quote: quote:Again you keep implying that I am claiming the Yoruba migrated to Japan. This contention is made by Baiye.
You keep presenting these claims and attempting to 'support' them, but when we ask you for specifics, you deny that you are trying to support these claims.
If you are honest you could always state flat out the following:
I, Clyde Winters do not support claims that Yoruba migrated to Japan.
^ Just say the above, and the matter is settled.
You are asking me to deny a claim made by Mr. Baiye, when his theory is supported by external data (i.e., placenames of Nigerian origin throughout the Pacific and India). You have not disconfirmed his theory by showing evidence that the placenames and surnames of Nigerian origin are not found in both places.
The matter is settled when you explain how these Nigerian placenames are found in four different locals, especially the 400+ names in India, if they were not taken there by human envoy.
posted
Many researchers have long noted the presence of African placenames in the Pacific and Asia generally. A certain Mr. Onimisi Baiye has an interesting site where he discusses Yoruba and Japanese placenames.
JAPANESE............. ºE....... ºN....... NIGERIAN 1 Azuma-san (mountain) 140-141 37-38.... Zuma Rock , Niger State
2 Tobi-shima (island) 139-140 39-40.... Tobi: Rivers State male name
3 Akō(town) 134-135 34-35.... Akō: Yoruba, excessive pride
4 Akan(town) 144-145 43-44...... Akandu: Ibo male name
5 Ibara(town) 133-134 34-35....... Ibarapa, Oyo State
6 Minna-jima (island) 124-125 24-25..... Minna, Niger State
18 Watanabe...... Watanabe: Southern Borno State name
19 Kōbe(city) 134.41 135.1....... Achakōbe: Isoko,Delta State name
20 Machida .......Maccido: Fulani, Sokoto State name
Compiled by Onimisi Baiye onimisibaiye@yahoo.co.uk
Onimisi Baiye wrote:
quote:
Far East Asian Languages Are Near African Languages
Written and Compiled by: Onimisi Baiye
If you do an Internet image search, www.google.com on the following Nigerian names: Haruna, Sambo, Pankan, Kwashi, Imoko, Chika, Azuka, Ezuka, Koma, Zoro, Watanabe, Nene, Osato, Osaru, Okada, Edo, Baba, Emiko, Kano, Nana, Aya, Tami, Tai, Sada, Ikimi, Ume, you will more likely see a Japanese link than a Nigerian link.
The writing system of Japanese hides the striking similarities between Japanese and African languages. But on closer examination of the syllables that make up the Kanji character set, the syllables easily describe the Nigerian Languages.
Japanese festivals and dressing are very African in color combination. Also Shinto is about shrines, ancestors, mountain spirits, tree spirits, the so-called heathen religions that was used to justify the enslavement of Blacks.
Japanese were bleached out by invading Mongolians, that is why Southern Japanese people are darker-skinned than their northern counterparts.
Chinese and Korean map to the Calabar languages of South-Southern Nigeria. One has to listen to and see the physical stature someone from that part of Nigeria to to have a feel of of the similarities to Chinese and Koreans. Unfortunately, because of the Eurocentric nature of post-colonial Nigerians, the Calabar people cannot understand why Chinese and Koreans are their bleached-out descendants. Martial Arts is of African origin.
Baiye is not the first person to note the presence of African placenames in the Pacific. The first person to discuss this hypothesis was W.J. Page.
Williams John Page discussed the Lakato Hypothesis. The Lakato Hypothesis stated simply implies that the Melanesian people of Fiji were carried to the Pacific Islands by Indonesian maritime merchants after they had colonized parts of East and central Africa.
See the following: web page
A recent article on Nigerian place names in India was published by Dr. R. Balakrishnan titled "African roots of the Dravidian-speaking Tribes: A case in Onomastics", International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, 34(1) (2005),pp.153-202. Like Baiye, Dr. Balakrishnan found almost 500 Nigerian placenames, and 46 tribal names in Koraput, India; and 110 ethnonyms of Koyas in Nigeria. This led Dr. Balakrishnan to declare that :"However, the overwhelming evidence available from the toponymic corpuses of Koraput and Nigeria, and ethnonyms, surnames and personal names of Koyas seem more adequate to propose an African origin to the Koyas, the Dravidian speakers" (p.177)
It is interesting to note that we find Koya placenames in Nigeria, and Nigerian place names on the East Coast of India (Balakrishnan), Nigerian place names throughout the Pacific (Page) and Nigerian placenames and surnames in Japan (Baiye). This shows a direct spread of Nigerian place names from Africa, across the Indian Ocean into the Pacific. The discovery of common placenames in three different regions can not be accounted by coincidence.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
I haven't read all of the information here, but one thing I can say for sure is this: Africans who go to Japan are able to learn Japanese much quicker than any American or Westerner. From my understanding, the average American who wants to learn Japanese will take anywhere from 7-10 years(sometimes alot longer) to learn the language. Many Africans who go to Japan, they are able to learn the language in 3 years. This is what I was told by people in the military who were stationed in Japan. They say it is because the African languages are actually more closely alighned to Japanese than the "Latin" languges.
Dr. Winters, is what I am saying correct? Salaam
Posts: 826 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
I haven't read all of the information here, but one thing I can say for sure is this: Africans who go to Japan are able to learn Japanese much quicker than any American or Westerner. From my understanding, the average American who wants to learn Japanese will take anywhere from 7-10 years(sometimes alot longer) to learn the language. Many Africans who go to Japan, they are able to learn the language in 3 years. This is what I was told by people in the military who were stationed in Japan. They say it is because the African languages are actually more closely alighned to Japanese than the "Latin" languges.
Dr. Winters, is what I am saying correct? Salaam
This may be true because Japanese and African languages are tonal and the cv nature of most of the words may favor Africans in learning Japanese than European speakers.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
No revelation; 'name origins' turn out to have some linguistic usefulness only when the ocassion warrants it, through the lens of Clyde. In other words, this usefulness is gauged by what questionable agenda is presently on the table.
-------------------- Truth - a liar penetrating device! Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You are asking me to deny a claim made by Mr. Baiye, when his theory is supported by external data
*You claim* the theory is supported by data.
If this is so then *you* should be able to utilise the supposed 'data' to 'place-name' the alledged migration of Yoruba to Japan.
quote:You have not disconfirmed his theory
You have provided no theory, only far-fetched claims with no specifics.
A valid theory must offer testable specifics.
If you can't tell us *when* the Yoruba supposedly migrated to Japan, and *how* they migrated to Japan, and based upon what evidence, other than the ludicrous question-begging assumption that any word found in Nigeria and anywhere else - auto-"magically" evidences demic diffusion from Yoruba...then there is nothing to refute.
This is just another one of your hot air threads.
quote:If the matter is settled when you explain how these Nigerian placenames
Of course you have presented absolutely no proof that words like Tai or Nana found among Eskimo or Chinese actually originate in Nigerians who migrated to Japan.
In fact the very idea is ludicrous, and you know it.
Which is why you can't even make up and entertaining lie explaining when/where/how these words would have spread from Nigeria to Japan. (??)
And when asked to provide the requested evidence, you stonewall because you have no data, no facts, nothing....but hot air.
For this reason, your thread has only comedy value, and is not to be taken seriously. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: No revelation; 'name origins' turn out to have some linguistic usefulness only when the ocassion warrants it, through the lens of Clyde. In other words, this usefulness is gauged by what questionable agenda is presently on the table.
The Doctor is really poisoness to African scholarship when he systematically reduces it to absurd chasings of flights of fantasy, the more far fetched, the better.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The point that Mr. Winters should be making is that the linguistic, ethnic and cultural diversity among BLACK Africans spans many other distinct cultural, ethnic and linguistic groups outside of Africa. You have the greatest variety of languages spoken IN Africa. You have the greatest phenotypical diversity WITHIN Africa. All of which speaks to the fact that African populations are the MOST ancient and therefore have had the most time to diversify than any other group in the world. Therefore, this diversity allows for similarities in language and culture that can be found among many other populations elsewhere on the planet. Plain and simple. Has nothing to do with Japan other than the diversity of African linguistics allows for some Africans to have language patterns that are similar to Japanese languages and customs. These patterns are universal and the fact of African diversity is so great allows many such patterns to be found IN Africa. Likewise, this makes the other populations elsewhere seem more like Africans in language and culture as Africa is the OLDEST of the human populations in the world and many of the patterns of thought, language, custom and religion are found in Africa BEFORE being found anywhere else. That said, Japanese culture is a very distinct and ancient tradition in its own right and it does no justice to Japanese, Asian or African history by mentioning oddball facts like these without putting it into some sort of context and making a "point" of mentioning it.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
First of all languages are classified either genetically or typologically. Typological classification is based on similarities in language structure, whereas genetic classification is based on genetic relation between languages because of common origin; however since all humans share a common origin, then the same can be said about all languages and thus all languages are ultimately genetically related. This distant genetic relation helps explain the typological affinities between distant and far-flung languages, similarities in the condition of human speech both physiological and psychological also explains many striking similarities even coincidences. The diversity of modern languages is a result of evolution or change over time caused by various factors. In time, these changes accumulate until the language diverges more and more. We see the micro-evolutionary process all the time in the form of dialects and idio-dialects. Thus an English speaking person from rural Cornwall Britain may have a somewhat difficult time understanding an English speaking person from rural Georgia. Even then, like biological evolution there are certain convergences as there are divergences..
^Of course all of us (at least smart ones) know that Egyptian as an Afrasian (African) language is not closely related to Austronesian (Pacific) Maori. But some folks like Clyde would have some believe otherwise or such as with Dravidian and Mande or with Japanese and "Nigerian" (?) (even though there is NO 'Nigerian' language since Nigeria is a modern nation constructed by European colonialist which consists of hundreds of groups who speak a seperate language!!)
As for the whole Indo-European issue and India. Again, languages can other important cultural ideas can be transmitted without significant influxes of people. Thus Indo-European speakers of India need not be closely related to Western Europeans biologically as they are linguistically.
Hell, the same can be even be said about the populations within Europe, as Yonis posted about the British and their alleged origins, here!
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Indeed! See the ethnologue report on Nigerian languages (clickable link) for the long, I mean long, list of that one African country's languages. There are over 500 to pick and choose from. Bound to get false positives if determined to find them.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is why one must be very careful when evaluating claims, and ever ready to note inconsistencies, which are covered up with ploys such as starting with Yoruban and Japanese - then switching to "Nigerian" placenames in Japan, or Yoruban placenames in 'East Asia'.
Japanese were bleached out by invading Mongolians, that is why Southern Japanese people are darker-skinned than their northern counterparts.
^ Perhaps, or perhaps not.....but how would this explain the word 'tai', which is a Mongolian word as well as Japanese [and Chinese]?
You are not supposed to be paying close enough attention to notice faux-explanations which actually explain nothing, and pseudo-evidences that evidence nothing.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Actually that whole bit about Mongolians "bleaching out" native Japanese is so falsely ridiculous it's hilarious!
First of all, The Mongols only made 2 military incursions into Japan by armies who were tiny in comparison to the native populations that even if the invasions were successful (which they weren't), the genetic contribution would have been very minute. Both invasions-- the first in 1274 and the second in 1281, ended in tragedy for the Mongols due to natural disasters like typhoons.
And second, Mongols proper are usually dark-skinned also, although most of the armies during the invasions would have consisted of Chinese and Koreans.
Although it's true Japanese living in the southern most islands and even some southern South Koreans also tend to be darker. I don't know if it has to do with their latitudinal position or because they share close ancestry with the indigenous peoples of Taiwan who are dark-skinned or both.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr Winters is stuck on 20 year old scholarship and has not filled in ANY additional info on the topic of the BLACK presence in ancient Asian culture. By continuing this trend of poor scholarship and following extraneous theories, it makes one a PAWN for the Eurocentric agenda. It is EASY to prove a BLACK presence in Asia, both now AND in the past. The fact that the ONLY thing you posted on the East Asian presence is a snippet of Runoko's work is telling. Why havent YOU been to Asia and why havent YOU seen the caves and monuments I have posted here in this thread. Those images are PROOF ENOUGH of a black presence in Asia. Of course similar images can be found all the way into Vietnam from cultures that were inspired by those in India. So why are you focusing on Japanese/Nigerian similarities in placenames and NOT what happened to the aboriginal BLACK populations in SouthEast Asia? Likewise, if you WANT to talk about Africans in Asia, as opposed to aboriginal black Asian populations, then talk about WHY the oldest bhudda images in India have kinky hair, while most other images from that period have STRAIGHT hair (but are still dark skinned). Does that mean that Buddha was someone from Africa, specifically Egypt, where the lotus and many other symbols of Buddhism already were found?
Those are FERTILE areas for research that are NOT given any JUSTICE by the lack of diligence and proper research I have seen from some of your work. If you want to PROVE a black presence in Asia then PROVE it. There is MORE than enough evidence around without having to go out on a limb and doing it the back assward way of using the similarities of Japanese placenames to Nigerian placenames, which proves ABSOLUTELY NOTHING and only distracts from the REAL archaeological and antrhopological evidence of black Asian and African connections.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
I looked at the ethnologue post and have some questions.
I am not sure whether the 500 langiages for Nigeria are bona fide languages--mutually incomprehensible--or languages and their dialects.
If there are 500 distinct languages then that means that 500 different groups filtered into the area now known as Nigeria at different times and stayed relatively isolated until recently or that fewer groups filtered in but eventually broke up into isolated groups from which the different languages developed.
If there are 500 different languages then what might that imply for the general genomic profile for that area?
I am aware though that languages mutate and go their separate ways much more rapidly that genetic mutations but I still pose the question.
The population of Nigeria is put at 137 Million yet the three major groups--Hausa, Yoruba and Igbo--are are put at having only ~19 Million each. Yet most Nigerians one encounters in Nigeria, West Africa and the elsewhere usually claim to be of one of the 3 main groups!!
I am also always struck by the fact that the innumerable "reports" on Africa are always compiled by Euro teams from elsewhere--with little African input. I say "caveat lector"!
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ironically when one tries to define Black as 'a race', it becomes possible and even easy to deny the historical precense of Blacks even in Africa [ie - Egypt] much less Asia.
You simply deny membership into and arbitrarily defined race catagory, and since all such catagories are arbitrary, the proponents of 'Black race' are left vexed.
Predictably, they compound the mistake with a reactionary defense of the notion of race, which is a futile proposition especially for and Afrocentric as there isn't a single biologist who thinks that black skin common to - Africans, Asians, Australians, etc.. can actually relate a recent common origin or lineage.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ronuko Rashidi has done extensive research on the presence of blacks in Southwest Asia, mainland Asia and elsewhere. His traveled to these places and has extensive documents.
Posts: 104 | From: santa barbara, california usa | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Ta-Mo and other 'black' figures in Chinese legends do likely stem from the historical fact that Chinese did make contact with black aboriginal peoples far to their southern areas. To whom the Chinese called 'black heads'.
I don't see how any of this pertains to blacks of Africa though.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Totally out of curiosity, I searched for my first name "Siju" on google and it turns out Yoruba names/words are very common with Japanese because my search returned links to pages referring to Korean, Japanese or other related Asian names/stuff.
Even if it turns out that this is purely coincidence, it is one hell of a phenomenon from my POV.
Posts: 3423 | From: the jungle - when y'all stop playing games, call me. | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
The Ethnologue is a well known and reliable compendium of the world's languages.
It's easy to make a scapegoat and bogeyman out of Euros/whites. But that's no excuse. What do you have to offer on Nigeria and its languages and ethnies?
And here's the Ethnologue's take on differentiating languages
quote: The problem of language identification
Due to the nature of language and the various perspectives brought to its study, it is not surprising that a number of issues prove controversial. Of preeminence in this regard is that of the definition of language itself. Since languages do not have self-identifying features, what actually constitutes a language must be operationally defined. That is, the definition of language one chooses depends on the purpose one has in identifying a language. Some base their definition on purely linguistic grounds. Others recognize that social, cultural, or political factors must also be taken into account.
Increasingly, scholars are recognizing that languages are not always easily treated as discrete isolatable units with clearly defined boundaries between them. Rather, languages are more often continua of features that extend across both geographic and social space. In addition, there is growing attention being given to the roles or functions that language varieties play within the linguistic ecology of a region or a speech community.
The Ethnologue approach to listing and counting languages as though they were discrete, countable units, does not preclude a more dynamic understanding of the linguistic makeup of the countries and regions in which clearly distinct varieties can be distinguished while at the same time recognizing that those languages and their “dialects” exist in a complex set of relationships to each other. Every language is characterized by variation within the speech community that uses it. Those varieties, in turn, are more or less divergent from one another. These divergent varieties are often referred to as dialects. They may be distinct enough to be considered separate languages or sufficiently similar as to be considered merely characteristic of a particular geographic region or social grouping within the speech community.
Not all scholars share the same set of criteria for what constitutes a “language” and what features define a “dialect.” The Ethnologue applies the following basic criteria:
Two related varieties are normally considered varieties of the same language if speakers of each variety have inherent understanding of the other variety at a functional level (that is, can understand based on knowledge of their own variety without needing to learn the other variety).
Where spoken intelligibility between varieties is marginal, the existence of a common literature or of a common ethnolinguistic identity with a central variety that both understand can be a strong indicator that they should nevertheless be considered varieties of the same language.
Where there is enough intelligibility between varieties to enable communication, the existence of well-established distinct ethnolinguistic identities can be a strong indicator that they should nevertheless be considered to be different languages.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dr. Winters. I read the post you made introducing this thread and it's fascinating to say the least. You're familiar with the web page I'll post here and since creating it no longer believe there's a connection between the Noh of Japan and Nok of Nigeria - but I have not updated it. Pity when today's Japanese entered Japan (I think primarily near the 15th century) they mostly wiped-out the indigenous African populations found there ...
quote:Pity when today's Japanese entered Japan (I think primarily near the 15th century) they mostly wiped-out the indigenous African populations found there ...
Here's a brief overview of what Marc considers the "Afro-nese" period of Japans history...
JOMON (10,000 - 300 B.C.) Prehistoric period of tribal/clan organization. Stone Age hunters and gatherers who make jomon (rope-patterned) pottery inhabit Japan.
660 B.C. Mythological Jimmu ("Divine Warrior"), descendant of sun goddess Amaterasu Omikami, founds empire.
YAYOI (300 B.C. - A.D. 300) Rice cultivation, metalworking, and the potter's wheel are introduced from China and Korea. Era named "Yayoi" after the place in Tokyo where wheel-turned pottery was found.
In Shinto, Japan's oldest religion, people identify kami (divine forces) in nature and in such human virtues as loyalty and wisdom. 100-300: Local clans form small political units.
KOFUN (YAMATO) (300 - 645) Unified state begins with emergence of powerful clan rulers; Japan establishes close contacts with mainland Asia.
Clan rulers are buried in kofun (large tomb mounds), surrounded by haniwa (clay sculptures). Yamato clan rulers, claiming descent from Amaterasu Omikami, begin the imperial dynasty that continues to occupy the throne today. Japan adopts Chinese written characters.
Shotoku Taishi (574-622) begins to shape Japanese society and government more after the pattern of China. He seeks centralization of government and a bureaucracy of merit. He also calls for reverence for Buddhism and the Confucian virtues.
ASUKA (645 -710) A great wave of reforms called the Taika no Kaishin (Taika Reforms) aims to strengthen the emperor's power. New aristocratic families are created. Especially powerful is that of Fujiwara no Kamatari, who helped push the reforms.
NARA (710 - 794) Imperial court builds new capital, modeled upon Chang-an in China, at Nara. Though emperors are Shinto chiefs, they patronize Buddhism in the belief that its teachings will bring about a peaceful society and protect the state. Legends surrounding the founding of Japan are compiled as history in the Kojiki (Record of Ancient Matters) and the Nihon shoki (Chronicle of Japan). With the adoption of Buddhism as the state religion, its monasteries gain political power.
HEIAN (794-1185) Imperial court moves to Heiankyo (now Kyoto) to escape domination of Nara's Buddhist establishment. Official contacts with China stop in 838.
Buddhism, in combination with native Shinto beliefs, continues to flourish. Flowering of classical Japanese culture aided by invention of kana (syllabary for writing Japanese language). Court women produce the best of era's literature.
Murasaki Shikibu's Tale of Genji (ca. 1002) is the world's first novel. Court undergoes decline of power with rise of provincial bushi (warrior class).
KAMAKURA (185-1333) Military government established in Kamakura by Minamoto no Yoritomo. Emperor, as figurehead, remains in Kyoto with the court aristocracy.
1192: Imperial court confers on Yoritomo the title of seii taishogun ("barbarian-subduing generalissimo"). Bushi become new ruling class.
1274, 1281: Kublai Khan's Mongol invasions are repelled with help of kamikaze ("divine winds," or storms). Defense against these invasions weakens structure of the military government at Kamakura.
MUROMACHI (1333 -1568) Muromachi district of Kyoto becomes base for Shogun Ashikaga Takauji's new military government. Takauji and his successors become patrons of Zen and spontaneity in ink painting, garden design, and the chanoyu (tea ceremony). http://www.askasia.org/teachers/essays/essay.php?no=131/
^ So Marc you're saying the above were Africans, who were wiped out, by the forebearers of modern Japanese during some hitherto undocumented historical event?
Or are you saying Kublai Khan actually suceeded in his invasion and wiped out the original Afro-nese??
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Oh, and I almost forgot...
Ta-Mo and other 'black' figures in Chinese legends do likely stem from the historical fact that Chinese did make contact with black aboriginal peoples far to their southern areas. To whom the Chinese called 'black heads'.
I don't see how any of this pertains to blacks of Africa though.
Quite correct. However, it is not as simple as Chinese making contact with aboriginals to the South and West. It is due to the fact that Buddhism, Jainism and other religions EMERGED among the aboriginals of India and spread through the South into East Asia. Ta Mo and other Indian/South Asians introduced these religions into China and the rest of Asia.
The only way it applies to Africa is through the fact that the OLDEST references to Gods growing out of Lotus blossums is in Egypt. Likewise temples carved into solid mountains with collossal human figures are an ancient Egyptian art and often found in the South of Egypt. Egyptian temples are the oldest temples in the world built using lotus form columns. Buddha can be said to a be an extension of Horus (divine risen conscious) rising out of the Lotus. The similarities go on and on, most of which I have posted links to already. The other possible link is through the oldest images of Buddha with tight kinky hair, which COULD represent an African spreading the aformentioned cosmology from Egypt or an aboriginal type from elsewhere in Asia. Note that these buddha images are the exception in that most of the images from these times are of dark skinned people with STRAIGHT hair.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
No one is making bogeyman out of anyone here. I am not a linguist--in the sense of having spent many years studying the structure and classification of languages--but that should preclude one from posing questions about how the trained linguists operate in terms of classification, etc.
And if Ethnologue were an organisation run by Africans who wrote about European languages as they saw fit then certainly Europeans who had some interest in language would be well advised to offer their critical insights into the observations made by the Africans.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just think you are just reading things into what I write. There are posters of European extract on this site. Unless you are of that extraction I am not hearing anything from posters like Arrowhead and co. who would certainly not be shy about responding.
I raised questions about ethnologue and the claim there are 500 languages in a relatively small space called Nigeria. I raised the legitimate question of whether that 500 languages included dialects or were they distinct languages. I also raised questions about migration patterns, etc. Other questions were raised about the population distribution of that country. All legitimate questions. The observation on the sources of ethnologue was but a minor portion of my post. But whenever I read something I always look at the source. That's just common sense. So no need for the fuss about my observation on the source of the information provided.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^LOL Indeed, this whole European/whitey bashing is not only seems to stem from their personal issues, but it also seems to serve as a distraction from their scholarly inadequacies.
As to Rasol, we know better than to take Marc Washington seriously especially if he is comparing Japanese masks of demons to black Africans. LMAO
And to Doug, I'm not sure if it is really accurate to say that Buddhism and Jainism really originated among Indian aborignes since such religions orginated proper in northern India and among the Aryan-speaking elites. Although I do not deny that the very roots of these religions stretch back in to pre-Vedic (pre-Aryan) times like yoga. As for your whole notion of the lotus. The lotus is a plant prevalent among river valleys not just the Nile and so certain species exist in the Indus, Ganges etc of India and were held with religious significance there as they are among ancient Mesopotamians with lotus blossoms from the Tigris and Euprates, or even blossoms from Chinese Rivers.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^LOL Indeed, this whole European/whitey bashing is not only seems to stem from their personal issues, but it also seems to serve as a distraction from their scholarly inadequacies.
As to Rasol, we know better than to take Marc Washington seriously especially if he is comparing Japanese masks of demons to black Africans. LMAO
And to Doug, I'm not sure if it is really accurate to say that Buddhism and Jainism really originated among Indian aborignes since such religions orginated proper in northern India and among the Aryan-speaking elites. Although I do not deny that the very roots of these religions stretch back in to pre-Vedic (pre-Aryan) times like yoga. As for your whole notion of the lotus. The lotus is a plant prevalent among river valleys not just the Nile and so certain species exist in the Indus, Ganges etc of India and were held with religious significance there as they are among ancient Mesopotamians with lotus blossoms from the Tigris and Euprates, or even blossoms from Chinese Rivers.
There are many dark skinned people in the North of India, even into modern Nepal. Being in the North of India does not make one automatically lighter complexioned. And, as we discussed before, the languages of Sanskrit and Hindu are NOT derived from WHITES. They are derived from the ancient languages NATIVE to India. The whole CONCEPT of an ARYAN language is a MYTH as much as the ARYAN invasion was a myth. So what did the Indians speak before the ARYAN language, which only can be attested to about 1500 B.C.? Obviously the ORIGINAL language did not dissapear, because it is the basis of Sanskrit and Hindi and has nothing to do with ARYANS. That is why these older languages are called proto Indo-European, but really they should be called Proto Indic, since Europe (or Aryans) had nothing to do with the development of language in the Indian SubContinent, which went ON to produce the languages in Iran and Persia and into Europe. But all of that came MUCH later than the original languages of India and the Indus valley, which had NOTHING to do with Europe or "Aryans" and thereofore shouldn't be called such.
The logic behind a proto indo european language is the same logic behind the aryan invasion: Europeans introduced language to india from Anatolia or elsewhere in Europe. This is only widely considered possible in the WEST however, as many Indians believe that Sanskrit is MUCH older than 1700 B.C., is related to the Indus Valley language, and that the Indus Valley/Sanskrit/Dravidian mother tongue is OLDER than any supposed introduction of a European "mother tongue" into India. In fact, they look at it in the OPPOSITE direction. That the Indian mother tongue went on to influence later European languages as a mother tongue, not vice versa. http://www.hinduwebsite.com/general/sanskrit.asp
Say what you want but the whole concept of the origins of Bhudda are as much clouded by ethocentric concerns as ACTUAL reality.
The fact is that there are two distinct styles of buddha images from the 1st century B.C.: Mathura and Ghandara.
The Gandhara style of Buddha images is said to be Greco-Buddhist. The Mathura is said to be a more indigenous style. The fact remains however that some of the earliest depictions of the Buddha are from the Ajanta cave complex in Western India. This style of the Buddha is the "indigenous" Indian style, which is more influenced by the ancient HINDU style of portraiture. Indian sculpture has always had a more indigenous look ("duh"), but of course with the entrance of the Greeks, Persians and Muslims comes the true "Aryan" invasion, which begins to impose a Eurocentric model on society, which culminated in the British colonial rule. As I said earlier, it is THIS period that introduced the Eurocentric model of history and culture to India and overthrew the ancient Indigenous model, which extended all the way to the north. The original definition of Aryan means follower of the Vedas, and has nothing to do with WHITE EURASIANS. This is a corruption that stems from the LATER invaders, especially the British. But other invaders prior to the British did impose their mark on India, including the Greeks, with the GrecoPersian and GrecoIndian states they left in the North, the Persians and the Muslims. All of these periods feature the NON typical white images of elite Indian persons. The way ancient Indian culture and history has been distorted is in the way the ancient symbol of the swastika, which originated amongst the native aboriginal people of India, who are still mostly darker complexioned, even in the north, as a symbol of WHITE POWER. Aryanism is Eurocentrism because the ORIGINAL concep of Aryans has NOTHING to do with WHITE people.
quote: The origins of Greco-Buddhist art are to be found in the Hellenistic Greco-Bactrian kingdom (250 BCE- 130 BCE), located in today’s Afghanistan, from which Hellenistic culture radiated into the Indian sub-continent with the establishment of the Indo-Greek kingdom (180 BCE-10 BCE). Under the Indo-Greeks and then the Kushans, the interaction of Greek and Buddhist culture flourished in the area of Gandhara, in today’s northern Pakistan, before spreading further into India, influencing the art of Mathura, and then the Buddhist art of the Gupta empire, which was to extend to the rest of South-East Asia. The influence of Greco-Buddhist art also spread northward towards Central Asia, strongly affecting the art of the Tarim Basin, and ultimately the arts of China, Korea, and Japan.
The other style, the Mathura style is a more naturalistic, indigenous style of Buddha image, which ultimately is said to give way to the Sarnath style. Some describe the difference as the difference between the indigenous PRE GREEK, PRE PERSIAN style of Indian art, going back to the Indus Valley (ie. NON ARYAN) and a Greek derived style due to the influence of the GrecoIranian/GrecoPersian states that followed. This then brings us right back to the whole debate of an Aryan Eurocentric model of Indian history, versus a Indian centric model of history.
quote: # Hair The Buddha's hair is usually depicted in the form of "snail-shell" curls. Monks have shaven heads, but according to legend, when the Buddha cut his hair, the uncut portions snapped into these curls and he never had to cut his hair again.
And just because lotuses occur all over the world doesnt change the fact that some of the oldest symbolism of the lotus as a symbol of divinity and used in temple architecture come from Egypt.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hi Doug. I'd like to keep my comment to you related to Dr. Winters' thread of African names found in Japan in great abundance. You have spoken of the large number of Buddha images and noted that we don't know if he had kinky hair. To my understanding, most speak in terms of the Ghandaran art as being the first that produced images of Buddha and that was around the first century AD, I believe. However, I recently saw a frieze painted on the wall of a cave of Buddha from 200 BC and in this picture (I have a copy) he is presented as wearing a fro, I can say. And that earliest drawing, not too long after his passing, captures the kinky look and moreso than the beautiful, but stylized later portrayals.
In keeping with the original thread related to Africa and Japan, this shows the "wall of blackness" I can say, that stretched from Africa to Japan and through one of its corridors that those carrying African place names passed. By the way, the Dian people of China were supplanted by those who'd be known as the Han and the Han have quite a few African tribal names preserved in their kingdom. Things went (in one direction somebody probably noted) from Afghanistan-India, to China, to Korea, to Japan.
Take care,
Marc W.
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
In an earlier post, I read of someone requesting actual step-by-step movement of Africans from Africa to Japan. Buddhist art has been discussed as well. Here is a page whose second half does an informal geochronological trace of the spread of the grape cluster coiffure (full balls of woolly hair) from Africa through Afghanistan, to Korea and Japan mostly through the meduim of Buddhist sculpture. The first half looks at the sea of Africans that once existed from Africa to China, Korea, and Japan.
quote:Originally posted by Marc Washington: Hi Doug. I'd like to keep my comment to you related to Dr. Winters' thread of African names found in Japan in great abundance. You have spoken of the large number of Buddha images and noted that we don't know if he had kinky hair. To my understanding, most speak in terms of the Ghandaran art as being the first that produced images of Buddha and that was around the first century AD, I believe. However, I recently saw a frieze painted on the wall of a cave of Buddha from 200 BC and in this picture (I have a copy) he is presented as wearing a fro, I can say. And that earliest drawing, not too long after his passing, captures the kinky look and moreso than the beautiful, but stylized later portrayals.
In keeping with the original thread related to Africa and Japan, this shows the "wall of blackness" I can say, that stretched from Africa to Japan and through one of its corridors that those carrying African place names passed. By the way, the Dian people of China were supplanted by those who'd be known as the Han and the Han have quite a few African tribal names preserved in their kingdom. Things went (in one direction somebody probably noted) from Afghanistan-India, to China, to Korea, to Japan.
Take care,
Marc W.
Yes, but WHY a FRO? Does this represent an African presence in India or a more aboriginal NON African type, like the Andamese or Negrito? My opinion is that the Ghandaran style actually traces back to the indigenous Hindu style of portraits, which also sometimes featured images of people with kinky hair. As you go further back, the less Aryan the images seems to get. This is another piece of evidence against Eurasian Aryans being the impetus behind the ancient Indus valley civilization. As I posted earlier, the Eurasian style of art seems to have started with the Greek invasion and continued with various other invasions, each producing their own style of imagery. The Muslim period introduced the many paintings of EXCLUSIVELY white IndoIranian/IndoPersian elites. Many modern paintings and images of the Buddha and other dieties in India reflect these styles. However, these are done through the eyes of foreign derived elites and do not represent the MAJORITY of Indians. The older images represent a more authentic range of indigenous Indian features.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Marc Washington: In an earlier post, I read of someone requesting actual step-by-step movement of Africans from Africa to Japan. Buddhist art has been discussed as well. Here is a page whose second half does an informal geochronological trace of the spread of the grape cluster coiffure (full balls of woolly hair) from Africa through Afghanistan, to Korea and Japan mostly through the meduim of Buddhist sculpture. The first half looks at the sea of Africans that once existed from Africa to China, Korea, and Japan.
I agree with some stuff but not with others. Straight hair is NOT a sign of Aryan white influence on local indigenous populations of India. The aborigines of Australia have had straight hair for 50,000 years and never intermixed with anyone. Also, most of the cultural synthesis between India and Japan was purely of ASIAN people not AFRICAN people. BLACK Asians are INDIGENOUS to Asia and are not AFRICANS. This is a gross misinterperetation of the facts. Africans did play a role through trade and other relationships at various times throughout Asia's history, but there was no MASSIVE influx of African blood into Asia over the last 4,000 years. While the Greek, Persian and Muslim invasions DID have an impact, they did not introduce straight hair into India. How could they? Even then India was wone of the most populous places on earth and certainly 80,000 Greeks could not have drastically changed the looks of the people throughout India. The main impact of these foreigners was to introduce and enhance the role of foreign dominated Indo-Persian, Greco-Indian elite "castes" which were predominately LIGHTER skinned than the rest of the population. These castes are a bastardization of the ancient caste system, which had NOTHING to do with skin color.
Just keep in mind that 1) Ancient indigenous black populations were found throughout Asia.
2) These people were NOT Africans as they are long separated from the ancient migrations of humans from Africa. Even the Andamese and Papuans are NOT Africans, even though they LOOK like Africans.
3) Much of the Hindu, Buddhist (an extension of Hinduism), Jainist(another extension of Hinduism) and other religions swept from India into South Asia and across to East Asia, creating many ancient South Asian empires that have left ruins from India to Vietnam.
4) None of these people were AFRICANS.
But that does not rule out trade and other African cultural contacts with Asia in ancient times. As I mentioned earlier, the parallels between ancient Egyptian lotus symbolism and architecture are there, as well as the tradition of rock hewn temples. It doesnt PROVE a cultural exchange, but the possibility is there and is worth researching.
Keep in mind here that the main thrust is one of labelling BLACK skin as inferior, not indicative of intelligence and unable to create any civilizations in its own right. Regardless of African or Asian or South American, it is clear that BLACK skin has NO such negative connotations as the evidence of great civilizations created and maintained by people with dark skin is all over the world. Eurocentrism, Aryanism and all other such "isms" promote the EXACT OPPOSITE view, that all culture and civilization came from populations with WHITE skin. That WHITE skin is a prerequisite to intelligence and NECESSARY for the development of civilization. Therefore, what you see throughout the world is an impact of the European domination of world politics and economy for the last 900 years. It is not ANCIENT history, but 900 years is enough time to brainwash people enough into believing the Eurocentric Aryan distortions of history.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm a human being and as a human being it bothers me when any individuals or groups are castigated due to their colour, ethnicity, nationality, or spirituality.
Without a shred of counter evidence you discount the Ethnologue because you imagine it to be a venture by Euros/whites biased against Africans.
That plainly and simply is the exact same bias displayed by haters of Africans and black people in general who do so just because of who and what they are rather than the efforts they've extended and the contributions they've tendered.
You have yet, after three volleys, to present anything other than your prejudice. You still refuse to post any relevent material on Nigeria and her languages and ethnies to substantiate the idea that Ethnologue is in error (and the full bibliography used by Ethnologue in compiling its Nigerian data and Ethnologue's methodology for deciding what is a language -- with deference to alternative methodologies included -- has been presented for perusal).
From what you write about the Ethnologue, its painfully obvious you've not so much as bothered to look into it or the organization responsible for publishing it. You don't know the continental origins of each member of the staff, researchers, field workers, etc., in SIL's employ.
Evidently, you don't agree with their findings -- which is fine -- but to attribute their conclusions to some anti-African agenda is unwarranted and so far unsupported by anything than your own prejudice and bias against Europeans. That's not the way to go about researching and proactively writing about Africana. That's no more than acting like the worse elements of the European people who in fact did distort and denigrate other peoples' heritage.
Other than a prejudicially biased opinion (white devils say Nigeria has over 500 languages and I don't accept the white devil's word on things pertaining to Africa) display some scholarly accumen by producing a work showing what you posit as more accurate data.
Until you do that I have nothing else to say to you on this matter and couldn't care less what you think of me or who and what your paranoid imagination supposes I am.
Happy New Year to you.
quote:Originally posted by lamin: I just think you are just reading things into what I write. There are posters of European extract on this site. Unless you are of that extraction I am not hearing anything from posters like Arrowhead and co. who would certainly not be shy about responding.
I raised questions about ethnologue and the claim there are 500 languages in a relatively small space called Nigeria. I raised the legitimate question of whether that 500 languages included dialects or were they distinct languages. I also raised questions about migration patterns, etc. Other questions were raised about the population distribution of that country. All legitimate questions. The observation on the sources of ethnologue was but a minor portion of my post. But whenever I read something I always look at the source. That's just common sense. So no need for the fuss about my observation on the source of the information provided.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
_________________ Example of wooly hair indigenous to India _________________ __________________ Sai Baba sporting a natural Indian 'fro. __________________
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know much about the Buddha. My intro to his portraiture was first via JA Rogers followed up much later by Runoko Rashidi.
Dhyana, Meditating Buddha, Eastern India, 10th/11th century
I want to see the Buddha, as is, through Indian eyes; not from the slant of extra-India related proposals.
To that end two things from the Indians themselves leave me wondering:
1). Is Gautama Sidharta indeed the Buddha of the earliest iconography?
2). Don't indigenous Indian Buddhist documents proclaim that snails attached themselves to the Buddha's clean shaven head to protect him from an intense sunlight beaming on him one day when he lost himself in meditation out in the open?
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: I don't know much about the Buddha. My intro to his portraiture was first via JA Rogers followed up much later by Runoko Rashidi.
.....
I want to see the Buddha, as is, through Indian eyes; not from the slant of extra-India related proposals.
To that end two things from the Indians themselves leave me wondering:
1). Is Gautama Sidharta indeed the Buddha of the earliest iconography?
2). Don't indigenous Indian Buddhist documents proclaim that snails attached themselves to the Buddha's clean shaven head to protect him from an intense sunlight beaming on him one day when he lost himself in meditation out in the open?
There are many types of Buddhist images from within India going back thousands of years. All are through Indian eyes, but there are different styles. You have a style that is inspired by Greek sculpture and hence more Eurasian looking and you have a style that is more like ancient Hindu artwork, which is more South Asian looking. Both exist and since we dont know what Buddha looked like in person, we cannot say which is more accurate, because most were done long after Gautama Sidharta Buddha died.
As for the legends there are many variations of the same legend. Some say snails appeared on his head, some say his hair curled up tightly after being shaved. Like I said in an earlier post, most of the stories and images of Buddha are legendary, bordering on myths, similar to ancient Hindu dieties. Therefore, everywhere these religions are worshipped, people take liberty with the styles of portraying these dieties.
It does not change the fact, however, that MANY Indians have features that can be described as dark South Asian and many of the older works of art going back to the Indus Valley reflect this type. India today has a range of features, from Greco-Indian, IndoPersian or IndoIranian Eurasian, to the dark South Asian. These features can be found all over India from the extreme North down to the deep South. The diversity in India is great and there are many, many groups and features that can be found in India proper.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
To me these look like hairstyles rather than a pile of snails.
Can you direct us to any quotes from primary Indian Buddhist scripture regarding the variants underlined below?
By way of note, either explanation discounts the Buddha being originally wooly haired (as is Sai Baba). Because in either instance, it was only after shaving that the Buddha's hairline head took on an aspect of "tight curls."
Also, it's hard for me to credit a head shaven bald still having hair left on it. To me, that'd be a short haircut not a completely shaved head.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: I don't know much about the Buddha. ..... I want to see the Buddha, as is, through Indian eyes; not from the slant of extra-India related proposals.
. . . .
2). Don't indigenous Indian Buddhist documents proclaim that snails attached themselves to the Buddha's clean shaven head to protect him from an intense sunlight beaming on him one day when he lost himself in meditation out in the open?
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: To me these look like hairstyles rather than a pile of snails.
.....
Can you direct us to any quotes from primary Indian Buddhist scripture regarding the variants underlined below?
By way of note, either explanation discounts the Buddha being originally wooly haired (as is Sai Baba). Because in either instance, it was only after shaving that the Buddha's hairline head took on an aspect of "tight curls."
Also, it's hard for me to credit a head shaven bald still having hair left on it. To me, that'd be a short haircut not a completely shaved head.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: I don't know much about the Buddha. ..... I want to see the Buddha, as is, through Indian eyes; not from the slant of extra-India related proposals.
. . . .
2). Don't indigenous Indian Buddhist documents proclaim that snails attached themselves to the Buddha's clean shaven head to protect him from an intense sunlight beaming on him one day when he lost himself in meditation out in the open?
quote: Hair The Buddha's hair is usually depicted in the form of "snail-shell" curls. Monks have shaven heads, but according to legend, when the Buddha cut his hair, the uncut portions snapped into these curls and he never had to cut his hair again.
I also posted some links earlier in the thread describing the various types of Buddha images.
As for the curls, it is all shrouded in legend and I dont know WHY such legends came about regarding his hair as there are humans with curly hair like that naturally. It just furthers the myth and allows people to create images of him as they see fit.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: There are many dark skinned people in the North of India, even into modern Nepal. Being in the North of India does not make one automatically lighter complexioned. And, as we discussed before, the languages of Sanskrit and Hindu are NOT derived from WHITES. They are derived from the ancient languages NATIVE to India. The whole CONCEPT of an ARYAN language is a MYTH as much as the ARYAN invasion was a myth. So what did the Indians speak before the ARYAN language, which only can be attested to about 1500 B.C.? Obviously the ORIGINAL language did not dissapear, because it is the basis of Sanskrit and Hindi and has nothing to do with ARYANS. That is why these older languages are called proto Indo-European, but really they should be called Proto Indic, since Europe (or Aryans) had nothing to do with the development of language in the Indian SubContinent, which went ON to produce the languages in Iran and Persia and into Europe. But all of that came MUCH later than the original languages of India and the Indus valley, which had NOTHING to do with Europe or "Aryans" and thereofore shouldn't be called such.
I never said there weren't any dark-skinned peoples in the north, I merely said that it is unlikely the religions you speak of were founded by black aboriginal types but among the lighter-skinned elite like Sidhartha Guatama (Buddha) who was of the Kshatriya caste. Also I never said that Sanskrit itself was invented by whites or that there was an Aryan invasion! I use the term 'Aryan' the same way most scholars use it today, which is purely a linguistic term, and NOT a racial one which we are all too familiar with, although I agree that the term Indic should be used. I should remind you that the earliest evidence of Sanskrit wasn't in India but in the ancient kingdom of Mitanni in what is today northern Syria! The Mitanni elite were depicted and described by many peoples including the Egyptians as being white with blonde hair and light eyes. Now, this is not to say that the early Sanskrit speakers of India looked that way, but it does help to explain the Indo-European connection to Sanskrit. Sanskrit also shares many features with Baltic languages of Eastern Europe. Also, while Indic (Indo-Aryan) is one branch of the Indo-Iranian subfamily, there is another branch called Dardic which is spoken in the Jammu-Kashmir area of northernmost India along the Himalayas as well as parts of Pakistan and Afghanistan. These languages not only share many features with Sanskrit, but they also bear many archaic features of proto-Indo-European. Even today among Dardic speakers there is a frequency of people with blonde hair and gray eyes. Again, I am not saying there was an invasion of white people since no such evidence supports this. The spread of Indo-European languages to India is a result of acculturation or adoption of culture than it is to actual genetic influx. Since the same can be said with Indo-European speakers in Europe, like [urlhttp://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=004569]Britain[/url].
The logic behind a proto indo european language is the same logic behind the aryan invasion: Europeans introduced language to india from Anatolia or elsewhere in Europe. This is only widely considered possible in the WEST however, as many Indians believe that Sanskrit is MUCH older than 1700 B.C., is related to the Indus Valley language, and that the Indus Valley/Sanskrit/Dravidian mother tongue is OLDER than any supposed introduction of a European "mother tongue" into India. In fact, they look at it in the OPPOSITE direction. That the Indian mother tongue went on to influence later European languages as a mother tongue, not vice versa.
Actually, linguistics tends to show that proto-Indo-European orginated in the Russian steppes north of the Black Sea. Those scholars who try to tie its origins to Anatolia only do so to associate its origins with agriculture when this doesn't seem to be the case. Also, Sanskrit is older than 1700 B.C. and its divergence goes back 2,000 B.C. or more. Sanskrit may not have originated in the Indus Valley which was likely inhabited by Dravidian speakers, but linguistic evidence does show that Sanskrit has a Dravidian substratum which suggest linguistic displacement of Dravidian. Sanskrit is of the Indic branch which is related to Dardic and Iranian and all make up the Indo-Iranian subfamily of Indo-European.
Say what you want but the whole concept of the origins of Bhudda are as much clouded by ethocentric concerns as ACTUAL reality.
The fact is that there are two distinct styles of buddha images from the 1st century B.C.: Mathura and Ghandara.
The Gandhara style of Buddha images is said to be Greco-Buddhist. The Mathura is said to be a more indigenous style. The fact remains however that some of the earliest depictions of the Buddha are from the Ajanta cave complex in Western India. This style of the Buddha is the "indigenous" Indian style, which is more influenced by the ancient HINDU style of portraiture. Indian sculpture has always had a more indigenous look ("duh"), but of course with the entrance of the Greeks, Persians and Muslims comes the true "Aryan" invasion, which begins to impose a Eurocentric model on society, which culminated in the British colonial rule. As I said earlier, it is THIS period that introduced the Eurocentric model of history and culture to India and overthrew the ancient Indigenous model, which extended all the way to the north. The original definition of Aryan means follower of the Vedas, and has nothing to do with WHITE EURASIANS. This is a corruption that stems from the LATER invaders, especially the British. But other invaders prior to the British did impose their mark on India, including the Greeks, with the GrecoPersian and GrecoIndian states they left in the North, the Persians and the Muslims. All of these periods feature the NON typical white images of elite Indian persons. The way ancient Indian culture and history has been distorted is in the way the ancient symbol of the swastika, which originated amongst the native aboriginal people of India, who are still mostly darker complexioned, even in the north, as a symbol of WHITE POWER. Aryanism is Eurocentrism because the ORIGINAL concep of Aryans has NOTHING to do with WHITE people.
^The above I agree-- that Europeans merely used the linguistic Indo-European connection to fancy that whites were not only responsible for the language but the great cultures of India and every early civilization in the world. But it would be going against linguistic evidence to suggest Sanskrit originated entirely in India.
The origins of Greco-Buddhist art are to be found in the Hellenistic Greco-Bactrian kingdom (250 BCE- 130 BCE), located in today’s Afghanistan, from which Hellenistic culture radiated into the Indian sub-continent with the establishment of the Indo-Greek kingdom (180 BCE-10 BCE). Under the Indo-Greeks and then the Kushans, the interaction of Greek and Buddhist culture flourished in the area of Gandhara, in today’s northern Pakistan, before spreading further into India, influencing the art of Mathura, and then the Buddhist art of the Gupta empire, which was to extend to the rest of South-East Asia. The influence of Greco-Buddhist art also spread northward towards Central Asia, strongly affecting the art of the Tarim Basin, and ultimately the arts of China, Korea, and Japan.
The other style, the Mathura style is a more naturalistic, indigenous style of Buddha image, which ultimately is said to give way to the Sarnath style. Some describe the difference as the difference between the indigenous PRE GREEK, PRE PERSIAN style of Indian art, going back to the Indus Valley (ie. NON ARYAN) and a Greek derived style due to the influence of the GrecoIranian/GrecoPersian states that followed. This then brings us right back to the whole debate of an Aryan Eurocentric model of Indian history, versus a Indian centric model of history.
In these caves you see some of the darkest, curly haired portraits of the Buddha that can be found anywhere.[/i]
Yes, but Ajanta is in south-central India whereas Buddha was from northeast India around what is today Nepal. How Buddha was depicted in Ajanta may not necessarily be what he really looked like as most Buddhist statues today show him as looking East Asian.
quote:Likewise, as for his curly hair:
quote: # Hair The Buddha's hair is usually depicted in the form of "snail-shell" curls. Monks have shaven heads, but according to legend, when the Buddha cut his hair, the uncut portions snapped into these curls and he never had to cut his hair again.
Don't see your point as there are many people with curly hair who are not black. There are also a few peoples with kinky hair even though they are not, if the Buddha even did have kinky hair.
quote:And just because lotuses occur all over the world doesnt change the fact that some of the oldest symbolism of the lotus as a symbol of divinity and used in temple architecture come from Egypt.
^True, but you aren't saying that Indians' use of lotus religious symbolism came from Egypt are you?!
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: I'm a human being and as a human being it bothers me when any individuals or groups are castigated due to their colour, ethnicity, nationality, or spirituality.
Without a shred of counter evidence you discount the Ethnologue because you imagine it to be a venture by Euros/whites biased against Africans.
That plainly and simply is the exact same bias displayed by haters of Africans and black people in general who do so just because of who and what they are rather than the efforts they've extended and the contributions they've tendered.
You have yet, after three volleys, to present anything other than your prejudice. You still refuse to post any relevent material on Nigeria and her languages and ethnies to substantiate the idea that Ethnologue is in error (and the full bibliography used by Ethnologue in compiling its Nigerian data and Ethnologue's methodology for deciding what is a language -- with deference to alternative methodologies included -- has been presented for perusal).
From what you write about the Ethnologue, its painfully obvious you've not so much as bothered to look into it or the organization responsible for publishing it. You don't know the continental origins of each member of the staff, researchers, field workers, etc., in SIL's employ.
Evidently, you don't agree with their findings -- which is fine -- but to attribute their conclusions to some anti-African agenda is unwarranted and so far unsupported by anything than your own prejudice and bias against Europeans. That's not the way to go about researching and proactively writing about Africana. That's no more than acting like the worse elements of the European people who in fact did distort and denigrate other peoples' heritage.
Other than a prejudicially biased opinion (white devils say Nigeria has over 500 languages and I don't accept the white devil's word on things pertaining to Africa) display some scholarly accumen by producing a work showing what you posit as more accurate data.
Until you do that I have nothing else to say to you on this matter and couldn't care less what you think of me or who and what your paranoid imagination supposes I am.
Happy New Year to you.
Indeed, I am disturbed by all this agenda to attribute everything in India to not just blacks but Africans.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I never said there weren't any dark-skinned peoples in the north, I merely said that it is unlikely the religions you speak of were founded by black aboriginal types but among the lighter-skinned elite like Sidhartha Guatama (Buddha) who was of the Kshatriya caste. Also I never said that Sanskrit itself was invented by whites or that there was an Aryan invasion! I use the term 'Aryan' the same way most scholars use it today, which is purely a linguistic term, and NOT a racial one which we are all too familiar with, although I agree that the term Indic should be used. I should remind you that the earliest evidence of Sanskrit wasn't in India but in the ancient kingdom of Mitanni in what is today northern Syria! The Mitanni elite were depicted and described by many peoples including the Egyptians as being white with blonde hair and light eyes. Now, this is not to say that the early Sanskrit speakers of India looked that way, but it does help to explain the Indo-European connection to Sanskrit. Sanskrit also shares many features with Baltic languages of Eastern Europe. Also, while Indic (Indo-Aryan) is one branch of the Indo-Iranian subfamily, there is another branch called Dardic which is spoken in the Jammu-Kashmir area of northernmost India along the Himalayas as well as parts of Pakistan and Afghanistan. These languages not only share many features with Sanskrit, but they also bear many archaic features of proto-Indo-European. Even today among Dardic speakers there is a frequency of people with blonde hair and gray eyes. Again, I am not saying there was an invasion of white people since no such evidence supports this. The spread of Indo-European languages to India is a result of acculturation or adoption of culture than it is to actual genetic influx. Since the same can be said with Indo-European speakers in Europe, like [urlhttp://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=004569]Britain[/url].
And the point I am making is that the Kshatriya caste is a WARRIOR caste and does NOT explicitly refer to a skin color. However, at the same time you say you DONT agree with Eurocentric ideaology, you sure seem to be trying hard to reinforce the idea that Buddha and other figures in Indian history WERE lighter PURELY based on caste as if ONLY lighter skinned people could be in the higher castes. THAT is the basis of the Eurocentric myth about Aryans as WHITE Eurasians BRINGING culture and language to India and why the Indo European language is nothing but the same old racist garbage in new clothing.
quote: Actually, linguistics tends to show that proto-Indo-European orginated in the Russian steppes north of the Black Sea. Those scholars who try to tie its origins to Anatolia only do so to associate its origins with agriculture when this doesn't seem to be the case. Also, Sanskrit is older than 1700 B.C. and its divergence goes back 2,000 B.C. or more. Sanskrit may not have originated in the Indus Valley which was likely inhabited by Dravidian speakers, but linguistic evidence does show that Sanskrit has a Dravidian substratum which suggest linguistic displacement of Dravidian. Sanskrit is of the Indic branch which is related to Dardic and Iranian and all make up the Indo-Iranian subfamily of Indo-European.
It has not been PROVEN what relationship Sanskrit has to the ancient tongue of the Indus valley. If the Indus language was Dravidian, then that means that the indigenous speakers of the Indus were NOT speaking a IndoEuropean language. That is why many in India proper question the whole idea of ancient Indian languages ORIGINATING among IndoEuropeans. As you said, Sanskrit has a Dravidian substratum indicating that Sanskrit REPLACED Dravidian. If that is so, then Sanskrit and Indo European CANNOT be the MOTHER of the Indus Valley language because Dravidian is NOT IndoEuropean. Likewise Sanskrit is RECENT while the language of the Indus is at least 1,000 years older. So how can a YOUNGER language be the MOTHER of the older? As I said, there is MUCH debate surrounding this issue and many, especially IN India are questioning the so-called linguistic evidence putting a European MOTHER language on the ancient Indus Valley civilization. The debate is focused around deciphering the ancient Indus valley script to find its relationship to Dravidian and Sanskrit. Without conclusive evidence tying the ancient language and script of the Indus Valley to other Indo European languages, the theory is purely conjectual and based mostly on Sanskrit, which CAME LATER. Likewise, saying that Indo Europeans or Indo European LANGUAGE speakers displaced the native Dravidian speakers is no different than saying that WHITE Aryans displaced BLACK dravidians and created the Vedic tradition. It is the SAME B.S. As I said, Indians in India are questioning this and do not agree with this NEW revised ARYAN model, which is MAINLY propagated by Europeans and not Indians themselves. It may SEEM different than the Aryan Invasion hypothesis, but actually it isnt. The Vedic tradition is an ancient tradition that goes back to the culture of the Indus Valley. Those who question such nonsense point out that the vedas are NOT tied to any particular language and therefore, the Vedic tradition does not imply a IndoEuropean language presence in the ancient Indus Valley. Therefore, if the Vedas themselves are not tied to a IndoEuropean script(Sanskrit), then there is NO proof that the ORIGINAL language of the Vedas, since it was oral, WAS a Indo European language. Sanskrit BECAME the language of the Vedas AFTER they were commited to writing, but that does not change the fact that these ORAL traditions go back at least 1000 years prior. So, without determining WHAT language the ancient Vedas were spoken in, the Vedas themselves are not PROOF of an ancient Indo European language. If anything, if the language of the ancient Indus was Dravidian, then the language of the ancient Vedas was Dravidian as well. And also, Arya or Aryas has NOTHING to do with RACE.
quote: Many historians regard the samhitas as one of the oldest oral traditions. The newest parts of the Vedas are estimated to date to around 500 C.E; the oldest text (RigVeda) may be assumed to have been completed orally by 1500 BCE after being composed over hundreds of years, but most Indologists agree that a long oral tradition possibly existed before it was written down by the second century B.C. Some parts of the Rig Veda as well as the other Vedas are written in Sanskrit.
Some writers have used astronomical references [5] in the Rigveda to date it to as early as the 4th millennium BC. This astronomical evidence has often been claimed [6] to support the Out of India theory in relation to origins of the Indo-European languages.
quote: The Western interpretation of ārya as the name of a particular race became known in India in the 19th century and was generally accepted by Hindus and Hindu nationalists, though combined with religious self-identification. This shows the success of western cultural imperialism which defines the Hindu-selfdefinition of 'arya' as something different taken out of its historical and social context. Vivekananda remarked: "...it is the Hindus who have all along called themselves Aryas. Whether of pure or mixed blood, the Hindus are Aryas; there it rests." (Vivekananda, Complete Works vol.5).
Aryan is a bastardization of Arya, meaning follower of the Vedas and, just like caste, originally had NOTHING to do with SKIN COLOR. HOwever, due to the influence of the British and other Europeans, SOME Indians DID take the concept of Aryans as high caste people to heart and acted on it. This is no different than the bogus racial distinctions made among various groups in Africa and everywhere else Britain went in colonial times. They ALWAYS tried to divide up the people and use ONE group, those they deemed more LIKE Europeans, as the CONTROLLERS of the rest. India was NO different in this respect. Bottom line, India is a vast country with over a Billion people and it does no justice to the diversity of India to try and act as if MOST Indians are not DARKER complexioned and that DARK skin was NOT a hindrance to being in a higher caste, especially in ancient times.
quote: The above I agree-- that Europeans merely used the linguistic Indo-European connection to fancy that whites were not only responsible for the language but the great cultures of India and every early civilization in the world. But it would be going against linguistic evidence to suggest Sanskrit originated entirely in India.
As I said unless you can prove that the language of the ancient Indus was a branch of Indo European language then it is irrelevant as to whether Sanskrit is more related to Indo European or not. Sanskrit is a LATER language that, by your own statements, replaced the EARLIER language. Therefore WHAT was the EARLIER language and what was the relationship of THAT language to Indo European?
quote: Yes, but Ajanta is in south-central India whereas Buddha was from northeast India around what is today Nepal. How Buddha was depicted in Ajanta may not necessarily be what he really looked like as most Buddhist statues today show him as looking East Asian.
Yes but also, those images are as ancient as any anywhere else. Also they derive from an even older tradition of sculpture and art totally INDIGENOUS to India and PRIOR to any Greek or Persian presence in India. My point is that Greek derived portraits dont prove anything as it is a FOREIGN style. Why would a historic indigenous figure of Indian history be more Greek than Indian? Sure, you may not have said that, but as I posted, many of those early Northern style images are likewise indicative of GREEK influence. Also, there have been various ways of depicting Buddha from the very earliest period, as I have already mentioned. People can believe what they want and portray Buddha as they want, because he is a legendary prophet and no one really knows what he looked like today. The only way to REALLY find out is to actually do some serious research to see if he ACTUALLY existed and what his background was ethnically. Caste is NOT ethnicity, so just saying you know what CASTE he was from does NOT prove anything ethnically or phenotypically. This notion is one that MOST Indians will refute right away.
Ultimately, Buddha was Indian and not East Asian. Therefore, it is not far fetched to say that Buddha looked more INDIAN than East Asian. Sure, he may have been from the North, but Indians in the north are STILL Indian and mostly LOOK Indian. It is nonsense to try and replace the FACTS of the features of the Indian population being one of mostly DARK skin people with some mythical figure of a PURE WHITE being, as MOST Indian dieties are displayed today, totally UNLIKE the majority of the Indian population. THAT is distortion, not claiming that Buddha looked more like the MAJORITY of the Indian population and not some SNOW white fantasy.
quote: Don't see your point as there are many people with curly hair who are not black. There are also a few peoples with kinky hair even though they are not, if the Buddha even did have kinky hair.
And it goes without saying that there are many tha t are. It doesnt prove anything one way or another and does not change the fact that some ancient images of Buddha are of a VERY dark complexioned man with an close afro and big curls.
quote: True, but you aren't saying that Indians' use of lotus religious symbolism came from Egypt are you?!
No, and if you read what I said you would see that I suggested it is a POSSIBILITY not a fact. The parallels are there and it is something that is NOT as far fetched as Nigerians being responsible for the ancient Japanese language. If one wants to determine the TRUE extent of African influence on Asian culture and people, THOSE parallels are one place to start researching. I made NO statement implying WHAT the results of such research would be, but that it would be INFORMATIVE and BETTER from an educational perspective to DO the research instead of relying on second hand, inaccurate or distorted information on which to base claims of African influence in Asia.
posted
This is my favorite picture of Buddha because the closer you get to any real source, the more likely it is to be genuine. It's often said that the first pictures of Buddha didn't emerge until the first century AD under the Ghandaran King, Kanisha. But, this picture is from the 2nd century BC Ajanta.
This is the most natural Buddha I've ever seen. He is wearing his hair the untreated way a zillion brothers wear their own hair. I wish the quality of this picture were better. And if anyone has a better image of this, please, please send me a copy. Also note that while it may look like a bun on the top of his head, closer inspection shows it is not. I think it's Ajanta Cave 11 that this frescoe is found in.
He is sporting a non-frills, plain-ole fro. Full nose. Full mouth: I call this one Brother Buddha.
Happy Kwanza,
Marc W.
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by RU2religious: Ujamaa & Nia in Umoja Marc W. Happy Kwanzaa.
I'm curious to where you've found such an painting and how do we know for certain that it is authentic?
Peace!~
The Ajanta caves are national historic monuments of India and World Heritage sites recognized by UNESCO. Why is it so hard for people to look at dark complexioned people and not see REAL Indigenous Indians? Dont you know that MOST Indians are DARK complexioned and not SNOW WHITE? This is an absurd question, as if dark skin and other such features are a UNNATURAL feature among the Indian population.
There are MANY Indians who match the depictions of those in the images above IN India. In fact, I would say that there are HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of people in India who match these depictions. Therefore, I dont see WHY it is even odd or strange for such images to be part of ancient Indian art, since that is what a LARGE PERCENTAGE of the Indian population LOOKS LIKE.
What is this? Is it that dark skinned Indians have nothing to do with Indian history? Are you saying that dark skinned Indians are not supposed to see themselves in the images of royalty and divinity in their own legends and myths of heroes? That is EXACTLY the sort of racist attitude that Aryans would like to instill in people when viewing Indian people and history.
A quote from the Shunya website I posted above:
quote: Many urban middleclass Indians I know are peeved by what they see as a staple of photography on India: squalor, poverty, lepers, fakirs, the deformed. Their India is not like that, and they harbor a knee-jerk hostility to such images. There are so many more suitable subjects of photography, they say, this isn’t the full story (what is?). One cousin was more articulate: the West, he said, has employed such a lens for decades to perpetuate negative stereotypes of India. It is an act of power. The white man came, and still comes, with little love in his heart. His jaundiced eye only sees the exotic and the grimy, making India seem primitive and medieval.
quote: That said, it is also true that most South Asians had a larger sense of being part of Hindu culture, belonging to Hindustan (with its natural geographic boundaries). Sort of like how medieval Europeans had the sense of being part of Christian culture, belonging to Christendom, even as there was a French nation and a German nation who were frequently at each others throats.
Churchill, befuddled by the diversity and the lack of sufficiently unifying criteria for a nation in India, said: "India is no more a political personality than Europe. India is a geographical term. It is no more a united nation than the Equator."
posted
For those who are not familiar here is a summary of the Aryan Invasion Theory:
quote: The Aryan myth: According to the theory of the Aryan invasion, which is still taken as the foundation stone of the history of India and which was actually devised in the 18th and 19th century by British-related linguists and archaeologists, the first inhabitants of India were good-natured, peaceful, dark-skinned shepherds, called the Dravidians, who had founded what is called the Harappan or the Indus Valley civilization.
They were supposedly remarkable builders -- witness the city of Mohen-jo-Daro in Sind, Pakistan -- but had no culture to speak off, no literature, no proper script even. Then, around 1500 BC, India is said to have been invaded by tribes called the Aryans -- white-skinned, nomadic people, who originated somewhere in western Russia and imposed upon the Dravidians the hateful caste system.
To the Aryans are attributed Sanskrit, the Vedic -- or Hindu -- religion, India's greatest spiritual texts, the Vedas, as well as a host of subsequent writings, the Upanishads, the Mahabharata, the Ramayana, etc.
This myth divided India for ever and pitted against each other the low-caste, dark-skinned 'Dravidians' and the high-caste, light-skinned 'Aryans', a rift that still endures. The Muslim invaders, the European colonizers, the missionaries and finally the Congress, each exploited to the hilt for their own selfish purpose this artificial divide, as recent linguistic and archaeological discoveries are proving that there probably was never any Aryan invasion.
And lets not forget that the current political system was based on the British model by British educated elites who WERE part of the Aryan WHITE model of high caste Indians that was NURTURED by the British when India was under colonial rule. These people like Nehru and Ghandi were able to travel and study BECAUSE of their high caste status and how the British USED those of higher caste to RULE India. These people were Indian nationalists for sure who did much for Indian rights, but they also maintained a rigid caste system that was heavily influenced by British colonial rule and concepts of RACIAL distinction and superiority. This caste system was NEVER based on skin color. This is something that has come about mainly due to foreigners coming in and altering the ancient scriptures and culture in order to support their power and influence over the people. The article above is a reinforcement of that view.
Also, this model is what is currently taught in Indian schools to this day. It is not a coincidence then that SNOW WHITE images of Indian dieties are more prevalent in Indian art today as opposed to the more natural tones found in ancient times. The WHITE Aryan model of Indian history has come to dominate India and is the reason why so many researchers in India are beginning to question this legacy of foreign rule in India. My opinion is that the Greeks, Romans, Persians, Muslims and Europeans are the ones who tried to instill the concept of ancient whites being the originators of Indian culture. Also, much of what we now call Indian history actually took place in and around Pakistan and many Pakistanis are offended by their history being labelled as Indian. The history of India is complex and the British colonial period is the basis of MUCH of the problem concerning the true origins and history of culture in the sub continent.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
However, compare that against the art style known as Rajasthani painting. This style of painting, from the 16th and 17th century often features people of all white complexion, once again a tribute to the influence of Eurasian peoples in later Indian history.
A page with good photos and some images that show the glaring contrast between the natural diversity of the people of Rajasthan and the unnatural imagery of the painting:
Note the influence of the Mughals in Rajasthan as an example of LATER Eurasian IndoAryan influence on the inigenous people. This is what I mean by LATER Eurasian Aryans distorting the ancient traditions of India for their own purposes.
Even today among Dardic speakers there is a frequency of people with blonde hair and gray eyes.
Indians? Any photographic examples?
I don't have any pictures of blonde Dards of Kashmir India with me right now, but I have seen a few from a book. Here is a picture of a related Nuristani girl from Afghanistan. Although they are rare, blonde Indians do exist usually in the northnmost areas of Kashmir.
As to Doug, I realize that Kshatriya is a caste and says nothing about color or physical appearance but you must also take into account geographic area and peoples. Siddhartha Guatama ( the Buddha) was from northern India of the Guatama dynasty and is related to other dynasties of Kshaytriya of northern India. It is doubtful he resembled the darker-skinned aboriginal types.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Even today among Dardic speakers there is a frequency of people with blonde hair and gray eyes.
Indians? Any photographic examples?
I don't have any pictures of blonde Dards of Kashmir India with me right now, but I have seen a few from a book. Here is a picture of a related Nuristani girl from Afghanistan. Although they are rare, blonde Indians do exist usually in the northnmost areas of Kashmir.
As to Doug, I realize that Kshatriya is a caste and says nothing about color or physical appearance but you must also take into account geographic area and peoples. Siddhartha Guatama ( the Buddha) was from northern India of the Guatama dynasty and is related to other dynasties of Kshaytriya of northern India. It is doubtful he resembled the darker-skinned aboriginal types.
In no way do I make any presumptions about what Buddha looked like. However, I am surprised that your statements about what he MAY have looked like are based purely on geography. What ARE the aboriginal types of Nepal? And why would buddha NOT be an indigenous type found in that area? While I am no expert on Indian people, I know that the city of Delhi India, in the far North of India has as many darker skinned people as any other place in India. Delhi is NORTH of Lumbini by the way. All I am saying is that just because Lumbini is in the North of India does not mean that all the people there have one certain look to them which is not part of the natural diversity found throughout India. This is ridiculous.
And, Buddha was born during the Shisunaga dynasty of India, which was centered in Bihar Province, which is between Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal Province.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic