posted
This post is to give a heads up to all those who search things African related on the web. You may have a new caudry of idiots boasting about caucasoids/hamites coming to Africa and spurring its culture and population diversity. A junk science program on the Science Channel called "Mystery of the Black Mummy" had Italian and white scientists proclamating the following about North Africa.
Yes, the terms Negroid, Negroes, black were actually used in this program. I did not add those terms in myself. The "scientist" actually used those terms.
The scientists said the below. (This is not sarcasm here)
-------------------------------- 1. Black Africans came to Libya from the south only after a climatic change that spurred savanah like terrain in North Africa.
2. 7,000 years ago white Middle Easterners came into Libya from Lebanon, Syria, Palestine and introduced cattle to the Negroes.
3. Proof of white M.E.s in Libya and the rest of North Africa lies in the diversity of the Africans there. (They went on to show the diversity of various "Africans" in Libya).
4. The resulting culture spread to Niger, Chad, Algeria, Egypt, Sudan, Mali, and Tunisia.
5. This culture which includes (human figures with animal heads) shows up in Ancient Egyptian culture so therefore it had a hand in spurring Nile Valley civilization. --------------------------------
These scientists used the phrase black mummy, black African, Negroes, Negroid repeatedly. And also implied that Tuaregs and other Africans of North Africa were not black but mixed.
With all of the above I guess the "scientists" think they have found a way to back door "caucasoids/hamites" into Africa and claim responsibility for its culture and population diversity.
Posts: 76 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
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://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/>Http://i-cias.com/e.o/fezzan.htm <http://i-cias.com/E.O/FEZZAN.HTM> Www.countryreports.org/history/libhist.htm <http://www.countryreports.org/HISTORY/LIBHIST.HTM>
Www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/herod-Libya.htm <http://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 <mailto:info@fulcrumtv.com> http://www.fulcrumtv.com/blackmummy.htm
The term 'aqualithic' was coined by John Sutton, in an article in the _Journal of African History_ in IIRC 1973. It referred of course to the dependence of people living on many of those sites on aquatic resources in the early Holocene hyper-moist Sahara, as you say. John S. may have been thinking of the earlier ascriptions of Khatroum Mesolithic and Khartoum Neolithic (both unfortunate) for these traditions -- I forget, I don't have that material here at home. There are some other sites south of Khartoum that are probably earlier than the Khartoum sites. Scott ___________________________________________________________________ Scott MacEachern Department of Sociology and Anthropology Bowdoin College Brunswick, ME 04011
posted
I know what the scientists said on that program.
------------------------- 1. Black Africans came to Libya from the south only after a climatic change that spurred savanah like terrain in North Africa.
2. 7,000 years ago white Middle Easterners came into Libya from Lebanon, Syria, Palestine and introduced cattle to the Negroes.
3. Proof of white M.E.s in Libya and the rest of North Africa lies in the diversity of the Africans there. (They went on to show the diversity of various "Africans" in Libya).
4. The resulting culture spread to Niger, Chad, Algeria, Egypt, Sudan, Mali, and Tunisia.
5. This culture which includes (human figures with animal heads) shows up in Ancient Egyptian culture so therefore it had a hand in spurring Nile Valley civilization. --------------------------------
These scientists used the phrase black mummy, black African, Negroes, Negroid repeatedly. And also implied that Tuaregs and other Africans of North Africa were not black but mixed.
They also kept contrasting the black mummy and egyptian mummy as if egyptians weren't black.
Nothing misleading about the above. I wasn't able to put "says scientist" at the end of the threads title due to running out of space.
Posts: 76 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
Yes your thread is misleading and inflamatory, since you make a statement in the topic, and then imply inside the thread that the statement is not true.
You then attribute your statements to scientists but cannot quote them directly, which is also misleading.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The scientist on that show did say that the images on the rock art of the Sahara portrayed "Caucasians" who had traveled to the Sahara and not black Africans. Of course all the rock art was brown as it normally is. I got the same impression that the show was trying to give credit to whites for the civilization of the Sahara.
I have the show on tape.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I haven't seen the program yet either. Is it available on Youtube or something? Besides the preview, I have only seen clips of the show and one-and-done is correct that the Italian scientist on the show does make blatant inaccurate Eurocentric claims about "caucasoids" involvement in Saharan culture via "mixing with negroids". This sounds like the exact same hypothesis Hore conjured up! LOLPosts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:7,000 Yrs ago White Mid. Easterners brought culture/diversity to N. Africa and Egypt
Most people do not view Southwest Asians as "white". "Caucasian", yes, because of similarly gracile features, but not white like Europeans---although I have heard that Anatolians, Iranians, and lighter-skinned Arabs could pass for tanned whites...
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
They are still white compared to black Africans. Light skinned populations from outside of Africa did not bring civilization to the Sahara. And the scientist on the show was not distinguishing between "tanned" whites and "normal" whites, when he suggested that caucasians were responsible for ancient Saharan culture. This is no different than the ultra white actors from Europe that are picked to play ancient Egyptians as opposed to "tanned" whites from the area. Europeans have no problem claiming "tanned" whites as one of their own when they want to "claim" the history of Egypt, other parts of Africa, Mesopotamia or elsewhere. It is only in the modern geopolitical context that they need to keep such a distance between the two groups.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Yes your thread is misleading and inflamatory, since you make a statement in the topic, and then imply inside the thread that the statement is not true.
You then attribute your statements to scientists but cannot quote them directly, which is also misleading.
I wrote what those guys said on that program. Now either you saw the program and are incapable of understanding what I posted about. Or you didn't see it. Which then if that is the case, I suggest that you keep your trap closed.
Those scientists said "White Middle Easterners" came Libya Africa 7,000 years ago along with their cattle and helped the blacks developed the Saharan culture which then spread to Ancient Egypt, Sudan, Chad, Mali, Niger, Algeria, Tunisia.
They said that the sahara 7,000 years ago was the worlds first "Melting Pot".
The terms "Negroes", "Negroid", "Blacks", and "white Middle Easterners" were routinely thrown out by these "scientists".
They used Blacks that they felt represented the "true negro" myth and juxtaposed them with their fellow Africans who they deemed were admixed with the "white Middle Easterners". True to form the Staged"true negro" Scenes were basically Africans "they" deemed as black sitting around in a circle doing nothing.
They also implied that the diverse peoples nature of North Africa (Chad, Algeria, Mali, Libya, Egypt, Niger, Sudan, and Tunisia) is the result of "White Middle Easterners". They then followed it up with video of Africans who they thought did not fit their idea of a true negro. (They did this even though those people were obviously Africans).
I have a life (as most people outside of this forum do) so I did not transcribe the program word by tiny little word with Pen and Paper so that I could give the quotes word by exact word. Normal people" don't sit down in front of their tv and transcribe every single word.
I also told you that I ran out of space in the title so I could not place "says white/Italian scientists".
This is now the second time I have said this. If you cannot comprehend this then we need to take up a collection to send you to one Oprah's schools in South Africa.
Therefore you better get the f&*k off my balls and quit acting like some argumentative hag named Olga. Don't try to nit pick with me in order to get one of your patented circular nonsense arguments going.
Posts: 76 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: Most people do not view Southwest Asians as "white". "Caucasian", yes, because of similarly gracile features, but not white like Europeans---although I have heard that Anatolians, Iranians, and lighter-skinned Arabs could pass for tanned whites...
The scientists on the program said "White Middle Easterners".
Neith-Athena wrote:
quote: Exactly. So they are bombing the hell out of Iraq now while claiming Mesopotamia.
A few weeks ago I stumbled across a site where some posters were saying that Nigerians and Ghanians were mixed with caucasians. (And yes if a normal person saw those people they would think they were Africans.)
Of course it was one of those look at these people threads and they found some of their women attractive.
Posts: 76 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think this was the same documentary I taped some years ago. I had mixed emotions about it because on the one hand it increased the knowledge of "pre-Egypt" ages Sahara but on the other hand retained old ideas that all involved should've known better than to promulgate.
quote: 1. Black Africans came to Libya from the south only after a climatic change that spurred savanah like terrain in North Africa.
This refers to the last drying of the "Green Sahara." This is when south east Saharans/Sudanis began introducing new stone age technologies to the north Sahara and north of the Sahara.
quote: 2. 7,000 years ago white Middle Easterners came into Libya from Lebanon, Syria, Palestine and introduced cattle to the Negroes.
3. Proof of white M.E.s in Libya and the rest of North Africa lies in the diversity of the Africans there. (They went on to show the diversity of various "Africans" in Libya).
This is old bad physio-cultural anthropology and archaeology at its worst.
quote: 4. The resulting culture spread to Niger, Chad, Algeria, Egypt, Sudan, Mali, and Tunisia.
5. This culture which includes (human figures with animal heads) shows up in Ancient Egyptian culture so therefore it had a hand in spurring Nile Valley civilization.
Though not what the show was promoting, there were interrelated cultures within the borders of the named countries where they transect the Sahara. Since the lower Nile valley did receive some of its earliest population from the Sahara its true "Saharans" had a hand in spurring Nile civilization along with downriver bound Sudanis. Oh, and the trickle of Levantines into the delta had to have contributed something to NVC too.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The post offers further proof of the implicit and explicit mindset of the dominant convention that the "Middle East" extends across all of North Africa which is to be separated from the rest of so-called "sub-Saharan Africa".
Since most of the reporting on Africa derives from Western sources, it is usually negative, hence restricted to the so-called "sub-Saharan Africa"--an euphemism for what used to be called "negro Africa" then "black Africa" and now "sub-Saharan Africa".
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
As for the comment about many Nigerians and Ghanaians being mixed with Caucasians, I have to say they are delusional. There is no evidence.
Posts: 603 | From: Mobile, Alabama | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: The post offers further proof of the implicit and explicit mindset of the dominant convention that the "Middle East" extends across all of North Africa which is to be separated from the rest of so-called "sub-Saharan Africa".
Since most of the reporting on Africa derives from Western sources, it is usually negative, hence restricted to the so-called "sub-Saharan Africa"--an euphemism for what used to be called "negro Africa" then "black Africa" and now "sub-Saharan Africa".
But you can't deny that modern northafrica is culturally different than most of Africa below the sahara and much more closer to Middle east, this is the reality that makes "sub-sahara" valid in the mindst of most people. Ancient northafrica however can be discussed, but not modern.
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But you can't deny that modern northafrica is culturally different than most of Africa below the sahara and much more closer to Middle east
In short, for a territory to be distinctive from the others, it must have some meaningful particularities or at least some common characteristics.
When considered on the basis of these criteria, there is no region called the Middle East.
The term has a function and considered from this point, the region called the “Middle East”, in fact, means Britain, and then American Zone of Interest.
The Middle East is the name given to a “zone of interest” and it implies an appetite which has no sense of getting full. The more the appetite grows, the larger the region becomes.
Yonis you're going to be and exceptional scholar once you transcend the passive repettition of Eurocentric dogma's.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know Middle East is named from the position of western Europe, but that's a mainstream name, and as long we don't have alternatives that's what i'm gonna use when i don't think deep about it, i use West asia sometimes but mostly i don't think about it so i write Middle east since it's ingrained in my mind. I actually made a whole thread about this on a swedish forum and most agreed with me that it was eurocentric and they never thought about it before.
Anyways the point was that north africa nations are arabised both culturally, linguistically and religiously for the last 1400 (has nothing to do with europeans). And by this the region is more connected to Westasia that to most nations below the sahara, this is the reality. Egypt is infact the capital of music and movies of the arab world, that's why it makes sense to consider Egypt and mah´ghreb as part of west asia in the modern world, same as U.S. part of the western world. Modern Maghreb states and Egypt's cultural bound to rest of Africa is almost none existant.
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But Arabic is not the only language spoken in North Africa. And if it's culture that is the determining factor one would have to say that Africa north of the Equator is culturally more homogeneous than Africa south of the Equator. Most of Africa north of the Equator is culturally Moslem--to which is attached a whole host of cultural practices such as Tobaski and other Eids, foods ,alcohol, birth, marriage and burial customs. etc.--hence is quite different from the non-Moslem parts of Africa.
In other words, a Senegalese, Malian or Guinean shares more culturally with North Africa than with, say, Malawi or Zambia or Lesotho.
This is not a recommendation for one set of cultural practices or otherwise, but merely an empirical observation.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Lamin: In other words, a Senegalese, Malian or Guinean shares more culturally with North Africa than with, say, Malawi or Zambia or Lesotho.
True, but an Algerian shares more in common with a lebanese than it does with any of the countries above. I think this should be quite obvious.
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I know Middle East is named from the position of western Europe, but that's a mainstream name
Mainstream how? Because it was invented by Europeans? Is mainstream as you use it use a less-unpleasant substitute word for Eurocentric?
quote:as long we don't have alternatives
Common Yonis, you're smarter than this.
Why don't you have Native alternatives for -Middle East?
I'll answer since you make yourself unnecessarily clueless:
So, why this claim? [Middle East] Why everybody keeps on insisting on saying the Middle East? How did this region that cannot be a region emerge? And while the Middle East cannot be a region, how did this “Greater Middle East” emerge?
To put it short, there is no region as Middle East in fact. The Middle East is neither “the middle of the East”, nor it is a region with homogeneous characteristics. The Middle East is the name given to a “zone of interest” and it implies an appetite which has no sense of getting full. The more the appetite grows, the larger the region becomes.
Yonis you help keep Eurocentrism alive because you repeat it's every fallacy, every illogical pre-text, and self serving outright lie, and you do so in the most unthinking way possible.
Critical thinking requires more than slavish parroting.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Amazign nationalists are more racist than arabs could ever be, these people hate and dismiss any thing "black", they have totally adopted the european mentality of pure raced individuals. They think arabs are to blame for their cultural destruction, like assimilating no pure berbers into their society so to eradicate it like "negroes", they even have Nazi groups who have slogans like death to arabs, negroes and jews. I can post websites if you want.
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Amazig nationalists are more racist than arabs could ever be
lol Strike a nerve did I?
Yonis.... please prove your point in the following way.
Present a list of the Countries conquered by Arab nationalism, and Amazigh Nationalism side by side.
Present a list of People Enslaved by Arabization, as opposed to Amazigh-(???) - whatever name you which to attribute to this far more racist than Arab entity.
No commentary please.... just the lists.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yonis: [Berber] think arabs are to blame for their cultural destruction
But, that...can't be.
We know that's not the case, because they are all Middle Eastern 'brothers' who have so much in common. That's what the Middle East is all about, right Yonis?
Or have you forgotten your original claim?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: lol Strike a nerve did I?
Striked what nerve? I'm not an arab, so i couldn't care less if they denounced the arabic hegemony and adopted a berber identity.
quote:Present a list of the Countries conquered by Arab nationalism, and Amazigh Nationalism side by side.
I don't see the relevance of this, i know Amazign/berbers were not conquerers and expansionists as muslims before arabs assimilated them. They however did become expansionists when they got conquered, remember spain?
quote:Present a list of People Enslaved by Arabization, as opposed to Amazigh-(???) - whatever name you which to attribute to this far more racist than Arab entity.
Both enslaved people, there is by the way no exclusive arab today, everyone who speaks arabic is an arab. North africans have not been more reluctant to import slaves than western asia, infact most of northern Mauritania who are ethnically berbers still import slaves in 2007.
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:rasol: Present a list of the Countries conquered by Arab nationalism, and Amazigh Nationalism side by side.
quote:Yonis: I don't see how this is relevant
It's relevant to your claim that Amazigh Nationalism is quantifiably more racist than Arab nationalism.
If you can't substantiate, then the claim is meaningless.
Now.... I will agree with you that -your claim of who is more racist than whom- is and irrelevancy meant to distract from the falsehood of your prior claim of cultural fraternity between Berber and Arab, but that just means you've made two unfounded claims instead of one.
quote:rasol: irrelevancy meant to distract from the falsehood of your prior claim of cultural fraternity between Berber and Arab, but that just means you've made two unfounded claims instead of one.
I don't fall for this kind of nonsense. Berber nationalism does not equall the Maghreb states or the majority of people. Most of them live in the mountain coastal regions and get support from the diaspora berbers. However the state and the overwhelming majority of citizens identify themselves as arabs, they don't adhere to these small factions of berber nationalists. Go to any country, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria or Libya, you'll see how little support these movements have, outside their villages. So i'm sorry there is no falsehood, the north african states at the moment are strongly attached culturally to West Asia, and that's a fact, so don't twist my words.
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:However the state and the overwhelming majority of citizens identify themselves as arabs
The above is both a backtrack off of your lying implication that all Arab speakers identify as Arabs, and a simplistic smokescreen thrown over a complex political and cultural situation....
This situation is of course more complicated.
(1) Historians do not know for sure where the Berbers originated.
Schoolbooks in Morocco, which also has a large Berber population, expediently used to claim the were originally from Arabia, though such passages have recently been dropped.
(2) More than 1/3 of Algerians are Berber, in fact probably more than half the population has Berber ancestors or relatives.
(3) The Tamazight language is not spoken by many young Berbers in Algeria, and in general the younger generation varies greatly on how it identifies itself primarily:
1) as Berber,
2) as part of the "Arab" world, or
3) as Algerian.
The current revival of Berber political and civic organizing is in part identity politics - a sort of "Berber is Beautiful" campaign - as well as yet another example of post-Saddam attempts to roll back pan-Arabism in the "Middle East." The big question that remains is how the current young generation will identify: many have been effectively *Arabized* and know no Tamazigh. Others want nothing to do with Arab identity.
quote:rasol: Middle East = nonsense and -you do- fall for it, and hard, apparently.
*Yawn*, everyone calls the region Middle east, even middle easterners call it middle east, just because you found a turkish article about its eurocentric motives doesn't make the name less significant in modern times. When you mobilize a troop rasol and conquer the world then maybe you can have a say and change the modern political environment, but untill then you're just a mere whining subject of the contemporary world order.
quote:In contrast you claimed that *everyone* who speaks Arabic is Arab.
Maybe i should have been more specific. Everyone who speaks arabic and identify as an arab is mostly accepted as an arab. You should know by know that there is no such thing as an homogeneous arab ethnicity.
quote:Your statement is a lie of Arabization, and no one falls for that.
I've always been against arabization, and have plentyfull times debated on swedish and other forums against religous, ethnic and cultural hegemony, i think you assume to much. I'm the last person who would ever support arabization of any group. This however doesn't blind me from acknowledging the reality of certain regions.
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:rasol: Middle East = nonsense and -you do- fall for it, and hard, apparently.
*Yawn*, everyone calls the region Middle east, even middle easterners call it middle east, just because you found a turkish article about its eurocentric motives doesn't make the name less significant in modern times. When you mobilize a troop rasol and conquer the world then maybe you can have a say and change the modern political environment, but untill then you're just a mere whining subject of the contemporary world order.
Who is everyone? Ignoramuses, dolts, brainwashed persons who cannot tell the difference between east and south? Apparently you are a consenting and brainwashed subject of the contemporary world order. Yes, "everyone" in Europe used to believe that the sun revolved around the earth, and it did serve a political/philosophical function in the world order of its day. That is the lazy kind of thinking that keeps true science from ever progressing and the truth from ever being revealed.
quote:In contrast you claimed that *everyone* who speaks Arabic is Arab.
Maybe i should have been more specific. Everyone who speaks arabic and identify as an arab is mostly accepted as an arab. You should know by know that there is no such thing as an homogeneous arab ethnicity.
So everyone who speaks English is an Englishman - European Americans, African Americans, Asian Americans, etc., if they find it more convenient to identify with the Ol' Country (which they probably would, as it is easier to be white). There is no such thing as a homogeneous English identity. In fact, if the individual chooses to identify as any one thing, then there is no such thing as a homogeneous identity.
quote:Your statement is a lie of Arabization, and no one falls for that.
I've always been against arabization, and have plentyfull times debated on swedish and other forums against religous, ethnic and cultural hegemony, i think you assume to much. I'm the last person who would ever support arabization of any group. This however doesn't blind me from acknowledging the reality of certain regions.
Social reality is mass concensus and often has nothing to do with objective reality. You can say the sun revolves around your little planet, the Judeo-Christian god created the universe in 3760 B.C., man never landed on the moon, but it still does not, he (if he exists) still did not, and they still did (the latter may perhaps yet be disproved, mayhap by persons such as yourself).
Oh, and by the way, Yonis, what is your hangup with Blacks? Were you discriminated by them, wounded by them, or are you just one more lemming going along with the myth of Black inferiority? Perhaps the latter in order to flatter your wounded ego, because you obviously are not as coherent as the other posters on this forum. And please learn how to spell.
Posts: 140 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Can we put this modern polticial-cultural stuff aside and address the topic points of this thread?
Takruri is correct that the European so-called expert did nothing but re-hash or perpetuate old Eurocentric myths.
Most white scholars including Marq de Villiers who has travelled through and wrote about the history of the Sahara not only find no evidence of "white" or other "Middle-Easterners" in the early Sahara, but even vehemently remark about the blatant bias in past Western scholarship in trying to attribute any advancement in African culture to "white foreigners"!!
By the way, that thing about the "white Middle-Easterners" bringing their cattle is funny considering that DNA tests show that the vast majority of cattle in North Africa are indigenous to the continent. We've discussed this before, but no search engine, no time.
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Neith Athena: Oh, and by the way, Yonis, what is your hangup with Blacks? Were you discriminated by them, wounded by them, or are you just one more lemming going along with the myth of Black inferiority? Perhaps the latter in order to flatter your wounded ego, because you obviously are not as coherent as the other posters on this forum. And please learn how to spell.
Yes, you're so right Neith Athena, right on spot, God has blessed you with such great wisdom. Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Neith-Athena: Oh, and by the way, Yonis, what is your hangup with Blacks? Were you discriminated by them, wounded by them, or are you just one more lemming going along with the myth of Black inferiority? Perhaps the latter in order to flatter your wounded ego, because you obviously are not as coherent as the other posters on this forum.
He means well, and I like Yonis. He's just confused and easily made to repeat Arab & 'white' lies.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:rasol: He means well, and I like Yonis. He's just confused and easily made to repeat Arab & 'white' lies.
Confused, and easily made? I don't know who you normally deal with but i personally don't appreciate such paternalistic attitude combined with pat on the head, if you want respect then try to earn it, demeaning people in such manners as you did above is quite offensive and puts bad light on you.
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe true! But atleast i'm not a hypocrite about it, i don't say such things like "rasol is a good man, but he's confused and naive, he means well though" that's disgusting in my book, i never insult peoples intelligence like that.
Edit: Nice try of changing your original post, where you first said, "you demean others" and you edited to "you demean yourself and need no help from others", which makes the text i'm replyin to totally different. Your hypocracy is showing for every post you post, makes you look kinda pathetic.
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is both an African and European connection in North Africa on top of an Arab conection: Southern Europe was part of Africa politically in the past: some West Africans have still ancestors and relatives who lived/live in Spain: TIMBUKTU Mr. Haïdara is a descendant of the Kati family, a prominent Muslim family in Toledo, Spain. One of his ancestors fled religious persecution in the 15th century and settled in what is now Mali, bringing his formidable library with him. The Kati family intermarried into the Songhai imperial family, and the habit Mr. Haïdara’s ancestors had of doodling notes in the margins of their manuscripts has left an abundance of historical information: births and deaths in the imperial family, the weather, drafts of imperial letters, herbal cures, records of slaves, and salt and gold traded.Posts: 919 | From: AFRICA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yonis: Maybe true! But atleast i'm not a hypocrite about it, i don't say such things like "rasol is a good man, but he's confused and naive, he means well though"
It is true.
And, it's not hypocrisy to note that a good man can be confused and naive.
In fact, I will repeat the above with emphasis, because the inability to understand how a good man can be naive and confused is a symptom of confusion over the subtle distinction in all those terms.
quote:that's disgusting in my book
And your proclaimed 'disgust', is little more than venting of frustration [and embarrassment?]due to the fact that you are deeply confused about many things.
quote:Edit: Nice try of changing your original post, where you first said, "you demean others" and you edited to "you demean yourself
I edit virtually every post I type. I don't recall typing 'you demean others', but if I did it was just a typo.
I meant to say exactly what is quoted from my post: which is that you demean yourself, and so shouldn't blame 'others' for it.
Your ad hominem whining is typically the result of someone who makes false statements, and fails to back them.
If I am wrong about this, you can easily prove it.
Reply back with no personal commentary, but only hard facts to prove your claim that -ALL PEOPLE- who speak Arabic consider themselves Arabs, which would then service your claim of Middle Eastern fraternity.
Bear in mind - that means Afghans, Southern Sudanese, Toureg, Amazigh, Iranians, and many others.
If you can't back up your claim, then you'd do well to just think about what you said, and how patently ridiculous it was to begin with.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amazighan culture is not Arab culture. There is a reason Tamazighan activists exist, and these are not confined to rural North Africans; these comprise of organized campaigns by broad sections of coastal north Africans, including both well educated working class and the narrower social layer of the north African bourgeois who have access to the internet technology. In Egypt, particularly upper Egypt, there are still elements of indigenous culture practiced, not withstanding "Arabization" campaigns by the Egyptian bourgeois. In fact, some tend to forget about the so-called "Nubians" of Upper Egypt, presenting them as some sort of second class citizens, or better yet, having their own little state within a state. While Arabic seems to be a regional lingua franca in north Africa, culture in north Africa is no more homogenous than culture south of the Sahara and the Sahel, or east to west. Culture in Africa is as diverse as its socio-ethnic units within states and across states.
Just because people live in a nation state, doesn't mean that a state represents a homogenous culture; formerly discrete and politically independent socio-ethnic units can and have in the past been brought together under a centralized government to form a nation. Kemet is a good example of this. The circumstances of bringing discrete socio-ethnic units, each with their distinctive culture and values, under a state vary from in situ regional struggles, culminating in regional alliances and/or conquest by one indigenous group and subsequent integration of the conquered, to divide and conquer antics by extra-continental invading forces.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: lol Strike a nerve did I?
Striked what nerve? I'm not an arab, so i couldn't care less if they denounced the arabic hegemony and adopted a berber identity.
quote:Present a list of the Countries conquered by Arab nationalism, and Amazigh Nationalism side by side.
I don't see the relevance of this, i know Amazign/berbers were not conquerers and expansionists as muslims before arabs assimilated them. They however did become expansionists when they got conquered, remember spain?
quote:Present a list of People Enslaved by Arabization, as opposed to Amazigh-(???) - whatever name you which to attribute to this far more racist than Arab entity.
Both enslaved people, there is by the way no exclusive arab today, everyone who speaks arabic is an arab. North africans have not been more reluctant to import slaves than western asia, infact most of northern Mauritania who are ethnically berbers still import slaves in 2007.
There is no ethnic Berber. Berber is a language and this is important because almost ALL of Mauretania was once a Berber speaking group of people. Therefore most of Mauretania is still Berber, albeit many have dropped the Zenaga dialect and are Arab speakers now. Mixing language with ethnicity is what causes so much of the confusion about what is a Berber and what is an Arab and what is an African in North Africa. The funniest part is that most of the biological studies I have seen find no signifigant differences biologically between Arab and Berber in North Africa. That makes it hard to justify a unique "Berber" identity for some North Africans, when they are all equally related through intermarriage.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Note that many Lebanese are Christian and the Arabic spoken in Lebanon is uite different from North African Arabic. There are many Moroccans and Lebanese in Senegal and as far as I know they hardly ever interact. And business and other travel between parts of West Africa(the Sahel area) and places like Morocco in North Africa are very routine both by air and road.
Furthermore, Arabic is not even the most widely spoken language in West Asia. Iranians(80 million) speak Farsi and openly distinguish themselves from "Arabs_--especially those from Arabia and its Gulf area.
Kurdish is also widely spoken in Weest Asia along with Turkish(80 million). And Turks also eagerly distinguish themselves from Arabs.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Now.... I will agree with you that -your claim of who is more racist than whom- is and irrelevancy meant to distract from the falsehood of your prior claim of cultural fraternity between Berber and Arab, but that just means you've made two unfounded claims instead of one.
True.
quote:Originally posted by Yonis: *Yawn*, everyone calls the region Middle east, even middle easterners call it middle east, just because you found a turkish article about its eurocentric motives doesn't make the name less significant in modern times.
Again, true, but here me out
quote:When you mobilize a troop rasol and conquer the world then maybe you can have a say and change the modern political environment, but untill then you're just a mere whining subject of the contemporary world order.
lol
Considering there is no "mid-east", though I in fact occasionally use it, that fact alone refutes a "mid-eastern culture" of Berbers. Whether or not the cool kids use it.
@Neith Athena, no need to be like that. That's wrong.
posted
Exactly where is the seperation between North Africa and "Sub-Sahara" in terms of language and culture? Muslim religion and culture is found in Sub-Sahara also in Nigeria, Chad, Ethiopia, Somalia, and even Kenya. Arabic is spoken in certain regions of those countries. Of course non of those people identify themselves as 'Arabs' and neither do most North Africans.
By the way, what about the original topic of the thread?
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Africa has had a profound impact on the culture and traditions of ALL populations who have ventured there. We must remember that bigotry and racism are powerful forces in the telling of African history. If the TRUTH was told, Africa has had a more PROFOUND cultural impact on people from OUTSIDE Africa than vice versa, at least on a POSITIVE perspective. The MAJORITY of the impact non Africans have had on Africa is NEGATIVE.
So, going back to the topic of the thread, very FEW cultural traits were introduced INTO Africa by NON Africans, whether from 2,000 years ago or 10,000. Many of those who did migrate to Africa adopted AFRICAN customs and traits. Starting with the Neolithic, the neolithic revolution happened IN AFRICA among INDIGENOUS Africans and did not require FOREIGN migrants to "introduce" such techniques as pottery, pastoralism, cattle cults, astronomy for farming, megaliths, jewelry, clothing and so on. All of these patterns of behavior ALREADY existed prior to any LEVANTINE migrants reaching Africa. AFRICA is the BIRTH place of the process of human tool industries and the techniques that became the fundamental pattern of human existence all over the planet. Religion, art, architecture, farming, animal husbandry, hunting, skinning, leather working, textiles, pottery and all other sorts of human traits started in Africa long before anywhere else. For example, the Muslim invaders of Africa have benefited from contact with AFRICANS and have been ENRICHED by this contact, much more than vice versa. The traditions of the clothing and dress of Muslim Africa is INDIGENOUS to Africa and in many ways existed PRIOR to Muslim contact. The leather that made Morocco famous actually CAME from Nigeria. The blue dress of the Tuaregs actually ORIGINATES in Nigeria and West Africa. The sandal and slipper traditions of Northern Africa had SIGNIFICANT influence from a wide range of African groups. Many of the steel making traditions and weapon traditions of Muslim Africa originated among steel producing groups in West Africa. Many of the warrior traditions and customs of Muslim Africa originated among a wide range of African groups. People must remember that the MAIN means of contact across Muslim Africa was due to trade and this trade allowed many African cultural influences to be incorporated into Islam, but without acknowledgment to the African peoples that originated these ideas. So, when looking at the last 8,000 years of African history and interaction with peoples from outside of Africa, one must remember that MUCH of indigenous AFRICAN cultural traditions have been absorbed into a larger diaspora of cultural traditions and often is attributed wrongly to people from OUTSIDE Africa as opposed to INDIGENOUS black Africans.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:rasol: Middle East = nonsense and -you do- fall for it, and hard, apparently.
*Yawn*, everyone calls the region Middle east, even middle easterners call it middle east, just because you found a turkish article about its eurocentric motives doesn't make the name less significant in modern times. When you mobilize a troop rasol and conquer the world then maybe you can have a say and change the modern political environment, but untill then you're just a mere whining subject of the contemporary world order.
Who is everyone? Ignoramuses, dolts, brainwashed persons who cannot tell the difference between east and south? Apparently you are a consenting and brainwashed subject of the contemporary world order. Yes, "everyone" in Europe used to believe that the sun revolved around the earth, and it did serve a political/philosophical function in the world order of its day. That is the lazy kind of thinking that keeps true science from ever progressing and the truth from ever being revealed.
quote:In contrast you claimed that *everyone* who speaks Arabic is Arab.
Maybe i should have been more specific. Everyone who speaks arabic and identify as an arab is mostly accepted as an arab. You should know by know that there is no such thing as an homogeneous arab ethnicity.
So everyone who speaks English is an Englishman - European Americans, African Americans, Asian Americans, etc., if they find it more convenient to identify with the Ol' Country (which they probably would, as it is easier to be white). There is no such thing as a homogeneous English identity. In fact, if the individual chooses to identify as any one thing, then there is no such thing as a homogeneous identity.
quote:Your statement is a lie of Arabization, and no one falls for that.
I've always been against arabization, and have plentyfull times debated on swedish and other forums against religous, ethnic and cultural hegemony, i think you assume to much. I'm the last person who would ever support arabization of any group. This however doesn't blind me from acknowledging the reality of certain regions.
Social reality is mass concensus and often has nothing to do with objective reality. You can say the sun revolves around your little planet, the Judeo-Christian god created the universe in 3760 B.C., man never landed on the moon, but it still does not, he (if he exists) still did not, and they still did (the latter may perhaps yet be disproved, mayhap by persons such as yourself).
Oh, and by the way, Yonis, what is your hangup with Blacks? Were you discriminated by them, wounded by them, or are you just one more lemming going along with the myth of Black inferiority? Perhaps the latter in order to flatter your wounded ego, because you obviously are not as coherent as the other posters on this forum. And please learn how to spell.
Yonis is 100% Black African (not African American).
Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:rasol: Reply back with no personal commentary, but only hard facts to prove your claim that -ALL PEOPLE- who speak Arabic consider themselves Arabs, which would then service your claim of Middle Eastern fraternity.
I've told you before about twisting peoples words.
This is what i said
quote:Maybe i should have been more specific. Everyone who speaks arabic and identify as an arab is mostly accepted as an arab.
Now try to focus on the bigger picture next time you discuss with someone instead of nitpicking and distracting from whats being discussed.
The main issue was that north african states are culturally more connected to west asian countries than to countries south of sahara.
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic