagine how hard it would be to get around in today's
world without that! I would also agree with Tobodai that geography is the main reason why we don't hear much of African empires spreading to other continents. The ones that did were based on the north side of the Sahara: the Egyptians on several occasions (the two most recent being Mohammed Ali's attempt to overthrow the Ottoman sultan in the 1830s, and Nasser's short-lived United Arab Republic), the Carthaginians, and Moorish states like the Almoravids and the Almohads. Besides the Sahara and the coastal barriers that Tobodai mentioned, I would add that the only place below the Sahara where large empires are feasible is in the valley of the Niger River. Elsewhere transportation and communications are so difficult that states have to remain small to succeed. This is especially the case with kingdoms based in the jungle, like Benin and Ashanti. If it's not worth the trouble to conquer a neighboring tribe, you're not going to have much interest in conquering lands overseas, right? ------------- Nothing truly great is achieved through moderation.--Prof. M.A.R. Barker |
Posted By: RED GUARD
Date Posted: 13-Apr-2005 at 20:13
What about the gold rich civilizations of Kanet, Mali, Ghana, and Ethiopia? ------------- Quotes by your's turly: "I came, I saw, and I conquered... but only for the weekend" "This is my tank, this is my weapon, and this is my pride." "Power comes from a barrel of a gun." |
Posted By: Jazz
Date Posted: 14-Apr-2005 at 03:01
Well, humans evolved in Africa, so from that perspective, we are Africa's gift to the world!  That's a pretty big role in Human history, eh?  ------------- http://www.forums.internationalhockey.net/index.php?/index.php?referrerid=8 - International Hockey Forums |
Posted By: magavan
Date Posted: 04-May-2005 at 23:54
| Yes i think all human kind evolved in Africa, and the first religion was animism from africa |
Posted By: Vamun Tianshu
Date Posted: 05-May-2005 at 00:07
|
Africans have made a great contribution to society.Aside from those Africans who did something in Africa,now,I'm talking abou Colonial Africans,in America.I don't want to say it,because I might get flammed,but oh well. Africans contributed greatly,if not they were being forced to,by cruelty and malice,to the construction of Colonial America,by the Spanish,the British,and the Americans.It makes me sad to talk about this,because those people suffered to do what their idiotic masters told them to do,and some even died trying to escape. Now here comes the part where I might get flammed,but I don't care The Africans were forced to do work,and they contributed greatly to the survival and economical aspects of South and North America,as well as the Carribbean.The Southern United States relied on Slave Labor,and without it,the lazy whites in the South would have to do the work themselves,.In South America,the Natives were all dying of disease by Colonial Spaniards,so the Spanish got Africans to South America,to work out what the Natives started.However,Spanish Slave Labor was much more lineant than American Slave Labor,accounting for many Africans escaping to Florida and Mexico,and even the Carribbean during the South's King Cotton Era,and the Slave Era in general. Without the work,and the blood and sweat those Africans shed,North and South America might not what they are today,because of economical purposes.I might be wrong,but this is my own opinion.I speak no more,so if anyone argues,I will not be listening. However,this is not racism to the Caucasian today,but it is disgust and dissappointment of the Caucasian yesterday,because my ancestory goes back to Spain,so why bother being racist to my myself? I know this is discussion abou African in Africa,but Africans in the Americas did do something for World History as well,just thought I'd mention what great men Abraham Lincoln,John Brown,and all those abolitionists(and ladies of course)were,for going the distance to end such cruelty. ------------- 
In Honor |
Posted By: giani_82
Date Posted: 05-May-2005 at 14:12
| There are signs of trade between African countries and the Greek and Roman civilization by the time bantu started it's expansion. Kush being in touch with Egypt would have contributed somehow inderectly to european civs having in mind the egyptians influenced the greeks whose culture was at the base for most of european nations that developed. Axum also deserves to be noted as it accepted christianity. Carthage was a mix of Phoenician culture with the native berbers. |
Posted By: Berosus
Date Posted: 10-May-2005 at 08:00
|
Quite right, Giani, we often forget that Egypt was an African
civilization, though it tended to be more interested in the Middle East
than in African neighbors like Libya and Nubia. For what it's worth, since I posted my previous message, I tried making a list of the longest-lived civilizations in history. I could only find four that lasted more than two thousand years, and two of them are in Africa. 1. Egypt. According to the chronology I use, 2,789 years passed from Menes to Cleopatra; most historians will give the Egyptians even more time, like a full 3,000 years. They had a bit of luck because they got started so early; for more than a millennium they had no hostile neighbors. When outsiders managed to get into Egypt and take over, the Egyptians convinced them that they were the oldest civilization of all, so foreigners like the Hyksos, Libyans, Nubians, Assyrians and Persians felt the need to adopt Egyptian customs, or at least respect them. Not until the arrival of a stronger culture, that of the Greeks, did the pharaonic culture begin to falter, and it finally perished under the harsh rule of the Romans. 2. Rome. Counting from the traditional date of Romulus & Remus to the fall of Constantinople, we get 2,205 years. However, in this case it was mainly the Roman legacy for law and order that lasted so long. Over the course of the centuries, the "Roman" people went from speaking Etruscan to Latin to Greek, and switched from paganism to Christianity, so while the Nile valley civilization was recognizably Egyptian at both the beginning and the end of the time of the pharaohs, if through some sort of time warp we could put together two Romans from the eighth century B.C. and the fifteenth century A.D., I doubt that they would believe they were from the same civilization. 3. China is a close third; from the Qin dynasty to the 1911 revolution, 2,131 years passed. I'm leaving out the Xia, Shang and Zhou dynasties because archaeology shows Chinese culture in a developmental stage back then; in fact, there were several competing cultures in the Yellow and Yangtze River valleys, any one of which could have become "China" if the Qin hadn't triumphed. We probably wouldn't even call the country "China" if another "warring state" came out on top, because China's name comes from Qin. Nor do I count the years after the last emperor, because China seems to have been in a state of transition since then; in its efforts to deal with the West it has become something that is not quite the old China, but not quite something else. 4. Ethiopia. This may surprise some readers because Ethiopia was never more than a regional power; the Ethiopians did not go forth to build an empire and force everyone else in the known world to pay attention to their activities and wishes. Ethiopia got on the list because its oldest city, Axum, was founded at an unknown date between 300 B.C. and 100 A.D., making it anywhere from 1,905 to 2,305 years old. Unfortunately for us there are some big gaps in Ethiopia's history, especially near the beginning, so we don't have exact dates; written records concerning Axum first appear in the fourth century A.D. What we do know is that since the fourth century there has been a recognizably Ethiopian culture that is Christian and usually under a monarch who proclaimed himself "King of Kings, the Lion of Judah". ------------- Nothing truly great is achieved through moderation.--Prof. M.A.R. Barker |
Posted By: Decebal
Date Posted: 06-Jun-2005 at 15:05
|
Berosus, what do you define by civilization? Is it some sort of political continuity, or is it a cultural and linguistic continuity? When does civilization start? It's very hard to put a date on these things. China arguably has a 4500 year civilization, the way most people see it. Hellenic civilization lasted from around 800 BC to the 5th century AD, without counting the Mycenean and Minoc civilizations, which would push its start all the way to 2500BC. In Mesopotamia, one can argue that there was a cultural continuity starting from as early as 8000 BC, and finishing all the way around the time of Alexander the Great. Persia can also claim 5000 years of history... What about India? If we accept the Mohenjo-Daro civilization as the earliest Indian state, then India also has a history spanning 4500 years. And last but not least, the Hebrews have an uninterrupted culture spanning more than 3000 years (without a state for most of that time, but culturally they maintained their cohesion). All civilizations had different dynasties, and various states ruling them. I think that the most important factor that defines a civilization is culture. It is hard to measure in precise years when a culture starts and when it begins. Now coming back to Africa, there's no doubt nowadays for historians and informed people, that native African civilizations made an original contribution to human civilization. Geography precluded most of them from making a big impact on other continents. Although some civilizations have made a more subtle impact on human history. The Gold states of West Africa - Ghana, Mali, Songhay have produced most of the gold upon which European and Middle-Eastern medieval economy was based. The Swahili city-states of East Africa have also made an important contribution to the economy of the entire Indian Ocean basin. Komnenos, I recommend readin Guns, Germs and Steel, by Jared Diamond. It is the best explanation I've seen to date about the technological evolution of humans on various continents. ------------- What is history but a fable agreed upon? Napoleon Bonaparte Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi 
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2005 at 13:15
|
Hi- I need some correct words/answers with my research paper for Global Studies in Africa. I'm still puzzled with the history.. What are the major geographical features of the African continent? and how these affected the development of African history up to c. 1800. Describe the pre-colonial empires in Africa in terms of culture and history. |
Posted By: Decebal
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2005 at 17:26
|
My, that's a loaded question: you can write several books on those questions. You should probably pick up an atlas for the geography. For history, I recommend reading History of Africa, by Kevin Shillington. Alternatively you can watch the African history series by Basil Davidson: it's quite good. Quickly though, the important things to note are: 1. Africa is a very large continent but its coasts are fairly smooth; hence there are very few maritime cultures. 2. The Sahara desert was a major barrier to technological and cultural imports from Europe and the Middle East, but not impassable. 3. Most civilizations occured in river valleys: thus the Egyptians and the Nubians on the Nile, Ghana, Mali and Songhay on the Niger, Zimbabwe and Monomotapa on the Zambezi, the Kongo on the Congo. 4. Other civilizations fo note are Axum/Ethiopia in the Ethiopian Highlands, the Swahili city-states on the Indian Ocean coast, the Hausa city states in Nigeria, Benin and Dahomey on the Guine Gulf coast and the Zulu confederacy in South Africa. 5. Africa is the continent with the most languages and with a very wide variety of cultures. 6. Most of Africa went straight from the Stone age to the Iron Age, with the northen half of the continent borrowing the technology from the Middle East and the Central/South developing it independently. You really need to come up with more specific questions here...
------------- 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: Decebal
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2005 at 20:40
|
Continuing my post...
7. Traditionally, sub-saharan states were not based upon the ruling of land, but rather of people, since the population density was so low. 8. In most sub-saharan cultures, particularly the Bantu, the basis of the economy was cattle. 9. In addition to the civilizations I mentioned above, of note are also Buganda, the (non-African) Carthaginians and the Berber kingdoms of Numidia and Mauretania. 10. In addition to geography, African civilizations development was also determined by biological barriers. For example, the expansion of cattle-raising cultures was largely determined by the range of the tse-tse fly. ------------- What is history but a fable agreed upon? Napoleon Bonaparte Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2005 at 23:38
| Thanks!! I am gonna grab the book to read the one you highly recommend ,History of Africa, by Kevin Shillington. |
Posted By: Berosus
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2005 at 09:25
|
I've been writing webpages on African history for the past few
years. I did a page on ancient Egypt in 2001, Carthage in 2002,
and have been working on a general history of the rest of Africa since
the beginning of 2004. Here's what I have so far: http://xenohistorian.faithweb.com/africa/af01.html - Chapter 1: The Original Africans http://xenohistorian.faithweb.com/africa/egypt.html - Chapter 2: Valley of the Pharaohs (Before 654 B.C.) http://xenohistorian.faithweb.com/africa/carthage.html - Chapter 3: Carthage (814 to 264 B.C.) http://xenohistorian.faithweb.com/africa/af04.html - Chapter 4: Africa in the Classical Era (654 B.C. to 641 A.D.) http://xenohistorian.faithweb.com/africa/af05.html - Chapter 5: The Trading Kingdoms (641 to 1415 A.D.) http://xenohistorian.faithweb.com/africa/af06.html - Chapter 6: The Forest Kingdoms (1415 to 1795) http://xenohistorian.faithweb.com/africa/af07.html - Chapter 7: The Dark Continent Partitioned (1795 to 1914) I expect to have an eighth chapter up sometime next week. Called "Wind of Change," it will cover the years 1914 to 1965. Enjoy! ------------- Nothing truly great is achieved through moderation.--Prof. M.A.R. Barker |
Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2005 at 19:17
|
Great page... All your own writing, pretty impresive.. ------------- 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: Guests
Date Posted: 15-Jun-2005 at 08:46
|
Wow. Very impressive!!! I am wondering to know are you planning to write about their overall of the political systems present and how unstable are governments in Africa today? If so, what political challenges does they face?
|
Posted By: Berosus
Date Posted: 16-Jun-2005 at 06:07
|
Hueyi and HistoryGal05, thanks for the kind words. Chapter 8 is
now complete. Called "Wind of Change," it covers Africa from 1914
to 1965 A.D. The following topics/events are included: World War I Troubles in the Italian Empire The Beginnings of African Nationalism The Rif War and Maghreb Nationalism The Road to World War II Passed Through Ethiopia The Liberation of French Africa The See-Saw Struggle in North Africa Decolonization Begins North Africa Rejoins the Arab World The Algerian War The Mau Mau Rebellion "The African Year": Independence Below the Sahara The Congo Crisis South Africa and Rhodesia: Segregation Forever Check it out at http://xenohistorian.faithweb.com/africa/af08.html - http://xenohistorian.faithweb.com/africa/af08.html . To answer HistoryGal05's question, yes, I'm planning one more paper for the last forty years. I don't see how I'm going to do it without mentioning modern politics. When you think about it, the only difference between history and current events is that one happened in the past, and the other is happening now. Because I was a kid forty years ago, all the events covered in a final chapter of this work will have happened in my lifetime. I can remember when things we now think of as history were considered "current events," from the Nigerian-Biafran War to the downfall of apartheid. Anyway, enjoy the new paper! ------------- Nothing truly great is achieved through moderation.--Prof. M.A.R. Barker |
Posted By: kermit_criminal
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2005 at 00:42
| Africa was isolated from the rest of the civilized world with the vast expanses of the Sahara desert preventing much exchange to go on between Africa and Eurasia. Black or partly-black people however played a huge role in history from India, to Southeast Asia to the Americas. They intermarried and mixed as people normally do which is why we never neccesarily hear about asian "black history" but the history of local peoples who had black blood in them like the Khmer's of Cambodia, Indians, Arabs, Egyptians, and even native americans with the Olmec civilization and native Panamanians |
Posted By: Berosus
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2005 at 10:39
|
Black Southeast Asians are called "Negritos." Today you'll only
find them in the most remote locations, like the jungles of Indonesia
and the Philippines, but before 1000 B.C. they had everything south of
the Yangtze River to themselves. Then various ethnic groups began
moving south from China, usually to escape the expanding Chinese; first
the Malayo-Polynesians, then the Vietnamese, Tibeto-Burmans, and
Mon-Khmers. All of them displaced the Negritos as they
advanced. The Chinese themselves arrived in the neighborhood of
Canton during the Qin dynasty (221-207 B.C.), and finally the Thais
moved in between the eighth and thirteenth century A.D.
------------- Nothing truly great is achieved through moderation.--Prof. M.A.R. Barker |
Posted By: kermit_criminal
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2005 at 18:26
|
Pure asiatic blacks are negritos, but Austronesians in general are basically a mix of northern mongoloid and negritos, that is why alot of them have curly(not nappy however) hair, darker skin, rounder noses and are of shorter stature. This also explains the shorter stature and slightly darker skin of cantonese chinese, seeing as how the region was the birthplace of the austronesian people. It is clear to see by the ankor watt statues that the people who built the temple.. as the present combodians today ... were a mix of sino-tibetan and negrito.. ie. austronesian. Indians today are a mix of caucasians and black dravidians. |
Posted By: Turkic10
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2005 at 17:08
|
It is a pity that more is not known about the Swahili civilization. Thanks to the Portuguese blasting their main island city to rubble on their way to the orient the civilization appears to have ended after that. The Swahili were influential enough that their language became the second language for much of Africa. They appear to have had trade some of the eastern world. Relics from Asia have been found in the African interior that caused western archeologists to invent reasons for their being there since there was a mind set that the Africans couldn't possibly have been advanced enough to have trade with Asia. ------------- Admonish your friends privately, praise them publicly. |
Posted By: Tobodai
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2005 at 19:44
|
Indeed, Swahili city states are my current field of study. Even a single one of those cities had enough Dhows to spread influence. ANd dont forget, its not only th ePOrtugese. I bet most eastern Africans would hate first the Arabs, especially the slave traders from Arabia who took more slaves from Africa than the combined nations of Europe. When Zanzibar joined Tanganyka to form Tanzania the people rose up and killed the Arabs by the thousands. ------------- "the people are nothing but a great beast... I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value." -Alexander Hamilton |
Posted By: Moustafa Pasha
Date Posted: 27-Aug-2005 at 10:39
|
The history of Africa is plagued by western colonialism. Which is the exploitation by a stronger counry of a weaker one, the use of the weaker country's resources to strengthen and enrich the stronger. The perfect example is British Colonialism examplefied in the following article which shows how it plundered the resources of Africa to enrich and streghten itself. http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1552921,00.ht ml - http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1552921,00.ht ml More about colonialism http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/mehistorydatabase/colonialism_in_africa_and_the_mi.htm - http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/mehistorydatabase/colonia lism_in_africa_and_the_mi.htm |
Posted By: malizai_
Date Posted: 17-Mar-2007 at 00:04
|
Africa in general is hanging from the Sinai thread as its landbridge to the rest of the world. All around it otherwise is ocean. Africa had been a land of plenty. NEED
Was there a NEED for Africans to expand beyond Africa?, cross the deserts, for what?
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 17-Mar-2007 at 00:20
|
Africans did expand abroad. Today those Africans are called Whites, Asians, Amerindians, Australian Aboriguines, Turks, East Indians and many other names.
The great emigration happened just 60.000 years ago, or around 3.000 generations ago.
Pinguin
|
Posted By: malizai_
Date Posted: 17-Mar-2007 at 00:49
Well, ..in that case, delving a little further back, it wouldn't be the expansion of Africans but of aquatic apes. Or maybe ..proto-Metazoans even.  ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 17-Mar-2007 at 09:24
You bet, we are all descendents of bacteria diving in hot vocanic water 
However, there is agreement that your, me and everyone else ancestors looked more or less like the Khoisan peoples. Interesting tribe, indeed, that although all have Black skin, some guys have Asian features and other Caucasoid.
|
Posted By: malizai_
Date Posted: 17-Mar-2007 at 15:26
|
I am not comfortable with Darwin's version of racial theory. Nor the prescribed mechanisms for evolutionary change. It is an imprecise science in it's infancy IMO, we just don't know enough yet. If the Khoisan survive along with everybody else, where do we bin the concept of the fittest. I am also in disagreement about their supposed Asian or Caucasoid features. Their features are fundamentally of an African variance. In all cluster groups some have sharper features than others. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 17-Mar-2007 at 19:02
|
If genetics say they are the original people is because there are scientific reasons to believe so. It is not a matter of guessing at all. Today is not a matter of guessing anymore. Please take a look at the Genographic Project of the National Geographic, to get an update in the topic.
https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/index.html - https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/index.html
Regards,
Pinguin
|
Posted By: malizai_
Date Posted: 19-Mar-2007 at 21:22
|
Out of Consider 'Out of Asia' hypothesis. Hybrid speciation vs branching tree. . Then we have the big brain versus the small brain(bipedal(lucy)) and kenyanthropus platyops, who was the single linear ancestor of humans? mtDNA irregularities in inheritance, missing links. etc + Psychological projections onto hominid species a million years ago. ------------- |
Posted By: Mughal e Azam
Date Posted: 06-Nov-2007 at 02:50
|
Ghana Empire
Mali Empire
Songhai Empire
Kanuri Empire (lasted 1000 years in the heartland of the savannah)
Axumi Empire
Egyptian Empire
Carthiginian Empire
Garamantine Empire
Fatimid Empire
Al Muhaddis Empire
Hafsid Empire
Saadid Sultanate
Baghrawa Kingdom
Aghlabid Kingdom
Idrisid Empire
Mwenemotapa Empire
Kongo Empire
Matamba Kingdom
Maasina Kingdom
Sokoto Sultanate
Futa Toro Kingdom
Futa Jallon Kingdom
Mandara Kingdom
Benin Kingdom
Oyo Kingdom
Asante Kingdom
Kaarta Kingdom
Kaabu Kingdom
Rozvi Kingdom
Zulu Kingdom
Rwanda Kingdom
Burundi Kingdom
Alodia Kingdom
Maquria Kingdom
Nobia Kingdom
Adal Kingdom
Warsengali Kingdom
Ife Kingdom
The greater problem is lack of care on part of the Africans to go back to their histories.
Think of all the texts rotting in Timbuctu and Djenne as they busy themselves with useless bullshit. Killing each other, corruption, etc. ------------- Mughal e Azam |
Posted By: SuN.
Date Posted: 06-Nov-2007 at 04:10
One of the best quotes I have read on AE. Very novel & thought provoking. ------------- God is not great. |
Posted By: jdalton
Date Posted: 10-Nov-2007 at 00:00
|
North Africa has had numerous civilizations that affected or conquered territory on other continents (has anyone yet mentioned the Almoravids? From their base in the Western Sahara they briefly conquered Morocco, Spain, and Ghana- a vast territory even if most of the middle of it was uninhabitable desert). Sub-Saharan Africa has only had one* such kingdom- Ethiopia. Sub-Saharan Africa was very isolated for most of its history. Remember, too, though, that Africa boasts two of the very small number of nations never conquered by Europeans or their descendants- Ethiopia (again) and Liberia. But if the question is instead what impact has African culture had on the world, I would say, quite a lot and more than most people seem to give credit for. We all eat SS-African foods (coffee is my favourite though not the only one), and modern artists owe a large debt to African artists (just ask Picasso!) And don't forget African music. It took a long circuitous route from West Africa to covering the world today, but the influence traditional African music has had on every single modern genre of music is as ubiquitous as it is undeniable. That's not a half bad legacy I think. *-I thought I read somewhere about Swahili Zanzibar briefly controlling Oman, but I can't find now where I read that, so I might have been wrong. ------------- http://www.jonathondalton.com/mycomics.html - Lords of Death and Life (a Mesoamerican webcomic) |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10-Nov-2007 at 00:54
|
I just wonder, besides coffee and cola nuts, which African foods are worldwide known? Bananas, for instance, came from Indonesia, and many other vegetables together with farm animals (goats, cows) were introduced to Africa. I agree with the contribution in painting and music, though, particularly in Cubism, Jazz, Blues and Caribbean musics. That's very interesting.
|
Posted By: Penelope
Date Posted: 10-Nov-2007 at 06:17
Good point. I would also like to point out, that most of those empires, were larger than most European kingdoms and or empires.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10-Nov-2007 at 09:43
| Zulu Empire? I wonder what we are talking about... |
Posted By: jdalton
Date Posted: 11-Nov-2007 at 23:22
Also a good point. It must surely be easier to build an empire in France, bounded on three sides by water and one side by mountains leaving only the eastern edge with no clear boundary, than to do the same in the middle of the boundless central African rainforest, or to build an empire that crosses vastly different climactic zones from desert to sahel to forest in West Africa. Yet Africans did just that. Sometimes without the benefit of horses and carts, either. ------------- http://www.jonathondalton.com/mycomics.html - Lords of Death and Life (a Mesoamerican webcomic) |
Posted By: Eondt
Date Posted: 12-Nov-2007 at 06:28
Don't know about you, but I am reading "Zulu Kingdom" in the post...which it was.
|
Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 12-Nov-2007 at 07:45
Sweet potatoes (aka yams), amaranth, eggplant, millet, sorghum, and a very large number of lost crop types that were replaced with imports (eg the bambara groundnut which was replaced with the peanut, African Rice which was replaced with Asiatic rice strains, etc)
Cattle are actually native to northern Africa, and were domesticated indepedantly - and possibly earlier than the breeds domesticated in the Near East. According to our genetic analyses, African cattle originated neither from Indian humped cattle nor from Near Eastern cattle. Those findings support the separate-origins theory of cattle domestication favored by archaeologists, who had maintained that in Africa, too, cattle domestication was local. Our results confirm that African cattle stem from the domestication of a B. taurus type of wild ox that inhabited northern Africa when the Sahara region was much less arid than it is today. It may even be the case that the distinctive pastoral lifestyle of African tribes such as the Masai is of tremendous antiquity, and could pre-date the capture of cattle and development of milking in the Fertile Crescent. http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/master.html?http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/0203/0203_feature.html - http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/master.html?http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/0203/0203_feature.html |
Posted By: Windemere
Date Posted: 12-Nov-2007 at 16:49
|
The above post from 'Natural History Magazine' is interesting, and it contradicts the conventional wisdom on the origin of domestic cattle in Africa. The original wild species that gave rise to all domestic cattle types was the aurochs (Bos primigenius) which existed across Eurasia in many different forms. The form that existed in Europe, Asia Minor, and the Middle East was known as Taurine (Bos taurus). They had no hump or dewlap. They were first domesticated in the Fertile Crescent area (modern Iraq) and in Asia Minor (modern Turkey). From there these Taurine cattle were brought westwards into Europe and eastwards into the Far East. They gradually separated into two distinct types, known as long-horned cattle (Bos longifrons) and short-horned cattle (Bos brachyceros). Both of these types are Taurine cattle.
A separate domestication of the wild aurochs took place in the Indus Valley (modern India and Pakistan). The type of cattle deriving from this domestication is known as the Zebu. This type has a hump and a dewlap.
The aurochs, the original wild species that gave rise to all domestic cattle is now extinct. The last aurochs survived in the Bialowieza Forest of eastern Poland until the 1600's and were prized by the nobility as a game species.
The first cattle were believed to have been brought to Africa in ancient times, and were of the Taurine type. Native African peoples eagerly took up cattle husbandry, and cattle eventually spread throughout the continent. At a later date but still in ancient times Arabs were believed to have imported Zebu cattle into the Horn of Africa area. Native African Nilotic tribes such as the Masai, Watutsi, etc. interbred these Zebu cattle with their Taurine cattle, producing a new crossbred type known as the Sanga. These were brought southwards by Bantu tribes who'd also eagerly taken up the pastoral lifestyle and make up the majority of native African cattle today, though some pure Taurine breeds continue to exist in West Africa. The original Taurine, Zebu, and Sanga types have been developed into many different localized breeds by selective breeding.
This is the conventional narrative of the origin of African cattle.
The above article from 'Natural History' changes things quite a bit. It states that wild cattle (the Aurochs) were native to North Africa (the Maghreb area), were domesticated there, and from there spread throughout the African continent. It states that their was an admixture of Taurine cattle brought in during ancient times and a later admixture with Zebu cattle brought in by Arabs and spread by Nilotic and Bantu tribesmen, but that indigenous North African cattle were the primary ancestral stock that gave rise to most African cattle.
It will be interesting to see what future conclusions can be drawn, and will probably depend upon further genetic analysis of African cattle breeds. I imagine that an analysis of the cattle of the Maghreb (North Africa) would be especially important.
------------- Windemere |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 12-Nov-2007 at 18:20
Well, "Sweet Potatos" is an American plant different of Yams; Yams are African and Asiatic, though. Amaranth is American. Eggplant came from India and Sri Lanka, Millet is Chinese and Sorghum is African and Asiatic.
The point is simple. Africa was a very stingy continent in plants and animals able to be domesticated.
|
Posted By: jdalton
Date Posted: 13-Nov-2007 at 01:07
Different breeds of yams were domesticated independently in Africa and Asia. Sorghum and millet are also indigenous to SS Africa, which is not to say they aren't also indigenous to Asia. My book also says tef, but I don't know what that is. I don't know anything about the origins of amaranth or eggplants. Also, didn't house cats and lettuce originate in Egypt? Not that anyone eats house cats, I hope.  ------------- http://www.jonathondalton.com/mycomics.html - Lords of Death and Life (a Mesoamerican webcomic) |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 13-Nov-2007 at 01:19
|
You are right. It is interesting that some plants have been transcontinental, like the ones you mentioned above. Some are present worldwide by nature, like coconuts, for instance, because the plant floats. It is interesting, though, that cola nuts and coffee became so important in worlwide diet, and both came from Africa. |
Posted By: longshanks31
Date Posted: 25-Nov-2007 at 19:36
|
Africas impact on history is not to be underestimated, but for external impact, the history of the horse plays a large if lateral part of explaining the answer, particularly with regard to sub saharan africa.
I can go into this in greater depth, but it will be a bit round the houses and im hoping the connection between the history of the horse and the relative quietness of ss africa in history will be apparent now ive mentioned it, most of you guys are a lot smarter than me. ------------- long live the king of bhutan |
Posted By: Decebal
Date Posted: 05-Dec-2007 at 21:59
|
well longshanks, contrary to popular belief, horses did play an important role in the history of Sub-Saharan Africa. There are kingdoms such as Kanem-Bornu which were based on it and it did play an important tolr in Songhay as well. I think that the real issues which slowed the development of African civilizations are difficult terrain and somewhat poor food sources, and the difficulties posed by malaria, dengue fever and sleeping sickness. These diseases changed the pattern of African settlement, by creating bariers to livestock and by forcing African villages to be away from the water (which enables the spreading of mosquitoes). Being away from the water is not very productive, since it makes it that much harder to cultivate food on a large scale, which is critical to the development of civilizations. ------------- 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: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 05-Dec-2007 at 22:51
|
Decebal, all I've read on horses (equus caballus that is, zebra or the donkey are also part of equus genus) point out they were not indigenous in Africa. But more important than horses is how to use them (they were known for a long time, but rather eaten than used in agriculture or riding). Kanem-Bornu and Songhay and other such kingdoms are rather recent on the history scale, and please note on the map how north are they when compared with overall sub-Saharan Africa. I guess they were most likely brought by nomadic elements crossing the Sahara, eventually as a replacement to camels in the raiding/military activities.
No doubt diseases shaped humanity in their own away. But what I find ignored is that people in various areas have different types of immunities, and different types of diet, which sometimes negate their harmful effect (check for instance the relation between fava beans and malaria). An insiniuation that humans will become "civilized" if they have the proper conditions sounds like wishful thinking to me. But maybe I'm missing some arguments/evidences ...
|
Posted By: jdalton
Date Posted: 06-Dec-2007 at 16:37
And if you look at the history of the Sahel, you can see that before Kanem-Bornu and Songhay and Mali and the like, there were few if any large organized empires in the region. So is the arrival of the horse responsible for this?
It's a fair point on the limitations Africa imposed on building cities. Imagine if early industrial revolution era London, with its rampant outbreaks of cholera and such, were situated in central Africa. Disease epidemics would be intolerable. On the other hand, Chilbudios is right that Africans weren't defenceless when it came to dealing with disease. SS Africa, Ottoman Turkey, and China all independently developed vaccinations against smallpox long before Europeans thought up the idea. I think it involved putting smallpox scabs in an incision under the skin of healthy children, thus significantly increasing the chances that they will develop an immunity to the disease without catching it.
------------- http://www.jonathondalton.com/mycomics.html - Lords of Death and Life (a Mesoamerican webcomic) |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 06-Dec-2007 at 18:19
|
With all the due respect, I don't like the way Africa is used for political purposes and increase the self-esteem of minorities. History should be teach at its face value. Showing nothing more and nothing less than the facts. First, Africa is not uniform, and speaking of the history of the Maghreb have very little in common with the history of Madagascar, or Egypt with Congo. Second, the diversity of levels of technological achievements is amazing: some people lived in advanced civilizations and others deep in the stone age.Now, the civilizations of Mediterranean North Africa to Egypt and Ethiopia were in permanent contact with the rest of the world in the international networks of commerce of the time, so claiming theirs cultures are "native" is pointless. Finally, Subsaharan Africa for most of the time was very isolated of the rest of the world, and theirs technical and scientific achievements weren't much impresive. Most of them were tribal people and shared with them similar levels of development, like in Australia or Amazonia.
------------- |
Posted By: JanusRook
Date Posted: 08-Dec-2007 at 01:48
To be fair, civilization comes from the latin word for city so yes civilizations require cities to be named as such. Otherwise they are just cultures, even though they may have advanced ideas, they won't be civilizations unless they have cities since it's only in large congregations of people that truly advanced concepts come together and remain. ------------- Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative. Unless otherwise noted source is wiki. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 08-Dec-2007 at 02:13
Precisely. Civilization is a culture of cities. That's the definition.
That doesn't mean that nomadic or agricultural people that doesn't have large cities are "primitive". It only mean that the level of complexity of the cultures and its technologies are smaller.
To be fair, one must say that even the simpler cultures made interesting inventions. For instance the Inuits invented the harpoon, the Australian Aboriguines the boomerang and the Tainos of the Caribbean the hammock. However, civilizations usually were more inventive by far.
All people around the world had a culture. But civilizations were quite fewer in number.
------------- |
Posted By: jdalton
Date Posted: 08-Dec-2007 at 21:20
But isn't this the problem? Using only one term of reference to measure "civilization?" Naturally the Romans used a term relevant to their own situation (size of cities) to measure their neighbours against. I think other factors must be considered, especially if the reason SS Africans didn't build large cities was directly related to the limitations imposed by their environment. Other factors that could be considered include how stratified a society was or how specialized its workforce or what technologies they had available or their infrastructure or the number of people they were able to unify under one banner. Even if you add in all these factors the best of medieval Africa still might not measure up to the best of Europe or Asia. SS Africa had many great kingdoms but it lacked a Rome or a China. But I reject the notion that we must continue to judge who is or is not civilized by the rules set out by historians 2500 years ago. ------------- http://www.jonathondalton.com/mycomics.html - Lords of Death and Life (a Mesoamerican webcomic) |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 08-Dec-2007 at 22:07
No, it isn't. The definition of "civilization" is very helpful to understand the development of societies around the world.
This is a definition from Wiki that is the one generally accepted:
Civilization, or civilisation, is a word describing a type of http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society - society . It comes from the http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin - Latin word civis, meaning someone who lives in a http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town - town . A civilization is a complex society, where people live together in cities. To be called a civilization, the people must have a way of http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farm - farming , people who can be http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist - scientists or http://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thinker&action=edit - thinkers , people who rule over most of the people, http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Write - writing , http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion - religion , http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art - Art , and http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money - money .
Well, that's another matter. That some cultures are not considered civilizations doesn't mean they are "uncivilized" at all. People like Polynesians, for instance, developed many things: monuments, fast sea going double canoes that helped them conquered half the world, they also developed writing and had a very complex astronomical and nautical knowledge. However, they didn't build cities, so technically they weren't civilizations.
Well, the problem is the load the word "civilized" has. "civilized" should be a synonym of citizen rather than of "superior" like some pretends. Many people in the world didn't have cities: The Indians of the northern part of the U.S. and Canada, for instance; the Inuits; the Mongols that conquered half of the world; most of the Arabs; the ancient Germans and the early Norse; the Aboriguines of Australia that invented the first air device: the boomerang. The fact they weren't civilizations didn't stop them to left its heritage. South Saharan Africans also left us theirs arts in music, sculpture, religiosity, phylosophy and even in literature (Sundiata, Uncle Remus tales). Some people just don't know about it; that's all.
South Saharan Africa has many interesting cultures. The arts of Ife and the monument of Great Zimbabwe are just two proofs of it. Besides, it is being investigated but there is a chance iron metalurgy was developed in Africa either in parallel of Eurasia or perhaps iron originated in there.
As I said before, the term "civilization" is technical. ------------- |
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2007 at 23:54
That geography is the sole drive behind civilization is the thesis of Jared Diamond which received sharp criticisms like:
http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/Blaut/diamond.htm - http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/Blaut/diamond.htm
http://www.nationalreview.com/books/hanson200505200837.asp - http://www.nationalreview.com/books/hanson200505200837.asp (though I do not agree with Hanson's view on civilization, either).
|
Posted By: JanusRook
Date Posted: 10-Dec-2007 at 01:34
No it isn't a problem. Civilizations refer to massive government entities that control large portions of territory, they may be a single massive state, or many states that exercise a similar form of laws and regulations. Culture on the other hand has no requirement for large cities, in fact culture extends beyond civilization. Just look at the Steppe Nomads, cultural they adopted many facets of Islamic culture, yet they adopted very little of Islamic civilization, this is because the area they were in wasn't conducive to forming a large civilization. I agree Civilization is a horrible means to define a group of peoples, culture does a much better job at it. However Civilization does a great job at defining a historical region since Civilizations hold onto records that survive much longer periods of time than cultures, and records are what are important to historical study. Civilization will occur if the parameters are just right, since in order for humans to work in an ordered community they will need law, a place to defend themselves from outside attack and a place for commerce to take place between vast distances. This can only happen on a large scale in a city and thus in order for a civilization to succeed they will need cities. ------------- Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative. Unless otherwise noted source is wiki. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10-Dec-2007 at 03:07
|
Civilizations are just a cathegory of cultures that are caracterized by large urban developments, roads and complex infraestructure. Now, to produce a civilization you need to have intensive agriculture that produce the surplus necessary to keep people living in cities. That's what makes the difference.
------------- |
Posted By: Rakasnumberone
Date Posted: 09-Feb-2008 at 08:20
With all due respect, Eurocentic thought which was at the core of European colonization did exactly that. They went all over the world brain washing the native populations that the sun rose and set on the ass of Europe and then had the nerve to further declaire thawt their white skin was the sign of their superior intelligence. As for Africa's native civilizations. Yes they were in contact with other civilizations and so what? How does that make their achievements any less valid? Prior to the invasion and domination of the Roman Empire, all of Western Europe including Britania itself was opperating at the same level of technology os Subsaharan Africa, well, except that West Africans had a knowledge of Iron working without going through a Bronze age first. They even lived in circular huts indistinguishable from many found in Africa. The Romans themselves borrowed heavily from the Etruscans, who originated in the Levant and Anatolia, and from the Greeks, who themselves were heavily influenced by the Egyptians and other Middle Eastern Civilizations. Even their alphabet was introduced by the Phoenicians, so I guess it's equally pointless to speak of a "native Classical European civilization". |
Posted By: Rakasnumberone
Date Posted: 09-Feb-2008 at 08:36
One other thing, Its not that MOST African civilizations were on the same technological level as those of Amazonia and Australia, it's that for some reason, those are the only cultures Europeans ever want to pay attention to. All over Africa there were urban centers that were far more technically advanced and had more complex social, political and economic structures than the tribes of the Amazon or Australia. And as for pride....Well my friend..after having over 500 yrs of lies, distortions and misinformation about our ancestors and the continent they came from you damn right we need to correct the brian washing. The misrepresentation of history was used specifically with the intent of destroying our self esteem so that we would be more compliant. Therefore, telling the truth about who we are, what we have achived both in Africa and the New World is very neccessary. I personally draw the line only when in the attempt to counteract the deliberate psychological warfare waged against us, people start to make up stuff, like claiming anyone who did anything anywhere in the world was Black. Black Chinese, Black Mexicans, Blacks on Mars, that's just unneccessary bulshit. There is enough truth to study making lies and pseudo history unneccessary. Why it should bother you that African peoples look to their history for selfesteem is beyond me, since its what EVERY SOCIETY ON EARTH has done since the beginning of time till now. The Jews do it, the Chinese do it, the Greeks do it. In fact, they take it so seriously that their kids have to go to special schools AFTER regular school to learn their history and culture. If history shoul just be THE FACTS, then you need to tell the Jew, Armenians, Greeks, Chinese, Japanese to close their education centers and let their kids learn about their history and culture in the regular class rooms. Hell, I learned more about Jewish history and culture in school than I did about my own. That's not a problem, but apparently teaching African decendants that their ancestors were not swinging naked from the trees eating each other is...GO FIGURE. |
Posted By: Mughal e Azam
Date Posted: 10-Feb-2008 at 16:44
|
So when will Africans churn out substantial histories of their empires?
I wait. ------------- Mughal e Azam |
Posted By: Rakasnumberone
Date Posted: 10-Feb-2008 at 17:48
They have, where have you been? Mali Ghana, Songhai, Congo, Kanem Borno, Aksum, Mero, Benin, Great Zimbabwe, Nok. Just because its been ignored by the mainstream doesn't mean it doesn't exist. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10-Feb-2008 at 18:08
That happened all over the world. Chineses were considered inferior people by some up to recent times, for instance. Native Americans, Polynesians, Inuits, Sami, Central Asians, Mongols, Ainus and many other people suffered that as well.
That's true
Absolutely agree. The origins of Europe are in the Middle East, or the Fertile Crescent. And Europe is a relative young civilization when compared to the rest.
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10-Feb-2008 at 18:15
I don't know why you asumme Amazonians and Australians lacked everything, or perhaps some kind of "inferior" people. That's something I don't accept.
Civilizations and tribal people deserve respect.
As for SS Africa to be highly urban, that's hardly true. You know the most urbanized centers in SS Africa where those with contact with the external world.
Absoluty
That's true.
I read another thread about SS African mathematics. It is quite amazing. Those kind of research is what could teach people something worthwile.
The problem with SS Africa is that, so far, only Europeans get interested in their archaeology and history. That's too bad but will change with time.
With respect to canibbalism in Africa in the past, it was documented. People should accept the good and bad of the past. Otherwise is cheating.
------------- |
Posted By: Rakasnumberone
Date Posted: 10-Feb-2008 at 18:22
So this is my point exactly. Civilization has no political boundaries as such. Great civilizations have always come about when people of different communities put their minds together. One person's idea inspires the other person who borrows it and then makes refinements and so the process goes. The civilization that we enjoy now can not be claimed as the product of any one region. It is the combined accumulation of thousands of years of borowing sharing and adapting from every person on this planet. Every corner of the world has made it's contributions, from the botanical knowledge of the most simplest societies in the forests, to whom we ow a great deal of our knowledge for the pharmacutecals we use to the engeneering achievements of many others, to the spiritual revolutions in thought originated by nomadic desert tribes people. We all have something of value to offer , but its the lack of humility in realizing this that causes the problem. When we look at people with eyes of spiritual and humanistic awareness, rather than superficial materialism, we will see the value in every human being and realize that we depend on each other to survive. |
Posted By: Mughal e Azam
Date Posted: 10-Feb-2008 at 19:18
|
Please provide books on these civilizations and empires, rakas.
I dont mean books like "History of African Civilization" or "Cambridge History of Africa", but books devoted solely to one kingdom or empire that is detailed.
For example, The Kingdom of Kongo by Anne Hilton or Timbuctu and the Songhai Empire by John Hunowick.
Also, when I asked when Africans will churn out history in their own language, I meant the Africans themselves, not scholars of European Empires. I would rather read a book from the point of view of someone living in Bamako, then from either in the French or German language or some Afrocentric individual who speaks, talks, and writes in English. ------------- Mughal e Azam |
Posted By: Mughal e Azam
Date Posted: 10-Feb-2008 at 19:24
|
As far as im concerned, there are only a few great civilizations in Africa, discounting North Africa;
Wagadou
Mali
Songhai
Kanuri-Bornu
Axum
Kongo ------------- Mughal e Azam |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 10-Feb-2008 at 23:32
|
That just shows your ignorance. You didn't even mention Ethiopia or Zimbabwe ------------- |
Posted By: Rakasnumberone
Date Posted: 11-Feb-2008 at 01:10
Just because we don't know of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Look it up. |
Posted By: Rakasnumberone
Date Posted: 11-Feb-2008 at 01:17
You forgot Nubia, Great Zimbabwe, and the most contested of all Egypt, which was an African civilization/culture. Male and female circumcision, African, mumification African see Mystery of the Black mummy, their hair styles African, anamistic religion African, but I digress. You also forgot Nok in Nigeria a very old Iron age civilization. |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 11-Feb-2008 at 01:25
|
Naturally, Egypt contains cultural elements of the people to the south of it, the people to the east of it, the people to the north and west of it.
------------- |
Posted By: Mughal e Azam
Date Posted: 11-Feb-2008 at 01:30
Ethiopia is Axum. And Zimbabwe; no one really knows what the hell it is; but students of history of architecture try to comment on it. ------------- Mughal e Azam |
Posted By: Mughal e Azam
Date Posted: 11-Feb-2008 at 01:34
Well, how can they be important in the sense of historical depth when all they discuss is burial habits and architecture and a few dinggits they find buried i the ground?
Thats what im saying, you cant reconstruct history by digging to find shit. We were lucky the Middle Eastern Empires left steeles with information, unless all wed know is they had cow faced masks made of mud.
Hittites
Assyrians
Elamites
Sumerians/Babylonians/Chaldeans
Kassites
Urartians
Egyptians
Those civilizations left writting in tact; Africans did not except from Wagadou onwards. Actually im not sure about Wagadou; but I know the Islamic centered one borrowed arabic for writting. ------------- Mughal e Azam |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 11-Feb-2008 at 02:30
I agree with your way of thinking, indeed. We just have to be careful to put truth and respect to fact before any other thing when reconstructing history.
All people in the world has contributed with something, including Inuits with kayaks and Australians with boomerangs. We should respect the wonders of Greece, the travels of the Vikings and the conquest of the Pacific by the polynesians. We should remember every civilization but also every culture, and respect them.
It is a hard game, though. For too long history has been a field to rise pride rather than to rise understanding. Let's hope things change for good.
------------- |
Posted By: Rakasnumberone
Date Posted: 11-Feb-2008 at 03:25
AMEN TO THAT! |
Posted By: Tyranos
Date Posted: 11-Feb-2008 at 05:33
|
Egypt may be located on the African continent, however its partve the cultures of the Mediterranean
interaction zone which definitely share common elements through their
descent from Neolithic agriculturalists of the Fertile Crescent and
their subsequent interactions in prehistory and history. This is quite unlike the case of e.g., other
geographical regions such as Asia or Africa, where such unity of
descent and interaction simply does not exist. Egyptian influence did however reach further south into the Sudan, Nubia and such. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 11-Feb-2008 at 12:29
That's just misleading.
The fact is, Africans settled mostly around the Caribbean. In large parts of South America there are less Africans than in Canada.
The idea that Natives dissapeared easily is just (please moderators allow me) bull!
------------- |
Posted By: Rakasnumberone
Date Posted: 11-Feb-2008 at 13:50
The Pharaonic culture originated in the area of Southern Egypt and and Northern Sudan. Yes they did have contact with the fertile crescent but their culture shared much more with those of the continent they are located on. In fact the most recent findings show that a great deal of their culture was introduced by the culture of the ancient Sahara which stretched from Mali and Niger in the West to the Nile Valley in the East. Animal domestication, mummification, a great deal of their religious practices, social practices such as male and female circumcision is still practiced in Egypt to this day as it is still practiced in all of the countries of the Sudanic belt. None of these practices are found in Asia, they are African. Do a search on Mystery of the Black Mummy. The Science channel did a documerntary on it with some of the leading Egyptologists in the field. The earliest periods of dynastic history saw an Egypt that was far more concerned with interacting with it's southern neighbors to the South. Although in time that attention did shift to the northern and Eastern regions. There might have been some borrowing of ideas from the slightly older civilizations of Mesopotamia, but the vast majority of their culture came from within the continent not out. Even if the influences where greater than what they were, it wouldn't make Egypt any less an African civilzation than Greece's and Rome's interaction with the Levant and Anatolia makes them European civilizations. Egypt was an African civilization in culture, history and geography. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 11-Feb-2008 at 14:17
|
I don't agree with that. Just a consideration in geography: Egypt was not only in contact with the Ferlile Crescent, but it is PART OF IT.
Some influence could have existed. However, doubfully Mali was more important to Egypt than Mesopotamia, that was right beside it and not a continent away.
That comes from the Middle East.
That may be so.
------------- |
Posted By: Rakasnumberone
Date Posted: 11-Feb-2008 at 14:38
|
CHANNEL 5, FRIDAY MAY 2ND AT 9PM DISCOVERY NETWORK USA, FEB 17 2003 hi low hi low The programme explores the enigmatic central Saharan society which once spanned the entire north African continent. We unravel their tale through the story of the discovery of the black mummy, Uan Muhuggiag. It soon becomes obvious that these people were responsible for an extraordinary array of innovations which later became famous under the Egyptians. Their presence re-writes the history of Egypt and of the entire continent of Africa. The background: the lost society of the central Sahara and the rise of ancient Egypt The origins of ancient Egypt are archaeology's greatest unsolved mystery. What prompted this remarkable culture to develop such distinctive rituals as mummification? Where did they get their ideas? As far as we know, Egypt was only preceded by one great civilisation: Mesopotamia. Although Mesopotamia is a far older culture – there is no evidence to suggest that these people had developed any similar funerary practises. But if Egyptian innovations did not come from earlier known civilisations – where did they come from? The answer has come from an unlikely quarter – the barren Sahara desert. In the last few decades evidence has been mounting that the Egyptian civilisation was not the first advanced society in Africa. At the same time as Mesopotamia rose in the near east, another culture thrived in Africa. Although few people have heard of it – this central Saharan culture is providing evidence for the invention of ritual activity which had previously been attributed to the Egyptians. The first clue for archaeologists was the abundant rock art found all over the central Sahara from Libya to Egypt to Mali. The rock art depicts animals like crocodiles and rhinos – which do not live in deserts. It also shows scenes of hunting and rituals involving men wearing animal masks. All of this art was a firm clue that this area was once a hive of activity. It spurred archaeologists to dig and over the past fifty years they've uncovered an entire unknown society. The society was nomadic – groups of animal herders wandered all over the region and eventually spread their uniform culture throughout the continent of north Africa. They lived in huts and had time to make art and invent rituals. By the time the culture reached its pinnacle around 6ooo years ago these people had invented rituals which indicate a fairly complex world view. They were communicating with the heavens and using funerary rituals like mummification to treat their dead. But all of this evidence indicated an Eden-like place – one with trees, grasses and abundant running waters. And yet nothing could be further from this picture than the Sahara today. Although archaeologists had already assembled the clues, the science of climatology solidly confirmed what all had suspected: this area was once a lush savannah landscape. Changes in the tilt of the earth's axis had caused drought in the Sahara and brought this thriving society to an end. But with the demise of the central Saharan culture, people wandered all over northern Africa in search of greener pastures. The Nile valley was an obvious destination. Around 6000 years ago central Saharan ideas arrived in the Nile valley – adding mummification and other rituals to the potent mix which was to become the Egyptian civilisation. The mummy and archaeology in Libya: An Italian team of archaeologists first explored the Libyan Sahara almost fifty years ago. In 1958 they struck gold. Professor Fabrizio Mori discovered the black mummy at the Uan Muhuggiag rockshelter. The mummy of a young boy, Uan Muhuggiag was destined for controversy. He was older than any comparable Egyptian mummy and his mere existence challenged the very idea that Egyptians were the first in the region to mummify their dead. Although the Italian team from the university of Rome "La Sapienza", has since discovered other mummified tissue, they have not yet discovered another complete mummy in the region. But Uan Muhuggiag was no one off. The sophistication of his mummification suggested he was the result of a long tradition of mummification. Investigations in the area continue under the direction of Dr Savino di Lernia and Professor Mario Liverani. Climatology: Professor Mauro Cremaschi of CIRSA (University of Milan and University of Rome "La Sapienza") heads the Italian Climatology team which focuses on the Acacus area of Libya. Dr Kevin White (Reading University) heads an English team focussing on the nearby Fezzan region. Both teams are using the latest satellite technology to clarify our picture of climate in the central Sahara over the past several hundred thousand years. Another lost Libyan civilisation: The Fezzan project, headed by Professor David Mattingly (University of Leicester) focuses on the Garamantes civilisation which thrived from 1500bc-500ad. The Garamantes were known by the Romans as barbarians but evidence from the Sahara shows a large, sophisticated civilisation. Remains show substantial architecture and a complex society replete with numerous luxuries. Almost 100,000 tombs litter the Fezzan escarpment – to date these bodies are the most concrete testimony to this little-known people. further reading Mummies, Disease and Ancient Cultures by A and E Cockburn & T Reyman l Ancient Egypt: Life, Myth and Art by J Fletcher l Rock Art of the Sahara by H Hugor & M Bruggman l Holocene Settlement of the Egyptian Sahara by F Wendorf l Archaeology of Sub Saharan Africa by J Vogel l Archaeology and Environment in the Libyan Sahara by B Barich l Garamantes of the Fezzan by Charles Daniels interesting links Www.cru.uea.ac.uk Http://i-cias.com/e.o/fezzan.htm Www.countryreports.org/history/libhist.htm Www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/herod-Libya.htm credits l narrator: kerry shale l exec prod: tracey gardiner l prod: gillian mosely l dir: chris hooke l ed: benedict jackson & sue outlaw l research: sophie mautner l head of prod: martin long l prod manager: sandra leeming l prod co-ord: donna blackburn l sales enquiries l please contact martin long, head of production l t 020 7689 4248 l f 020 7490 0206 l e info@fulcrumtv.com http://www.fulcrumtv.com/blackmummy.htm |
Posted By: Rakasnumberone
Date Posted: 11-Feb-2008 at 15:17
|
Originally posted by Rakasnumberone
... The Pharaonic culture originated in the area of Southern Egypt and and Northern Sudan. Yes they did have contact with the fertile crescent but their culture shared much more with those of the continent they are located on. I don't agree with that. Just a consideration in geography: Egypt was not only in contact with the Ferlile Crescent, but it is PART OF IT. ***The part that is on the African Continent. And as I said, which is well known. The cultuer of Dynastic Egypt originated in the South and then spread north. This is just plain historical fact.*** Second, archaelogical finds show clearly the influence of the Middle East into Egypt. Remember that the Middle East earlies cities started circa 8.000 years ago, when Egypt didn't exist. ***Even if this is so, like I said, it does not matter. Is Greece therefore NOT a European civilization despite the heavy cultural and technological influences from the Levant Anatolia and Egypt? Of course not. Greece IS a European civilization regardless. Yes they received influences Asia, but they also had many more aspects of their culture that was native to the European continent. This is the process of civilization all over the world and Egypt is no exception. It is an African civilization and culture.*** Originally posted by Rakasnumberone ... In fact the most recent findings show that a great deal of their culture was introduced by the culture of the ancient Sahara which stretched from Mali and Niger in the West to the Nile Valley in the East. Some influence could have existed. However, doubfully Mali was more important to Egypt than Mesopotamia, that was right beside it and not a continent away. Originally posted by Rakasnumberone ... Animal domestication, That comes from the Middle East. ***The most recent evidence coming out of the Sahara shows that Africans already had animal domestication as far back as 10,000yrs ago. The practice entered Egypt via the Sahara, not Mesopotamia. That is what we know now.*** Originally posted by Rakasnumberone ... mummification, a great deal of their religious practices, social practices such as male and female circumcision is still practiced in Egypt to this day as it is still practiced in all of the countries of the Sudanic belt. None of these practices are found in Asia, they are African. That may be so. ***Not maybe but is. Other aspects, matriarchal society structure where as Mesopotamian was patriarchal. If these were a poeople of Asiatic origin, they would have retained this most fundamental aspect of their world view. Egyptian society was noted for the great deal of personal, economic and social freedom of its women, which was very, very different from that of women in Asiatic cultures. However, this is common with to cultures across the Sudanic belt. So much so thatIbn Batuta was shocked to see how free West African Muslim women were compared to Arab Muslim women. The Arab Muslims in the north, Morocco, where he was from, retained the patriarchal world view of their Arab ancestors and still do to this day. Now Egypt is a lot closer to Mesopotamia than Morocco is, yet thousands of years later, we observe a documented Asiatic migration into North Africa and we see that across North Africa, the pateriarchal social structure was retained by their descendants and those who adopted the culture of those migrants. Why then did this not happen earlier in Egypt if these were in fact a fundamentally Asiatic people? Where do we find puberty cercumcision rituals of males and particularly females, as well as matriarchal social structures anywhere in the Fertile Cresecent? No where, yet it is shared by a vast geographical area across Africa from East to West.*** Originally posted by Rakasnumberone ... The earliest periods of dynastic history saw an Egypt that was far more concerned with interacting with it's southern neighbors to the South. Although in time that attention did shift to the northern and Eastern regions. There might have been some borrowing of ideas from the slightly older civilizations of Mesopotamia, but the vast majority of their culture came from within the continent not out. Even if the influences where greater than what they were, it wouldn't make Egypt any less an African civilzation than Greece's and Rome's interaction with the Levant and Anatolia makes them European civilizations. Egypt was an African civilization in culture, history and geography. That may have an easy explanation. The passing from tribal culture to large kingdoms open large scale trade with Asia, and then Egypt changed, moving from a modest culture to the civilization we admire today. ***By the early dynastic period Egypt was NOT a simple tribal society. It's civilization had been well established and would be the standard by which all the subsequent periods judged themselves. Whenever , there had been periods of instability, the revival was alwas marked by a return to the cultural standards of the Old Kingdom. The last time this happend was during the 25th dynasty when the Nubian monarchs restored Egypt's cultural artistic and religious traditions after years of foriegn domination. So yes, there was trade, but all the evidence shows that the hallmarks that made it the impressive society it was were native innovations. For example, they may have borrowed the technology of mud bricks from MEsopotamia, but the innovation of stone architecture the invention of colums and the arch were entirely native innovations. Egypt was an African civilization. As for being part of the fertile crescent. Let's examine that. The land in those latitudes were plagued by desertification with the exception of Mesopotamia, the coast of the Levant and the Nile Valley. The Levant boardering the Mediterranian still receives adequate rain fall and has some water from the Jordan River and smaller streams. Mesopotamia is dry and only receives water from the Tigris and Euphrates which originate in Anatolia. Egypt is bone dry. What allows it to sustain life is the Nile Rivier which originated deep in the heart of Africa, NOT Asia. Therefore, what allows it to be part of the "Fertile Crescent" is the water from the African continent of which it is a part. Egypt is a part of Africa. The Nile IS an AFRICAN River whose waters do NOT nourish the soil of ANY Asiatic region. Egypt is an AFRICAN civilization, culture and country, regardless of being adjacent to Asia.*** |
Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 11-Feb-2008 at 16:28
|
Apparently, what we have here is an argument over labels (Asia, Africa, Europe) that did not exist in early history together with the resucitation of false racial dichotomies. The discovery of the mummified remains in the Lybian Sahara by Fabrizio Mori in 1959, now called by some the "black" mummy has taken wing of late as an Internet fantasy all of its own deeply intertwined with the palaver over Black Africa. I doubt any have taken time to read Professor Mori's study:
Mori, Fabrizio. Tadrart Acacus: arte rupestre e culture del Sahara preistorico. Torino: Giulio Einaudi Editore, 1965
Nor his other work on the Paleolithic Sahara, which have nothing to do with Sub-Saharan Africa.
Likewise, a statement such as this one is historically unsustainable:
"The earliest periods of dynastic history saw an Egypt that was far more concerned with interacting with it's southern neighbors to the South."
Egyptian expansion beyond the first cataract belongs to the New Kingdom dynasts, while the substantial records of the first six dynasties record extensive contact within the Mediterranean ambit. It is rather difficult to obscure the activities of the Theban dynasts against the peoples beyond the first cataract under Ka'mose and Ah'mose in their conflict with "Kush". By that date, an unique Egyptian identity was well-fixed and what occurs is the spread on an Egyptian milieu southward and not the reverse. Hatshepsuts funerary temple Djeser Djeseru provides ample documentation of the interest southward as well as the non-Egyptian characteristics of these neighbors. ------------- |
Posted By: Rakasnumberone
Date Posted: 11-Feb-2008 at 17:13
Please provide a link if any exist to his work. As for the racial identity of the mummy, I'm only quoting what the archologists who found it said. They claimed that it was of the physical type considered "negroid", not a term that I myself feel comfortable with or use. This is what THEY said. As for its connection to Sub-Saharan Africa, this culture was SAHARAN. It stretched from Mali to Egypt and Sudan. It was an AFRICAN culture. Honestly, I don't know why people get so bent out of shape over this fact? Do people get bent out of shape if we say the Romans or Greeks were European? Do we ever have drawn out debates about, Oh well the Greeks didn't consider themselves European, no one use the term European back then etc, etc? No we don't. Why then should this be the case with Egypt. Egypt, Sudan and the Sahara are all located on the landmass we now call Africa, period. As for the early relation to Nubia, they werte trading with Nubia before there was any attempts at conquest. This is a fact that can be read in any basic history book. Yes, the two cultures eventually developed their own identities, but so what? The world is full of cultures living side by side on the same continent that developed their own identities. Phonician were not Hitties Mesopotamians were not Persians, Romans were not Greeks. Another thing to consider is the scarcity of knowledge we have of early Nubia due to the fact that it was largely neglected by archologists and that the majority of it is now under the wateres of Lake Nasser. Therefore, we can't rule out the possibility of stronger influences from the south in earlier periods just because haven't to date found the evidence. What we do have regardless is a lot of evidence showing cultural elements with other African societies that exist to the present time which share no similarities with cultures found in the east. As for the racial thing. Egypt lies at a crossroads. They were a mixture of peoples from various parts of Africa as well as Western Asia. By today's standards, a great deal of these people were of a physical type we would consider black. And as I said in other posts, the concept of what makes a person a black or negro has never been dependent on a concept of racial purity, since the people we consider to be blacks or negros in the Americas and Europe are infact anywhere from 30% to 90% European. However, when we encounter multi racial people in Africa and the Middle East we are quick to point out how "UNAfrican" they are in facial architecture. Does Lena Horn have an "African" facial structure? Does Alicia Keys? Does Rosa Parks? Does Thurgood Marshal? No one anywhere in the world denies the fact that these people are of African origin, even if they are as white as Adam Clayton Powell was. We don't call these people "Caucasian" no matter how much European blood they have, so why do we feel the need to do it with Egypt? A people of clear African origin as can still be observed today not only in Upper Egypt, but all over the country from Alexandria to Aswan. If African animals such as hippos, crocodiles, ostriches, lions and many more could find their way all the way to the Nile Delta, what in God's name would have prevented humans from East Africa or other areas to do the same? If the flaura and fauna of the ancient Sahara was also African, why, then why is it so hard to fathum that just as animals migrated from the south into the sahara once it became green, so too did humans? Even when archologists find the mummified remains of a physical type they themselves call "negroid", people's feathers are still ruffled. What the hell is the world afraid of for god's sake? |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 11-Feb-2008 at 17:38
|
I wonder why one should look for a typical "African" civilization in one at the frontiers, at border of Asia. I also why there is a desperation to push Egypt into "Africa" when everybody knowns in here that Egypt was part of a network of civilization that spread from the Middle East to India, Turkey, Egypt and Crete, and that touched SS Africa only marginally. Why to twist things?
------------- |
Posted By: Rakasnumberone
Date Posted: 11-Feb-2008 at 18:07
With regards to Greece: I wonder why one should look for a typical "European" civilization in one at the frontiers, at border of Asia. I also why there is a desperation to push Greece and even Minoan Crete located in the middle of the Mediterranian Sea into "Europe" when everybody knowns in here that Greece and Crete was part of a network of civilization that spread from the Middle East to India, Turkey, Egypt and that touched Europe only marginally. Why to twist things? Sharrukin has told you and many other many times that Egypt was essentially geographically and culturally an African civilization. It is what it is, was where it was. Why do you have such a hard time just acknowledging that it is what it is? I tell you what, When you take Greece and Rome as well as the Phonecian colonies os Spain and Italy out of European history and no longer find the need to relate them to Europe, despite the fact that culturally those cultures looked to the East and the Mediterranian rather than to the heartland of the European continent, (except for conquest), then we can remove Egypt from Africa. The flaura was African , the Fauna was African, the overwhelming cultural traits, religious practices, kingship structure and world view was Africa, and I'm not the only one here who has adequately pointed this out, (only the most sarcastic perhaps) and the people were clearly a mixture of Africans and Asiatics, and is located on the African continent, why then do you feel so threatened to place it where it belongs? Should we separate Mexico from Latin America because it boarders the USA? Or should we consider Japan a western outpost of America, and not an Asian civilization because the overwhelming majority of its technology and popular culture came from the USA?
you're reasoning makes no sense when applied to other civilizations niether past nor present. Rome and Greece ARE European, regardless of contact or influences from anywhere else, Egypt is African for the same reasons and Modern Japan IS an Asian society/civilization, no matter what they borrowed from the U.S.A by way of technology and culture. |
Posted By: Rakasnumberone
Date Posted: 11-Feb-2008 at 18:13
I looked up Fabrizio Mori. His books are dan expencive and all in Italian. Since I don't speak Italian, perhaps you can tell me what he said in his work that pertains to the statements I made? Also, since his area of excavation was in the central Sahara, why in God's name would he be dealing with Subsaharan Africa culture? You know there is a lot more to Africa than West Africa. One continent many cultures, many people. It is what it is. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 11-Feb-2008 at 18:50
|
What is your point? Europe didn't exist at those times."Europe" is a modern term.
No desperation at all. Actually, who cares?
What does mean "essentially geographically African". For me that's just rethoric.
Rethoric. Civilizations are count by people, not by continents. You don't talk about an Asian civilization, but a Chinese or Indian. Got it.
Who say so? You. The Mare Nostrum covered all the Mediterranean. Saying that Rome was an European civilization is to be very badly informmed. Besides, half Greece is in today's Turkey. Gimme a break.
Egypt is also part of the Middle East and the Fertile Crescent, not matter how much some people wants to convert in the jewels of the "Black History".
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 11-Feb-2008 at 19:05
That's a good point. Mexico nor Latin America existed before the 19th century. In the Americas people know we should't mix pears and apples. We speak of three different time frames absolutelly unconected.
(1) Pre-contact Americas.
(2) Colonial Americas.
(3) Modern Americas: Anglo America, Latin America, West Indies.
In other words: The Inca empire has nothing to do with the Aztec. Got it?
------------- |
Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 11-Feb-2008 at 20:16
They are damned expensive because Dr. Mori wrote most of these over 35 years ago. Yet, he at no time maintained or asserted that he was dealing with sub-Saharan "African" culture nor did he himself ever declare the mummified remains of the child he discovered, the "black" mummy--all mummies are essentially "black". Mori's pioneering work with the petroglyphs and rock painting of the Sahara laid the foundations for the chronology of Northwest Africa as well as underscored the major thesis on the desertification of the region between 8,000-4,000 BC. With his work at Tadrart Acacus, he made clear that the fauna now associated with the African savannah had actually ranged through the Sahara, as evidenced by cave art. Further, the cultural complexes represented by the art indicated a habitation period affected by climatological changes during a chronological window of some 8,000 years:
1. Carvings on the rock face depicting the outline of large animals from the African savannah and clearly paleolithic in orientation (around 12,000 B.C.), 2. Stylized paintings using yellow, green and red pigments of clearly asexual hyperbrachycephalic figures, with the pigments generating a carbon-14 date of 8000 years BC. 3. Polychromatic representations of bovine animals and Mediterranean-type human figures (around 4000 B.C.) clearly indicative of the pastoral ambiance later found in the Nile Valley. 4. Representations of horses and carts datable to 1500 B.C., and generally associated with the Garamantes tribes mentioned by Herodotus. 5. Monochromic paintings corresponding to the introduction of camels into North Africa at the beginning of the Christian era. Doctor Mori never once proclaimed he was dealing with "African" cultures as expressed by the notion of sub-Saharan and essentially, his research is being misused and inverted (or should we say perverted) for tendentious racial polemics.
Now there exists an English edition of his magnum opus: The Great Civilisations of the Ancient Sahara: Neolithisation and the Earliest Evidence of Anthropomorphic Religions. Roma: l'Erma di Bret Schneider, 1998. This work is really a compilation and updating of his many essays on the subject all in English.
------------- |
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 11-Feb-2008 at 21:17
To support Rakasnumberone- Egypt is part of Africa, not the middle east, not Asia, Africa. Get over it. The Red Sea divides Africa from the Middle East. Egypt, Africa left side, Middle East right side. Got it?
 ------------- "Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces". Unknown. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 11-Feb-2008 at 21:37
|
Please read the thread before saying things nobody denies.
Besides, everybody knows Egypt belongs to:
(1) the Fertile Crescent
  (2) the Middle East
 (3) The Afroasiatic languages region in yellow (in contrast with the Bantu)
 (4) The Mediterranean
 And, of course, to North Africa (and therefore Africa) as well. That's no brainer.
Get over it  ------------- |
Posted By: Rakasnumberone
Date Posted: 12-Feb-2008 at 07:23
I know that Penguin. I was making reference to today's world, not ancient or colonial history. |
Posted By: Rakasnumberone
Date Posted: 12-Feb-2008 at 08:17
I see, so you are reading things intyo his work that aren't there. As I stated before, Subsaharan Africa is only one section of the the continent. It represents a perspective. We can divide the continent in many ways. We could talk about the eastern vs the western hemisperes, we could talk about a norther vs southern hemisphere, we could talk about a central area, as versu all the rest. The Sahara is in AFRICA, for God's sake look on a map where in tarnation do you think it is the dark side of Mars? Or maybe it's in New Jersey? Why does he have to identify the Saharan culture as an African culture when everyone already knows exactly where the Sahara is? Its an African desert, so logic would say it goes without saying that a civilization located in Africa, no matter which section of Africa, must in fact be an African civilization. Why does he have to say it? It's obvious. "Mori's pioneering work with the petroglyphs and rock painting of the Sahara laid the foundations for the chronology of Northwest Africa as well as underscored the major thesis on the desertification of the region between 8,000-4,000 BC. ". Didn't you read what you wrote? NOrthwestern WHEEEERE? Who is saying anything about Sub-SAharan Africa? HE didn't do his work in that region, so why would he be talking about it? If I'm doing a study of popular culture in New York City, do I have to tell everyone this is an aspect of American culture? If they're that stupid that they don't know New York isn't in France, then they probably won't understand my book anyway will they? For that matter, if my focus is New York, I'm going to go to New York to do my field research. One wouldn't expect me to start talking about the popular culture of Miami South Beach would they? Does that mean New York isn't part of America?, no, but Miami is irrelevant to my focus, just as the developement of Sub Saharan African cultures are irrelevant to his geographical focus. If he were writing a book about the prehistoric developement of the entire continent, then it would be, but that's not the focus of his research, so your point is mute. With regards to the mummy. Not all mummies are black. Ramses's mummy isn't black, neither is the mummy thought by some to be Queen Tyi. Some mummis are black in color, some are brown and some are an off white color. The mummy was called black not for the skin color but because of the craniofacial features. as I said before, the archeologists and Egyptologist called the mummy black, or as they said NEGRO, because it had the craniofacial structure of the type they consider NEGRO. THAT'S WHAT THEY SAID REPETEDLY IN THE DOCUMENTARY IN THEIR OWN WORDS. This isn't the rantings of wild eyed Afrocenticists. None of the scientists in the documentary who examined the mummy were African American. They were all WHITE EUROPEANS. That is why they called the documentary MYSTERY OF THE BLACK MUMMY. Deal with it. You have a very warped and distorted view of not only Africa, but Africans. Sub Saharan Africa only referes to the part of Africa below the Sahara. You speak of SUB SAHARAN AFRICA as if it were one whole cultural block. Honestly, what you know about Africa could fill a thimble and it shows. The area below the Sahara is home to many peoples of differeing skin tones, facial and physical features, different cultures languages and climate zones each as different from eack other as Hungary is from Holland. It is a CONTINENT, NOT a country. For crying out loud educate yourself! The only problem here is the irrational threat that some people feel, (not naming any names), when ever anyone speaks of African history in a way that does not conform to the race politics of a colonialist mentality of bumbling savages running around naked or swinging from trees. Suggest that the dark skinned people of the continent, (who have been slandered for so long all over the world by the colonial powers) actually had a history that influenced or came in contact with other great civilizations and ther's a problem. The notion of the primitive African is so deeply ingrained in the conciousness of some people that wherever you find a dark skinned African people who achieved anything, we have to find an explanation that fits our preconcieved notion of what Africa and Africans are all about. When they are in East Africa, no matter how black the skin, how kinky the hair, these learned scientists, experts, magically turn them into CAUCASIANS, yet at the exact same time people of the same craniofacial measurements and skin color in their own countries are classified as NEGROS. They point to PROBABLE caucasian mixture in the far far past, and declare that these people are not really black, they are more white, they just have black skin. Yet in their own country a person who is only 10% black, and to all external apperances, is European, is classified A NEGRO. So you explain to me what kind of scientific logic is that? 35% Negro in Africa = 100% CAUCASIAN, yet 90% European in LAtin AMerica, U.S.A, Europe =100 NEGRO? How does that work? Am I the only one who see's that this is a psychological mind f*&%? Am I the only one who see's the Emperor has no clothes and is walkin butt ass naked down the street in broad daylight? HEEEEEEEYYY! THE EMPEROR AIn'T GOT NO CLOTHES! If this is racial polemics well damn it, its needed becauses the emperor's going to catch his death of cold if he don't put some damn clothes on! This is why black people are so damnd pissed off. Because people are out here playing mind games. The SAhara is in Africa, Egypt is in Africa and so mother f&*%(% WHAT? it is what it is is where it is. Did I say that that makes black people some kind of master race or super beings? NO! It just means they are also human like anyone else. They have the same capacity for intelligence and stupidity, nobility and savegery, as anyone else. What you fear, and it is fear, is having black people turn the tables and claim we are the master race. well relax, we are not. We are just humans, like anyone else who have done the same things that ALL humans have done, no more, no less, SO RELAX AND GET OVER IT ALREADY! Puleez! |
Posted By: Rakasnumberone
Date Posted: 12-Feb-2008 at 09:24
|
Originally posted by Rakasnumberone
... With regards to Greece: I wonder why one should look for a typical "European" civilization in one at the frontiers, at border of Asia. What is your point? Europe didn't exist at those times."Europe" is a modern term. Originally posted by Rakasnumberone ... I also why there is a desperation to push Greece and even Minoan Crete located in the middle of the Mediterranian Sea into "Europe" when everybody knowns in here that Greece and Crete was part of a network of civilization that spread from the Middle East to India, Turkey, Egypt and that touched Europe only marginally. Why to twist things? No desperation at all. Actually, who cares? Yes, I know that Greece roots are in Asia. You are the one denying the link between Egypt and Asia that's another matter. ***No I'm not denying it. I even go so far to admit that although they were an African people, they did have an Asiatic input in their gene pool. What I am saying is that although there was contact and borrowing, it doesn't change the fact that the culture was essentially African because it was located on the African continent and shared many fundamental cultural similarities with other African societies around it and was influenced by them as well. The only one denying anything is you.**** Originally posted by Rakasnumberone ... Sharrukin has told you and many other many times that Egypt was essentially geographically and culturally an African civilization. What does mean "essentially geographically African". For me that's just rethoric. Egypt was always located in the fertile crescent, very close to the place where world civilization started in the Middle East. ***Geography: Having to do with the location of places on the globe or dealing with the topograhical features of areas of the earth. Egypt is located on one of the large landmasses on the Earth's surface called continents. Continents are divided into political entities known as countries. The country of Egypt is located on the large landmass we now call Africa. Egypt owes its existance to the waters of a river called the NILE which originates in the center of the continent we now call Africa and empties into the Mediterranian Sea, which is on the norther coast of the continent called Africa. In the period refered to as Ancient Egypt, the flaura: plant life, and fauna: animal life, were consistant this that found in areas of the continent to the south and west as well. Therefore it is essentiall and geographically African. Middle East is a political term created by the colonial powers of Europe in the 19th century. Ask yourself this: If the world is round...and it is...THE MIDDLE OF WHAT THEN? East in relation to WHERE EXACTLY? Rather Eurocentric wouldn't you say? Why not Middle North or Middle South. Why isn't it the Middle West? Who the hell says that should be the Middle any way? Middle of what? Fretile Crescent? Okay. I'm looking in my text book and I see that part of the crescent is in the continent and the other half is in the continent we now call Asia, and the world keeps turning.*** Originally posted by Rakasnumberone ... It is what it is, was where it was. Why do you have such a hard time just acknowledging that it is what it is? I tell you what, When you take Greece and Rome as well as the Phonecian colonies os Spain and Italy out of European history and no longer find the need to relate them to Europe, despite the fact that culturally those cultures looked to the East and the Mediterranian rather than to the heartland of the European continent, (except for conquest), then we can remove Egypt from Africa. The flaura was African , the Fauna was African, the overwhelming cultural traits, religious practices, kingship structure and world view was Africa, and I'm not the only one here who has adequately pointed this out, (only the most sarcastic perhaps) and the people were clearly a mixture of Africans and Asiatics, and is located on the African continent, why then do you feel so threatened to place it where it belongs? Should we separate Mexico from Latin America because it boarders the USA? Or should we consider Japan a western outpost of America, and not an Asian civilization because the overwhelming majority of its technology and popular culture came from the USA? Rethoric. Civilizations are count by people, not by continents. You don't talk about an Asian civilization, but a Chinese or Indian. Got it. ***Well tell that to all the European powers who created the concept. It is they not I who coined the term African civilizations, (although we had to drag them kicking and screaming to admit there was even such an idea), you don't seem to have a problem talking about SUB-SAHARAN Civilizations, I never see you correcting anyone for using the term. By the way...isn't this section of the forum termed AFRICAN HISTORY?...Why, yes it is. Hey, look at the top of the page. Why those silly moderators. What were they thinking? They've went and divided all this history not only in time periods, but REGIONAL HISTORY. God lordy me, what's the world coming to? Thank goodness we have people to correct their foolish ways. I expect to see all the civilizations of this forum promply categorized by people. You are right though. Civilizations are made up of specific people, but people...well...they live on continents Penguin. Therefore, We refere to Asian CIVILIZATIONS, not civilization because Asia is made up of many civilizations. Therefore, when I took an introductory course in Asian Civilizations in collage, I knew it was a survey course that was going to look at a few civilizations on the Asian continent, but not all of them and not in depth. The same was true of African Civilizations, European Civilizations, and Civilizations of the Americas. I think all people pretty much understand and take for granted this fact Penguin, it's kind of obvious.*** Originally posted by Rakasnumberone ... you're reasoning makes no sense when applied to other civilizations niether past nor present. Rome and Greece ARE European, Who say so? You. The Mare Nostrum covered all the Mediterranean. Saying that Rome was an European civilization is to be very badly informmed. Besides, half Greece is in today's Turkey. Gimme a break. ***No, not me, but ever historian and text book maker on the planet. Don't forget, I use to be a high school history teacher. Every textbook starts the history of European civilization with Crete, Greece and Rome. But don't take my word for it, get a textbook. I'm just telling you what the White man learned me. They all seem to think Greece and Rome are European civilizations. So I guess since they aren't European civilizations, but...they were the civilizations that influenced much of Europe.....Western Europe....doen't have a history.....I mean...how could it be Western European history if...Sooo then, It's Turkish history! Yes. That's it. Because Greece isn't located on the Peloponisian penninsula, it's actually in...ANATOLIA, yeah that's it. My map's broken. I need a new one.*** Originally posted by Rakasnumberone ... regardless of contact or influences from anywhere else, Egypt is African for the same reasons and Modern Japan IS an Asian society/civilization, no matter what they borrowed from the U.S.A by way of technology and culture. Egypt is also part of the Middle East and the Fertile Crescent, not matter how much some people wants to convert in the jewels of the "Black History". ***See my pervious comments regarding the Middle East and Fertile Crescent. The White man declared that all dark skinned people were black. They call the East Indians Black. Go rent the movies Ghandi and watch as the South African conductor tells him to get his BLACK ass back to 3rd class even though he had a 1st class ticket. Its the scene right before they kicked his BLACK ASS off train. They declared that the Maori people of New Zeland are BLACK. Go rent the movie Whale Rider. It's been the White Eropean all along classifying people. Calling this on yellow, that one red, that one Brown. This one a Negro, that one a mulatto, the other one a mongoloid. I asked several times, WHO MAKES THE RULES? You never answered me. No one did, so I'm telling you. WHITE, COLONIAL EUROPEANS, from Chritopher Columbus. They've gone all over the world with a pencile disregarding the identities of people and their cultures and putting them in the neat little boxes that fit their agendas. That's why we call people in America Indians, when in fact they have nothing to do with INDIA. They were Taino, CAribe, Aztec, Chippawa, Mohawk, but along comes the white man and now they all become INDIANS. Okay, what can I do about it? Nothing really, I have to accept it. Even though my father's skin is white as snow and his eyes are as blue as saphires, he's black, a negro, because the White man and his governmemt says so. And because my father is Black and a negro, I too am a negro. Even though I look nothing like a Sub-Saharan African. But hey, those are the rules. And since its was White Europeans who declared that dark skinned people were black, (or any descended from such a person), and that mysterious continent is called Africa, then dark skinned people in Africa must be Black Africans. Therefore Egypt is a civilization on the African continent and since I see dark skinned people running all over Egypt they must be black, 'acuse the same white man tells me that people in his countries who look like tehm are black, hey, I look just like them and he tells me I'm black, even though my skin is really beige. Therefore Egypt is a jewel of Black History....it's just not the only one. Black history is filled with many jewels not only in Africa, but where ever her people have migrated, whether voulentarily or by force. So yes, I see how rediculous this all is. And I understand your anger. I'm angry too because this is all male bovine feces. So get angry Penguin, but outraged, be offended, but know where to direct your outrage. Not at us, we so called black people, because we aren't the ones making the rules. You have to take on the univerities, government agencies, schools, churches, hearts and minds of the White Ruling elite class of Latin America, the United States and Canada, Eastern, Western and Southern Europe, as well as thir representative in the former colonies of Southern Africa and the Pacific regions. When they decide to redraw the map, reclassify things to your likeing and standards, then I will follow...Or amybe I won't. Maybe I'll still be the rotten little brat screaming the Emperor's got no clothes. |
Posted By: Rakasnumberone
Date Posted: 12-Feb-2008 at 10:27
Since you obviously don’t know it, I’ll let you in on a little secrete. These terms, Fertile Crescent and Middle East you keep throwing around, are imprecise terms. Not all scholars agree on what they mean or what is or is not a part of these regions. THEY ARE CONCEPTS. You do know what concept means don’t you? It means it’s just an idea. Something made up. For a person who complains so much about the fact that Africa is a recent term, how you fail to realize that these are also, recent terms, (created in the 19th century), is beyond rational understanding. But what do I know? I’m just a wild eyed Afro-centric nut with an agenda. So I think I better look at some non wild eyed Afro-centric nut with an agenda sources. Let’s start with Fertile Crescent. I’ve included some links for you to look at. Forgive me for not knowing how to embed them in the post, thus forcing you to look at them the tedious, messy low-tech way. So, Let's see what this Fertile something is, or where it is, or..oh whatever, here's the link. http://www.mrdowling.com/603mesopotamia.html The Fertile Crescent Civilization developed slowly in different parts of the world. People began to settle in areas with abundant natural resources. A section of the Middle East is called the Fertile Crescent. The Fertile Crescent is a rich food-growing area in a part of the world where most of the land is too dry for farming. The Fertile Crescent is a quarter-moon shaped region that extends from the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea to the Persian Gulf. (According to them Egypt isn’t part of it) ************************************************** http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/prehistory/middle_east/ http://killeenroos.com/1/mesodata.htm (None of the sites above included Egypt. Damn Afro-Centrics are up to no good again! 
http://www.fsmitha.com/h1/map00-fc.html : Map of the fertile Crescent. Egypt doesn’t seem to be on it… http://home.cfl.rr.com/crossland/AncientCivilizations/Middle_East_Civilizations/middle_east_civilizations.html : These people are of the opinion that Egypt for some reason is in Africa and the Fertile Crescent is in Southern Asia. According to these people Egypt isn’t part of the Fertile Crescent. I guess you should tell them hugh? Next question: WHAT IS A MIDDLE EAST? A CONCISE HISTORY OF THE MIDDLE EAST 7th Edition Arthur Goldschmidt JR. Apparently he’s associated with Penn State University in some way? Wonder what he does there? http://books.google.com/books?id=DHw0NzygOHoC&dq=where+is+the+middle+east&pg=PP1&ots=zdBy3jUQhk&source=citation&sig=223ERQMVqG7vRoDt0TcGLfuN49Q&hl=en&prev=http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Where+is+The+Middle+East&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sa=X&oi=print&ct=result&cd=1&cad=bottom-3results : Hit table of contents then scroll down to page one paragraph one of the introduction and see what it says. Then scroll down to page 6 of the Introduction where it says THE PHYSICAL SETTING and read what it says. They didn’t include page 7, but no matter. Continue on to the top of page 8. They seem to place part of this Middle Something in Africa, and part of it in Asia, go figure. Scroll down to page 9. READ IT. Continue on to the end of the paragraph on page 10. They state that this region is home to an amazing variety of peoples, physical types, belief systems, languages and cultures. Well can you imagine that? 
|
Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 12-Feb-2008 at 12:12
|
It is getting rather difficult to follow the train of thought here or the actual destination although I fear the train derailed long ago the minute tripe such as this entered the discussion: "Honestly, what you know about Africa could fill a thimble and it shows." After employing the term "African Civilization" repeatedly, the tangential diatribe against the "evils of the white man" in their racial madness calling everything Black does raise rather discomforting implications. Get over it. And as a postscript stay away from movies and TV documentaries as sources for historical analysis. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 12-Feb-2008 at 12:26
All geographical terms are imprecise... simple.
If you want to agrupate cultures, you better go for language and similar people, rather than geography. And even then most of the agrupations are arbitrary.
What does mean "Eurasia" or the "Indo-European countries"? I got no idea. Pick a country like Spain or Britain and you will find that a Basque or Catalan don't consider Spaniards and some Irish or Welsh don't go British.
The term Africa is only a geographical entity, like America is. Just imagine in the later, for Latinos America is the Western Hemisphere, but for U.S. people America is theirs country
Suggestion: let's studdy the Bantu expansion, Madagascar, the Maghreb, Ethiopia and Egypt as different entites, and it will make more sense.
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 12-Feb-2008 at 13:05
|
. Well, in . 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
They call the East Indians Black. Go rent the movies Ghandi and watch as the South African conductor tells him to get his BLACK ass back to 3rd class even though he had a 1st class ticket. Its the scene right before they kicked his BLACK ASS off train. They declared that the Maori people of New Zeland are BLACK. Go rent the movie Whale Rider. . They are not example of very educated people, after all. I won't say a Southern racist in the U.S. is an example of the intelligence and culture of the West, either. . You can read in the writings of
They've gone all over the world with a pencile disregarding the identities of people and their cultures and putting them in the neat little boxes that fit their agendas. That's why we call people in America Indians, when in fact they have nothing to do with . European ignorance. What you would expect from low payed sailors. . Why to accept the rules of the “gringo”?
And since its was White Europeans who declared that dark skinned people were black, (or any descended from such a person), and that mysterious continent is called Africa, then dark skinned people in .
So yes, I see how rediculous this all is. And I understand your anger. I'm angry too because this is all male bovine feces. So get angry Penguin, but outraged, be offended, but know where to direct your outrage. Not at us, we so called black people, because we aren't the ones making the rules. . Once again, Latinos don’t follow “gringo” rules.
You have to take on the univerities, government agencies, schools, churches, hearts and minds of the White Ruling elite class of Latin America, the . In
When they decide to redraw the map, reclassify things to your likeing and standards, then I will follow...Or amybe I won't. Maybe I'll still be the rotten little brat screaming the Emperor's got no clothes. Well, I will start first to redraw the map of the ------------- |