"I've read on certain forums like "In the Hall of Maat" that some afrocentrists (mostly the African American ones I guess) believe that they are the descendants of Ancient Egyptians. Well, I just wanted to get all of your views on this. I'm not too knowledgable of it and was wondering if it was true or are they full of B.S.? "
Quite often, it is necessary to respond to a question which, on face value, the answer should be obvious. Perhaps it is due to, as stated, a lack of knowledge...
African Americans: A Pan-African people
The north western slave port at Goree Island, Senegal was only one of several points of departure for Africans being taken to the United States. There were other points as well, stretching as far southward as the present state of Angola. These ports of departure were used for transporting Africans from the African interior - a vast interior. Thus, the ethnic origin of African Americans includes, but is not limited to, the following African peoples:
(Names in bold identify ethnic groups whose origins can be traced back to the Nile Valley civilizations)
Northwest Africa to the Gulf of Guinea; Mossi, Senufo, Mande, Fulani, Toubou, Fulbe, Sara, Moussei, Massa, Wolof, Akan, Ewe, Mandinga, Songhai, Tuareg, Moor, Hausa, Yoruba, Ibo, Kanuri, Ibibio, Tiv, Ijaw...
In everything, there is both positive as well as negative elements. One of the positive elements of the African slave trade to the United States, was that it created the first contemporary Pan-African ethnic group; a group with a common language and culture and separated only by class distinctions. To their credit, African Americans, despite the insidious European labeling of some African Americans as 'mulattoes,' 'quadroons,' etc., clearly rejected the caste system that was adopted in Haiti or Jamaica (or South Africa) for example. Marcus Garvey, when he first brought his movement from Jamaica, found this out the hard way, when he tried to use this caste distinction from Jamaica in the USA vis-a-vis WEB DuBois.To Garvey's credit, he quickly adjusted his thinking to this African American ideology of a caste-free community.
African Americans have the unique distinction of being historically-genetically related to a vast majority of African ethnic-linguistic groups. In this sense, the African American identification to all African cultures is not merely a philosophical one, as in the case of a European Swede identifying with a European ancient Greece.
The African Americans' identification with all African cultures, including and especially, the ancient Nile valley cultures, is both historically and genetically authentic and valid. It has nothing at all to do with what one chooses to believe ...
[This message has been edited by Wally (edited 21 July 2004).]
quote:Originally posted by Wally: African Americans have the unique distinction of being historically-genetically related to a vast majority of African ethnic-linguistic groups. [This message has been edited by Wally (edited 21 July 2004).]
Thought Writes:
EXACTLY! Hence we have adapted a worldview that is pan-African in conception. I lay claim to Tutsi, Hausa, Akan and many other nations of people. The inter-African "tribal" mentality has retarded are development and limited our ability to love one another.
quote:Originally posted by neo*geo: I'm all for African unity but we must also respect each other's differences...
I thought you did not consider yourself African, Neo? If that is the case, why the great concern with how Africans view themselves and with whether or not they relate to Kemet or Kush or Kanem Bornu?
quote:Originally posted by rasol: I thought you did not consider yourself African, Neo? If that is the case, why the great concern with how Africans view themselves and with whether or not they relate to Kemet or Kush or Kanem Bornu?
I have no problem with anyone relating to African people. What I disagree with are African Americans who claim they're descended from every great African people. Most African Americans have no idea exactly where in Africa their ancestors came from.
posted
Pan-Africanism is not realistic considering most Africans before the advent of colonialization never saw themselves as one group of people. Not even people in ancient Kmt at times saw themselves as one groups,and sometimes nomes within Egypt differed greatly. We see this around the Middle Kingdom collapse of rulership from Men-Nefer.
Only when the subjigation of African people did Pan-Africanism become increasinly important.
I agree there was some unversail African traditions that radiated in ancient Kmt. The connection comes from Pre-dyanstic times when ancestors of the modern Western Africans migrated to the Nile Valley and mixed in with the people there.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I take pride in my African heritage...even though I don't know exactly where my ancestors came from and never will. I truly believe there is a new Enlightment age upon us...when a lot of the wrongs will be corrected.
Posts: 1219 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I have no problem with anyone relating to African people. What I disagree with are African Americans who claim they're descended from every great African people.
Ah, but the notion of "Western civilization", which is every bit as much of an ideological abstraction as Pan-Africanism....is based PRECISELY on the conceit that all of the worlds European peoples are descendant of a common civilization which includes renaissance. Europe, Rome, Greece and Mesopotamia.
It seems to me that this is a powerful ideological weapon that Eurocentists wish to weild unilaterally. Pan Africanism threatens this monopoly of collective consciousness and that is why it causes their shorts to bunch up.
quote:I take pride in my African heritage...even though I don't know exactly where my ancestors came from and never will.
Good for you. Even many continental Africans would find, if they trace their histories back far enough....that they have ancestors from all over the continent.
Check it:
Zulu Ancestors In the Great Lakes region of sub-equatorial Central-to-East Africa lived black races collectively labelled by early European anthropologists as 'Bantu' - a term derived from the Zulu collective noun for 'people', but used in certain scholarly circles to differentiate black languages from the click-tongues of Bushmen to the south.
Among these so-called Bantu were the Zulu ancestors - the Nguni people. Named after the charismatic figure who in a previous epoch had led a migration from Egypt to the Great Lakes via the Red Sea corridor and Ethiopia, this new home of the Nguni is the mystical Embo of Zulu storytellers to the present day.
Both pastoralists and rudimentary agriculturalists, Nguni wealth was measured in cattle - a tradition that continues throughout the modern Zulu Kingdom. There was, however, no central authority at that time...nor was there even a clan called Zulu among those who constituted the Nguni people. http://www.zululand.kzn.org.za/zululand/about
So, tell us again.....exactly where in Africa do Zulu come from?
Tell us again how a European Jew, whose actual ancestry is largely among what Herodutus referred to as the "Barbarian blondes" of Germany....may none the less lay claim to Isreal?
No one can grant or deny African peoples the "right" to identitify with the Motherland, based on ultimately fallacious divisions, that are not of the choosing of Africa's people to begin with.
quote:Originally posted by ausar: Pan-Africanism is not realistic considering most Africans before the advent of colonialization never saw themselves as one group of people. Not even people in ancient Kmt at times saw themselves as one groups,and sometimes nomes within Egypt differed greatly. We see this around the Middle Kingdom collapse of rulership from Men-Nefer.
Only when the subjigation of African people did Pan-Africanism become increasinly important.
I agree there was some unversail African traditions that radiated in ancient Kmt. The connection comes from Pre-dyanstic times when ancestors of the modern Western Africans migrated to the Nile Valley and mixed in with the people there.
I agree that prior to colonialism, African groups didn't see themselves as one. But it has to be put in the right context. Prior to foreign invasion, there was need for Africans to view themselves as one group. The were surrounded by fellow Africans, and as such, their only concern was which group was the most competent. There weren't enough foreigners (at least not in large numbers), who they thought might threaten their authority. They began to have solidarity with one another, when they realized that their fellow Africans were being threatened and mistreated by ever large groups of foreign invaders!
"Most" African-Americans have a distinction of taking pride in Ancient African civilizations and African issues, but there are a "few" individuals among them, who don't pay much attention to African history or Africa, much less understand that Africans don't just live in bushes!
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Ah, but the notion of "Western civilization", which is every bit as much of an ideological abstraction as Pan-Africanism....is based PRECISELY on the conceit that all of the worlds European peoples are descendant of a common civilization which includes renaissance. Europe, Rome, Greece and Mesopotamia.
With the exception of Mesopotamia which I don't feel is part of Western Civilization, all the other things you listed are part of the gradual progress of Western Civilization. Unless Africans are willing to invade and colonize a bunch of contries, Pan-Africanism doesn't compare. The peacful alternative is economic imperialism, but most African nations are decades away from ever being able to compete with Western European nations in the global economy.
What I think people forget however, is that Europeans are as divided nationally and ethnically as Africans. Western hegemony is what keeps these different folks together.
posted
The notion of "Western Civilization" as a coherent story of the gradual "progress" of specifically European peoples is as much of a culture myth as exists among any people. It is filled with distortions of fact, insistance upon cultural fables, and outright lies. Perhaps you are just too caught up in it, to see it.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: The notion of "Western Civilization" as a coherent story of the gradual "progress" of specifically European peoples is as much of a culture myth as exists among any people. It is filled with distortions of fact, insistance upon cultural fables, and outright lies. Perhaps you are just too caught up in it, to see it.
History is never coherent, it's quite choatic. Western civilization advanced at warp speed since the Renaissance but lets remember that Western Europe had to go through the Dark Ages first. I'm of the opinion that the Roman empire is the parent of Western civilization.
quote:Originally posted by neo*geo: Western civilization advanced at warp speed since the Renaissance but lets remember that Western Europe had to go through the Dark Ages first. I'm of the opinion that the Roman empire is the parent of Western civilization.
I thought the Renaissance was brought through the Moors enlightenment to Southern Europe. Why did they go through a dark age after Rome? Why did the Renaissance happen after Moors conquest?
quote:Originally posted by blackman: I thought the Renaissance was brought through the Moors enlightenment to Southern Europe. Why did they go through a dark age after Rome? Why did the Renaissance happen after Moors conquest?
Roman tried its best to "civilize" the other European groups. But after disintegration of Roman empire, their various former European colonies went back to the dark ages. This happened especially in the areas where the Germanic tribes invaded. These tribes were "barbarians". So if the Moors happened to be one of these tribes, then it would be a surprise how they became responsible for the "enlightment" process!
[This message has been edited by supercar (edited 21 July 2004).]
quote:Originally posted by blackman: I thought the Renaissance was brought through the Moors enlightenment to Southern Europe. Why did they go through a dark age after Rome? Why did the Renaissance happen after Moors conquest?
quote:Originally posted by ausar: Pan-Africanism is not realistic considering most Africans before the advent of colonialization never saw themselves as one group of people.
Thought Writes:
So how does that make Pan-Africanism unrealistic? You lost me on this one????
quote:Originally posted by supercar: "Most" African-Americans have a distinction of taking pride in Ancient African civilizations and African issues, but there are a "few" individuals among them, who don't pay much attention to African history or Africa, much less understand that Africans don't just live in bushes!
Thought Writes:
Do you have any data to support this inflammatory statement? Or is this just a jab at African-Americans. I would have to say as a group African-Americans are one of the best educated groups of African people in the world. I doubt that villagers in Mozambique know more about the African diaspora and continental African geopolitics than African-Americans. Do African-Americans have a ways to go, yes. Do ALL African people have a ways to go, yes. No need to single out one group on the education front.
quote:Originally posted by Thought2: Thought Writes:
Do you have any data to support this inflammatory statement? Or is this just a jab at African-Americans. I would have to say as a group African-Americans are one of the best educated groups of African people in the world. I doubt that villagers in Mozambique know more about the African diaspora and continental African geopolitics than African-Americans. Do African-Americans have a ways to go, yes. Do ALL African people have a ways to go, yes. No need to single out one group on the education front.
I would include you in that "Few" group. Who are you to say that African-Americans know more about African issues than they. This is exactly what I am talking about. Have you been to Mozambique, much less know what the hell they are thinking? If so, where in Mozambique have you been to? These so-called villagers that you underestimate, know more about their African history and issues than you will ever know in a hundred years. They may not all be as fortunate to be literate as Americans, but they sure know their history. If you knew African history so much, you would have come to the conclusion that even rural Africans orally tell their heritage to younger generations. I personally know African-Americans who don't know anything about Africans, nor do they try to know about them. Are all African-Americans like that? Hell, no. That is why I used the word "FEW" African-Americans. Nobody took that to heart but you. It will only hurt somebody, who feels he/she is in that minority group. So who are you to say that there is no such people? You seem to put a twist on everything. Are you suggesting that "All" African-Americans show interest in Africa? Which parts of Africa have you been to? Since you are obviously an Expert on African issues and know how it is like over there, than the people who are actually experiencing it, then you must have been to most places in Africa. Since you claim to be an expert at geopolitics, what is the main reason why various African countries have problems with governments, civil war and weak economies? What is the reason Black Americans are considered more literate than Africans?
quote:Originally posted by neo*geo: Unless Africans are willing to invade and colonize a bunch of contries, Pan-Africanism doesn't compare. The peacful alternative is economic imperialism, but most African nations are decades away from ever being able to compete with Western European nations in the global economy.
Africans have never been about world domination, that's something white people like...power. And I'm glad you put "most" in there when describing Africans nations and economy because South Africa has one of the top economies in the world. The only thing holding it back is Aids and some other things.
This may be going a bit off topic but let me ask you guys something. When the Industrial Revolution was in full swing...which nations traded with each other? Because Japan, Europe and America progressed the most out of that era. I take it they just said f*ck Africa.
Posts: 1219 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just as white Americans are descendants of the almagamation of the Celts, Jutes, Angles,Balts,Romans and all the tribes that subsequently formed pre-contemporary England, Portugual, etc., so too are African Americans a mixture of all the subsequent tribes that formed modern day West African countries. We have to recognize that prior to the trans-atlantic slave trade, no Senegal existed, no Coite de Ivoire existed, none of the post colonial African countries existed. We emerged from a borderless continent, hence the identification AFRICAN American, rather than Senegalese or Italian American, nationalities later immigrants to this country continue to define themselves as. It frustrates me to no end when people who have no concept of African history criticize African Americans for identifying with the entire continent rather than simply a particular geographical location. African clans were migrating throughout the continent for centuries before they migrated outside of the continent! You don't here white Americans calling themselves Germans or British, unless their ancestors have only RECENTLY migrated to this country during the Industrial revolution. The only way most of them can even identify their origins is via their surnames, which WE were not so fortunate to maintain.
SO when you hear an African American identifying with a zulu, wolof, fulani, etc. is because we are members of the LOST TRIBES of Africa in the sense that we have been ROBBED of our origins.
Have we not accomplished great things despite our oppressive recent pasts, even without knowledge of our origins??? Which is why I don't understand why Neo*geo and Ausur and under this fallacious assumption that we NEED to claim connections with only GREAT kingdoms in order to continue our achievements. When the fact is because of our immensive success particularly in education, we can eradicate the historical lies that has misguided us for so many years.
As I've expressed before I am proud of WHO I am, whether my immediate ancestors were warriors, craftsman, royalty, or mere peasants, because my progression was taking place long before I picked up my first book on Africa! Now put that in your pipe, and smoke it!
Posts: 747 | From: Atlanta, GA USA | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Originally posted by Supercar Since you claim to be an expert at geopolitics, what is the main reason why various African countries have problems with governments, civil war and weak economies? What is the reason Black Americans are considered more literate than Africans?
I know this question was not posed to me, and I by no means declare expertise in geopolitics, but I would argue that Africans and African Americans were experiencing a un-parallel accomplishments, as Slavery ended in 1865, while 20 years later Colonialism was just beginning in the Motherland. And colonialism was by no means designed to fortify the original inhabitants in as much as it were to benefit the host countries. While conversely African Americans were just beginning to build some of the first Historical black colleges after their new found freedom. It appears that while we were slowly progressing, Africans were unfortunately globalized and this tended to hinder the progress they may have endured on their own.
And I do agree with you, that not many African Americans have an interests in African history, and the few that do, get criticized by Ausar and Neo for trying to take credit for historical advancements, no matter how absurd it may sound to you or I.
It is my opinion that the AOU/AU has probably recognized the Pan-Africanism of African American successes and have realized that unity is the ONLY way Africa will progress. And just as they united against apartheid in South Africa, their brothers across the ocean were standing behind them 100%, and we have to take the same actions against the plight of our Sudanese brothers. Without unity we all suffer as a people, which is why we must embrace Afrocentricity, and stop over-concerning ourselves with how our perceived strengths threaten our melanin-less neighbors.
Posts: 747 | From: Atlanta, GA USA | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Originally posted by Rasol I forgot. Europeans migrate, Semites (Exodus), Africans can only be pushed out.
You are just too cute
And here I thought I was the only witty one in the serious bunch of intellectuals.
Posts: 747 | From: Atlanta, GA USA | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
supercar
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by homeylu
Originally posted by Supercar: Since you claim to be an expert at geopolitics, what is the main reason why various African countries have problems with governments, civil war and weak economies? What is the reason Black Americans are considered more literate than Africans?
I know this question was not posed to me, and I by no means declare expertise in geopolitics, but I would argue that Africans and African Americans were experiencing a un-parallel accomplishments, as Slavery ended in 1865, while 20 years later Colonialism was just beginning in the Motherland. And colonialism was by no means designed to fortify the original inhabitants in as much as it were to benefit the host countries. While conversely African Americans were just beginning to build some of the first Historical black colleges after their new found freedom. It appears that while we were slowly progressing, Africans were unfortunately globalized and this tended to hinder the progress they may have endured on their own.
And I do agree with you, that not many African Americans have an interests in African history, and the few that do, get criticized by Ausar and Neo for trying to take credit for historical advancements, no matter how absurd it may sound to you or I.
It is my opinion that the AOU/AU has probably recognized the Pan-Africanism of African American successes and have realized that unity is the ONLY way Africa will progress. And just as they united against apartheid in South Africa, their brothers across the ocean were standing behind them 100%, and we have to take the same actions against the plight of our Sudanese brothers. Without unity we all suffer as a people, which is why we must embrace Afrocentricity, and stop over-concerning ourselves with how our perceived strengths threaten our melanin-less neighbors.
Thanks for putting it into perspective. I just wish sometimes people would ask question, instead of just jumping into conclusion. I personally believe the majority of African-Amercans show interest in Africa and know quite a bit about the continent. For back in the apartheid days of South Africa, it was the African-American population that pushed for a stronger condemnation of that system by their government. The American government was complicit in the situation, but that changed with more pressure from the American people to push for sanctions against that evil system. The majority of those American people happened to be African-Americans, because they could relate to it. I just wish people will ask question first, instead of jumping to conclusion. The "few" Black Americans who don't seem to show much interest, could be due to that fact that they don't know much, but they don't want to expose this to an African or another African-American who knows a lot more than they do. It could also depend on the way they were brought up. For instance, there are some who consider themselves "conservatives" as in republicans, who for some reason "appear" to be more concerned about American hegemony, than the plight of people of African descent. But I realize that such Black Americans are in the minority. When I made the earlier comment, I didn't think I was going to get bashed for it by anyone on this board, because it was obvious to me that "everyone" on this board is in the majority of Black people who know about Africa, and therefore express interest in the subject. If Black folks in Africa, were put in the same environment as Black Americans, they too would have the same attitude. After all, African-Americans are descendants of Africans. I would have made the same comment about them. And yes, every person of African descent has the right to claim the great Ancient African civilizations, because their ancestors were involved in it in one way or the other. There is nothing superficial about that. I also agree that African Americans don't need to claim ancient African civilizations to bolster their pride, because they have made huge accomplishments themselves during slavery till now. But everyone needs a heritage, which is part of their self-identity. I don't have a problem with that. In the same token, Africans take pride in Black American accomplishments, because they see themselves in Black Americans. It is as simple as that. If west Africans can trace their ancestors the the Proto-Saharans who eventually moved to Kemet, then African Americans as decendants of these African groups can legitimately claim Kemetian civilization!
[This message has been edited by supercar (edited 22 July 2004).]
quote:It frustrates me to no end when people who have no concept of African history criticize African Americans for identifying with the entire continent rather than simply a particular geographical location.[/B]
Completely correct. The idea that African Americans should seek to identify only with particular Nations or Ethnicities makes less sense, and not more...than identifying more 'generally' with Africa.
quote:Originally posted by blackman: I thought the Renaissance was brought through the Moors enlightenment to Southern Europe. Why did they go through a dark age after Rome? Why did the Renaissance happen after Moors conquest?
It wasn't just the Moors who brought Europe out of the Dark Ages, it was also the Crusades. The Arabs/Moors kept a lot of the ancient Greek/Roman books and wisdom that was lost after the fall of the Roman empire. Southern Europeans were influenced by the Moors while northern Europeans brought back new ideas and trade from the Middle East after the Crusades. They reintroduced the knowledge from early Western Civilizations to Europeans hence bringing them out of the Dark Ages.
quote:Originally posted by homeylu: Have we not accomplished great things despite our oppressive recent pasts, even without knowledge of our origins??? Which is why I don't understand why Neo*geo and Ausur and under this fallacious assumption that we NEED to claim connections with only GREAT kingdoms in order to continue our achievements. When the fact is because of our immensive success particularly in education, we can eradicate the historical lies that has misguided us for so many years.
I'm not sure who the "We" is that you're referring to. I was referring specifically to Afrocentrics. As an black-American, I'm proud of my family's history here in the US and I admire the greatness of Africa before imperialism. I have no problem with you feeling as you do homylu. I only have a problem with the people(all races of people) who hurt the advancement of the study of African history by exagerrating, lying, or overlooking things.
[This message has been edited by neo*geo (edited 22 July 2004).]
quote:I have no problem with you feeling as you do homylu. I only have a problem with the people(all races of people) who hurt the advancement of the study of African history by exagerrating, lying, or overlooking things.
Likewise this would apply to those who exaggerate WESTERN history (homogeniety, and continual "progress"), or who overlook details (the Moors, the dark ages) that give the lie to such simplistic concepts.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 22 July 2004).]
posted
originally posted by Neo*geo I'm not sure who the "We" is that you're referring to. I was referring specifically to Afrocentrics.
I'm an Afrocentric!
If you are criticizing the "handful" of African American scholars who took it upon themselves produce history from a Black perspective, then I'm sorry for you. Of course any of their critics can take a few excerpts from work and find flaws in it, but that could be done for the entire academic community!! Should the entire work be discredited? No, it's another perspective based on new "theories". And anyone intelligent enough can decipher "theories" from facts. Almost everything in the scientific community is based on "theories". It goes back to the age old philosophical question: Is the glass half empty or half full?
Depends on who is looking at the glass.
So yes, 2 opposing groups can look at the EXACT same artifacts and come up with different theories. I just so happen to embrace the one I feel is the LEAST biased.
Posts: 747 | From: Atlanta, GA USA | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King_Scorpion: This may be going a bit off topic but let me ask you guys something. When the Industrial Revolution was in full swing...which nations traded with each other? Because Japan, Europe and America progressed the most out of that era. [/B]
The industrial Revolution led to an expansion of trade among all Nations, but not on equal terms. Some Europeans developed imperialistic Empires dedicated to confiscating the material resources of other nations, which was in turn, used to fuel their industrial revolution.
One of the lies you will "learn" if you study Western Civilization, is the implication that Imperialism is natural and inevitable. It is not.
For example: China's Ming Dynasty had the world's largest and most powerful Navy and engaged in the largest sea explorations in history (before Columbus), and could have crushed any nation in Europe. But unlike "Western Civilization", it never occurred to the Chinese that this was the queue to declare a wholesale campaign of slavery and genocide against Europeans and other peoples . Ironically, within a few hundred years Europes empires would be powerful enough to reduce China to a Vassel State....China was introduced to the industrial revolution via British Gunships in defense of Britain's illegal drug dealing Empire, which had most of China in a dope daze by the mid 1800s. http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/CHING/OPIUM.HTM
And since this is supposed to be about African Americans: If you think this is all "water under the bridge" of "western" civilization, bear in minds the revelations of the US government's cocaine empire in Latin America. (the forces of evil don't need to learn new tricks, when the old ones still work)
But whereas the British Empire targeted the Chinese, America targets its own ghettos.
And then they wonder why some African Americans relate to Africa, instead of "their own" country.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 22 July 2004).]
posted
originally posted by Rasol And since this is supposed to be about African Americans: If you think this is all "water under the bridge" of "western" civilization, bear in minds the revelations of the US government's cocaine empire in Latin America. (the forces of evil don't need to learn new tricks, when the old ones still work)
And let us not forget, that the Native Americans were "intentionally" exposed to small pox as a biological weapon. Which is interesting that it seems that AIDS appeared around the same time Apartheid was being challenged.
I mean honestly where were these so-called 'monkeys' carrying the AIDS virus 2,000 years ago??? And how about the SARS virus?
Viruses have been gentically engineered since the American Revolution, don't forget how the British used small pox on US soldiers. Something that makes you say, hmmmm
Posts: 747 | From: Atlanta, GA USA | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
Keino
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by rasol: [QUOTE]I take pride in my African heritage...even though I don't know exactly where my ancestors came from and never will.
Tell us again how a European Jew, whose actual ancestry is largely among what Herodutus referred to as the "Barbarian blondes" of Germany....may none the less lay claim to Isreal?
No one can grant or deny African peoples the "right" to identitify with the Motherland, based on ultimately fallacious divisions, that are not of the choosing of Africa's people to begin with.[/QUOTE]
Perfectly said! People don't get that Europeans have a collective consciousness about being "european" even thought there are very abvious differences within and amongst cultures and pehnotype. The Jewish point you made is excellent! Until we learn to be proud of African-ness and understand the collectiveness of what it means to be of recent african descent, we will forever be living in the shadows of other races/peoples!
quote:Originally posted by neo*geo: I have no problem with anyone relating to African people. What I disagree with are African Americans who claim they're descended from every great African people. Most African Americans have no idea exactly where in Africa their ancestors came from.
You express some incredibly inane ideas: a) African Americans are, by the very nature of our historical developement, descended from every great African people. If you would name "every great African people", I can draw you a map...
b) Most African Americans know exactly where our ancestors came from. WE come from all over the African continent!
What is it about this that you can't seem to get?
[This message has been edited by Wally (edited 22 July 2004).]
quote:Originally posted by rasol: The industrial Revolution led to an expansion of trade among all Nations, but not on equal terms. Some Europeans developed imperialistic Empires dedicated to confiscating the material resources of other nations, which was in turn, used to fuel their industrial revolution.
One of the lies you will "learn" if you study Western Civilization, is the implication that Imperialism is natural and inevitable. It is not.
For example: China's Ming Dynasty had the world's largest and most powerful Navy and engaged in the largest sea explorations in history (before Columbus), and could have crushed any nation in Europe. But unlike "Western Civilization", it never occurred to the Chinese that this was the queue to declare a wholesale campaign of slavery and genocide against Europeans and other peoples . Ironically, within a few hundred years Europes empires would be powerful enough to reduce China to a Vassel State....China was introduced to the industrial revolution via British Gunships in defense of Britain's illegal drug dealing Empire, which had most of China in a dope daze by the mid 1800s.
Interesting observation. I have thought about that too. If the tables were turned, would Africans or other ethnic groups behave in the same way as Europeans in the total quest of genocide wherever they invade? I went back to the Ancient Egyptians, and couldn't help but notice that in the places which they colonized, they were not engaged in a wholesale genocide!
[This message has been edited by supercar (edited 22 July 2004).]
posted
It's very possible for dieases to lay dormant in tropical climates to jump on to hosts. Most dieases come from close interaction with animals. Scientist have theorized that AIDS developed from Africans in Central Africa eating comtaminated bush meat[often includes monkeys or other wild animals],so this is the aleadged spread of HIV. I don't believe that man kind has the technology at this momment to duplicate an exact virus.
The more rainforest continues to be cut down you wil begin to see more diease jump from animals to human beings.
It's funny how this forum talks more about modern politics than AE soceity.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Interesting observation. I have thought about that too. If the tables were turned, would Africans or other ethnic groups behave in the same way as Europeans in the total quest of genocide wherever they invade? I went back to the Ancient Egyptians, and couldn't help but notice that in the places which they colonized, they were not engaged in a wholesale genocide!
You're right about AE when they colonized people they usually let the people do as they wished. In the case of regions like Caanan colonized around the New Kingdom most of the people were allowed to live as they please. Occasionally, the Kemetians would take local rulers and indoctrinate them at the local school called the kap[colonial school]. When Egyptians finally colonized all of Nubia around the New Kingdom they installed an offical called the King's son of Kush which was usually an Egyptian but most of the high officals were infact Nubian.
Don't get me wrong because AE had bitter wars between Asiatics,Sanddwellers,or Nubians. Sometimes with the captives being carried off to work as servents for the temple estates. No large scale chattel slavery much like antebellum south,but some very bitter wars. Sensusret I called himself ''the thorat silter of Asia''. Herodotus talks about his invasion into Western Asia and how he dealt with the subjects.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Zulu Ancestors In the Great Lakes region of sub-equatorial Central-to-East Africa lived black races collectively labelled by early European anthropologists as 'Bantu' - a term derived from the Zulu collective noun for 'people', but used in certain scholarly circles to differentiate black languages from the click-tongues of Bushmen to the south.
Among these so-called Bantu were the Zulu ancestors - the Nguni people. Named after the charismatic figure who in a previous epoch had led a migration from Egypt to the Great Lakes via the Red Sea corridor and Ethiopia, this new home of the Nguni is the mystical Embo of Zulu storytellers to the present day.
Both pastoralists and rudimentary agriculturalists, Nguni wealth was measured in cattle - a tradition that continues throughout the modern Zulu Kingdom. There was, however, no central authority at that time...nor was there even a clan called Zulu among those who constituted the Nguni people. http://www.zululand.kzn.org.za/zululand/about
So, tell us again.....exactly where in Africa do Zulu come from?
Hi, Zulu people come from South Africa. In South Africa we have 11 different tribes of people with 11 offical languages. The Zulu people are a very proud race and the majority of black people in South Africa, they mostly live in Kwazulu Natal better known as KZN. They retain a monarcy, King Goodwill Zwelenteni (hope I spelt his majesty name correctly). Then there is the venda people who live to the North of South Africa, The Soto (spelling) people who live maining in the east and western Cape. I feel ashamed I cannot recall the other names of our diverse people in my country. The bushmen live on the skirts of Nambia Dessert, what is so sad about those people, they are hunters and have always lived off the land, they were put into reserves and now drinking is there past time, it breaks my heart because they cannot live they way did for 100 of yrs, live off the land, they were great conservationist, they only killed what they needed to eat. I believe the are now like aborigines, lost people because there lifestyle was taken away from them. The majority of them are alcholics, that is so sad. There are the Swazi people but they have the own country Swaziland which is nestled between South Africa, the same as Lesotho, nestled between south africa. Hope that helps you Dreamcatcher
Posts: 286 | From: south africa | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by supercar: Who are you to say that African-Americans know more about African issues than they.
Thought Writes:
I find it highly improbable that Mozambiqans have higher literacy rates, greater access to public libraries, greater access to t.v., greater access to the internet, greater access world class lecturers. It is safe to say that African-Americans know more about African and diasporan geopolitics than one of the wealthiest, best educated groups of Black people on the globe!
quote:Originally posted by supercar: Who are you to say that African-Americans know more about African issues than they.
Thought Writes:
I find it highly improbable that Mozambiqans have higher literacy rates, greater access to public libraries, greater access to t.v., greater access to the internet, greater access world class lecturers. It is safe to say that African-Americans know more about African and diasporan geopolitics in that they are one of the wealthiest, best educated groups of Black people on the globe!
quote:Originally posted by supercar: These so-called villagers that you underestimate, know more about their African history and issues than you will ever know in a hundred years.
Thought Writes:
The issue was NEVER about what Mozambiqans new about the history of Mozambique or Nigerians about Nigeria. It IS about their knowledge of the entire continent and the diaspora. My point stands!
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Even many continental Africans would find, if they trace their histories back far enough....that they have ancestors from all over the continent.
Printer-friendly view of this topic