posted
After reading the post “Topic: URGENT!!! REBUTTAL NEEDED FOR ONLINE DEBATE!!!” I was somewhat taken-aback. I was amazed that there were still people claiming that the modern inhabitants of Egypt, and the entire middle-east for that matter, were claiming to be related to the original people i.e. Egyptians, Hebrews, Canaanites, Sumerians, Persians, Anatolians (Turkey), and Berbers. Since all of these people, to one extent or another, claim to be Arab; I thought it would be informative to look into the matter – are they even truly Arabs?
The first problem with the current argument is that they can’t have it both ways: You can’t be Arab AND Egyptian at the same time. They are two DIFFERENT ethnicities. This is made more obvious by the name of the country: THE ARAB REPUBLIC OF EGYPT, with that naming they have already given up all claims to Egyptian heritage, but yet they persist. Then there are the obvious differences in appearance, one is obviously Black, the other is obviously Caucasian or mixed race. This difference would not exist if the Arabs were truly Arab, because as we all know, White people do not evolve in equatorial deserts – therefore they are NOT Arabs, so who are they? To try and clear things up: from time to time I will post histories of the subject countries, and other pertinent materials, which will document the changeover from the original people to the modern people. This should illuminate the subject for all concerned. I invite everyone to join in; lets clear it up once and for all.
posted
Arab is a culture that has different races. Look, you will never clear up anything "once and for all" because politics will always trump science, especially when it comes to AE. Diop and Obenga's victory at the Cairo conference of 1974 was suppose to put an end to most of this stuff yet we continue to debate these things. Do you not realise that all these so-called modern genetics studies posted about origins of M1, M1a etc etc are really saying same things our scholars Diop and Ben-Jochannan said decades ago? Whites and white Arabs will continue their distortions as if nothing happened. As long as we keep looking for socialist inter-racial alliances and not building our own institutions, we will be going in circles debating the wind.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by akoben08: Arab is a culture that has different races. Look, you will never clear up anything "once and for all" because politics will always trump science, especially when it comes to AE. Diop and Obenga's victory at the Cairo conference of 1974 was suppose to put an end to most of this stuff yet we continue to debate these things||| As long as we keep looking for socialist inter-racial alliances and not building our own institutions, we will be going in circles debating the wind.
The average person knows intuitively that the Caucasians claims are false, but they don't know exactly Why! My point is to provide the necessary information; in an open forum available and accessible to all.
You cite Diop and Obenga's victory at the Cairo conference of 1974. The problem with that is that I, and perhaps many other people, have no idea what was said there.
I don't know what you meant by "inter-racial alliances" But as to the issue of our own institution's: What do you suggest we do; while we wait for these institution's to appear?
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me add The critics of an African origin of Kemet will keep going around in circles
Kemet = Black Nation
Don't Debete "Race" Talk about the Ethnicity of the Kememu and just sit back and listen to the crying and complaining Posts: 567 | From: USA | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Who is an Arab? The definition of who an Arab has several aspects: · Ethnic identity: someone who considers himself to be an Arab (regardless of racial or ethnic origin) and is recognized as such by others. · Linguistic: someone whose first language is Arabic (including any of its varieties); this definition covers more than 200 million people. Arabic belongs to the Semitic family of languages. · Genealogical: someone who can trace his or her ancestry back to the original inhabitants of the Arabian Peninsula. · Political: someone who is a resident or citizen of a country where Arabic is an official or national language, or is a member of the Arab League or is part of the wider Arab world; this definition would cover more than 300 million people, but it is rather simplistic and rigid in that it excludes the entire Diaspora but includes indigenous or migrant minorities
The relative importance of these factors is estimated differently by different groups. Most people who consider themselves Arabs do so on the basis of the overlap of the political and linguistic definitions. However, some members of groups which fulfill both criteria reject the identity on the basis of the genealogical definition; Lebanese Maronites, for example, may reject the Arab label in favor of a narrower Phoenecian-Lebanese national identity. Groups which use a non-Arabic liturgical language - such as Copts in Egypt - are especially likely to be considered non-Arab.
Not many people consider themselves Arab on the basis of the political definition without the linguistic one—thus, Kurds or Berbers do not usually identify themselves as Arab—but some do (for instance, some Berbers do consider themselves Arabs, and Kurds were in some historical circumstances seen as Arabs or Turks or Persians). In addition, a majority of the population of Qatar and the United Arab Emirates is made up of non-citizen non-Arab immigrants and so the political definition does not apply there either.
A hadith of questionable authenticity, related by Ibn Asakir in Târîkh Dimashq and attributed by its narrator Salmân b. `Abd Allah to Islam's prophet Muhammad, expresses a common sentiment in declaring that: "Being an Arab is not because of your father or mother, but being an Arab is on account of your tongue. Whoever learns Arabic is an Arab."
According to Habib Hassan Touma (1996, p.xviii), "An 'Arab', in the modern sense of the word, is one who is a national of an Arab state, has command of the Arabic language, and possesses a fundamental knowledge of Arabian tradition, that is, of the manners, customs, and political and social systems of the culture." On its formation in 1946, the Arab League defined an "Arab" as follows:
"An Arab is a person whose language is Arabic, who lives in an Arabic speaking country, who is in sympathy with the aspirations of the Arabic speaking peoples." As a number of the Prophet companions were of non-Arab descent, Salman the Persian, Suhaib the Roman and Bilal from Abisinia.
The genealogical definition was widely used in medieval times (Ibn Khaldun, for instance, does not use the word Arab to refer to "Arabized" peoples, but only to those of originally Arabian descent), but is usually no longer considered to be particularly significant.
Bottom Line: In the modern sense, an Arab can be, and is, anybody. What of the REAL Arabs, you will find them on reservations in south Saudi Arabia.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by akoben08: Arab is a culture that has different races. Look, you will never clear up anything "once and for all" because politics will always trump science, especially when it comes to AE. Diop and Obenga's victory at the Cairo conference of 1974 was suppose to put an end to most of this stuff yet we continue to debate these things||| As long as we keep looking for socialist inter-racial alliances and not building our own institutions, we will be going in circles debating the wind.
The average person knows intuitively that the Caucasians claims are false, but they don't know exactly Why! My point is to provide the necessary information; in an open forum available and accessible to all.
You cite Diop and Obenga's victory at the Cairo conference of 1974. The problem with that is that I, and perhaps many other people, have no idea what was said there.
I don't know what you meant by "inter-racial alliances" But as to the issue of our own institution's: What do you suggest we do; while we wait for these institution's to appear?
We don't have to sit and wait for anything, we have been addressing these things continuously; even on ES when someone doesn't understand a particular issue veteran posters simply provide links to topics already discussed, sometimes years ago! There will always be a need to discuss these issues especially when new information comes to light, that's the nature of history and anthropology, but we shouldn't aim to "put them to rest once and for all" as the detractors will simply keep coming.
By lefty inter racial alliances I mean the dominant political thinking among black leadership (political and intellectual) starting from at least the 60s. This has been to our determent.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Masonic Rebel: Let me add The critics of an African origin of Kemet will keep going around in circles
Kemet = Black Nation
Don't Debete "Race" Talk about the Ethnicity of the Kememu and just sit back and listen to the crying and complaining
Correct. Race is a false discourse.
Debating over race helps Eurocentrists because it is a debate that is predetermined to 'go nowhere'.
Race allows Eurocentrists to evade the reality of the African, and not European, origins of Nile Valley Civilisation, and of Kemet as a Black, and not white, society [Black society is precisely what the term Km.t Nw.t means].
By chasing Eurocentrism's race tautologies, you allow them to turn their utter defeat, into a stalemate.
Africanist "race chasers" are thus outmanouvered.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Africanist "race chasers". lol You love straw men Rasolowitz. I know of no Africanist historian or lay man that argues for race as a biologically distinct entity as whites have traditionally defined it. Their definition is the same as yours, "Kemet as a Black, and not white, society [Black society is precisely what the term Km.t Nw.t means]", which Eurocentrics simply interpret as an argument in favour of a black "racial" origin of AE and then proceed to create their straw man, precisely what you are doing in that above post.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eurasian and African (Eurasian=White) mitochondrial DNA influences in the Saudi Arabian population
Khaled K Abu-Amero, Ana M González,2 Jose M Larruga,2 Thomas M Bosley,3 and Vicente M Cabrera2
Background Genetic studies of the Arabian Peninsula are scarce even though the region was the center of ancient trade routes and empires and may have been the southern corridor for the earliest human migration from Africa to Asia. A total of 120 mtDNA Saudi Arab lineages were analyzed for HVSI/II sequences and for haplogroup confirmatory coding diagnostic positions. A phylogeny of the most abundant haplogroup (preHV)1 (R0a) was constructed based on 13 whole mtDNA genomes. Results
The Saudi Arabian group showed greatest similarity to other Arabian Peninsula populations (Bedouin from the Negev desert and Yemeni) and to Levantine populations. Nearly all the main western Asia haplogroups were detected in the Saudi sample, including the rare U9 clade. Saudi Arabs had only a minority sub-Saharan Africa component (7%), similar to the specific North-African contribution (5%). In addition, a small Indian influence (3%) was also detected. Conclusion
The majority of the Saudi-Arab mitochondrial DNA lineages (85%) have a western Asia provenance. Although the still large confidence intervals, the coalescence and phylogeography of (preHV)1 haplogroup (accounting for 18 % of Saudi Arabian lineages) matches a Neolithic expansion in Saudi Arabia.
Background This study represents mtDNA data regarding the population of Saudi Arabia. Geographically, desert is the most prominent feature of the Arabian Peninsula, which comprises the modern countries of Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait. Saudi Arabia occupies eighty percent of the Arabian Peninsula and is divided into five major regions – Central, Northern, Southern, Eastern and Western. From the western coastal region (At-Tihamah), the land rises from sea level to a peninsula-long mountain range (jabal al-Hijaz) beyond which are plateaus to the east. The southwestern 'Asir region has mountains as high as 3,000 metres (9,840 ft) and is known for having the most hospitable climate in the country.
The east is primarily rocky or sandy lowland continuing to the shores of the Arabian Gulf. Although vast arid tracts dominate, stretches of coastline along the Arabian Gulf and the Red Sea and several major oases in the central and eastern regions have provided water necessary for human habitation. The coastal areas have been trading centers for centuries with resultant population diversity. In addition, for 1400 years the Haj has brought millions of Muslims annually to the region between Mecca and Jeddah, some of whom have stayed for generations. Traditionally, the central (arid) region of the country has had more population stability (i.e. they are more likely pure-blood Arabs). More than 95% of the population now is settled in population centers that are mainly located along the eastern and western coasts and near interior oases such as Hofuf, Buraydah, and Riyadh.
The Arabian Peninsula is a region through which numerous migrations between Africa and Asia took place since ancient times. Anthropological, archaeological, and genetic evidence has given support to the hypothesis that modern humans may have dispersed out of Africa, following a southern route through the Arabian Peninsula before they pursued a Levantine route. According to this scenario, the Arabian Peninsula may have been the first step in the colonization of southern and eastern Asia. Middle Palaeolithic artefacts discovered in southwestern areas of the Arabian peninsula are similar to ones recovered in Africa, providing support for the suggestion that the Red Sea coasts may have been important in this southern expansion. The presence of obsidian lithics on the African and Arabian sides of the Red Sea attests to Neolithic contacts as well. Archaeological evidence supports late Neolithic Levantine colonization of the Arabian Peninsula with successive population expansions and contractions depending on climatic conditions.
The strategic position of the Arabian Peninsula made it a crucial area for trade, cultural exchange, and warfare after the emergence of Old World Western civilizations. Mesopotamian states invaded the Arabian Peninsula from the north since prehistoric times, Ionic and Roman-Byzantine classic cultures took control of strategic trade routes in Arabia, and the Sassinid Persians dominated southern Arabia around 575 AD. Influences from the African side were also present as Pharanoiac Egypt and the Sudanese Meroitic and Abyssinian Askumite kingdoms extended their borders well inside Arabia. Arabian Nabatean and Sabean cultures exerted their influence in turn on the Levant and Ethiopia, although to a lesser degree. Events changed dramatically with the rise of Islam in Arabia during the 7th century AD. In a short span of time, Arabs built a military and cultural empire that extended from Pakistan in the east to the Iberian Peninsula in the west. Even more complete Arabization occurred later in North Africa with the Bedouin Hilalian invasion in the 11th century AD.
The impact of these migrations on the Arab gene pool remains unclear because genetic information about the region has been scarce. Arab populations (Bedouin, Saudi, and Yemenite) are distinct from other Near East populations and from India and Central Asia in an analysis based on classical markers, suggesting the possibility of an ancient expansion from East Africa. Early studies could not discriminate remote from recent contacts, but non-recombining uniparental markers have allowed more refined phylogeographic analysis at both continental and regional levels. The rapid mutation rate of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and Y-chromosome microsatellites permits estimates of lineage expansion age and of the most probable geographic origin of these expansions. Only two studies regarding the Arabian Peninsula have been based on mtDNA.
Lineage classification of a small sample of 29 Bedouins revealed that 25 (86%) had a Eurasian origin, two (7%) belonged to the sub-Saharan Africa L0 and L2 haplogroups, and two were left undetermined. A study of 115 Yemeni mtDNAs showed that Eurasian-specific and African-specific lineages existed in almost equal proportion in that southern Arabian Peninsula sample.
In a sample of 120 Saudi Arabs, we sequenced the non-coding HVSI/II mtDNA regions and further characterized haplogroup diagnostic coding region positions by restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) or by partial sequencing in order to estimate the genetic structure of the Arabian Peninsula and to search for archaic N and/or M lineages such as those found in India, Australia, and Southern-east Asia that trace a rapid human expansion outside Africa. The comparison of this sample to 2,204 classified sequences from the Near East and 728 from East Africa allowed us to estimate the relative gene flow between these areas and the Arabian Peninsula. We also provide a detailed mtDNA phylogeny of haplogroup (preHV)1, the most frequent and diverse haplogroup in the Arabian Peninsula. The analysis of this haplogroup, recently renamed R0a, is based on complete sequences and a global phylogeographic analysis based on 255 HVSI sequences.
Results The total number of different haplotypes in our sample of 120 Saudi Arabs were 107 (K = 89%) when HVSI and II variation and RFLP were taken into account [see Additional file; however, the K value dropped to 64% when only partial HVSI variation was used in comparison with other populations. Some lineages had to be included into imprecise groups such as H/HV/R for haplotype and haplogroup frequency comparison, although all Saudi haplotypes were completely sorted into their respective clades and sub-clades [see Additional file. The bulk of individuals (86%) belonged to the Eurasian macrohaplogroup N and its main R branch (75%), while the Sub-Saharan Africa macrohaplogroup L (7%) and the Asian macrohaplogroup M (7%) accounted for a smaller proportion of haplotypes.
[To summarize: 86% of modern Arabs in Saudi Arabia are NOT Arab, they are Eurasian (mostly Turks) a White people].Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Having established that the people calling themselves Egyptians, Hebrews, Canaanites, Sumerians, Persians, Anatolians (Turkey), and Berbers etc, do so falsely: We have also established that they also call themselves Arab; Falsely.
The rest of my posts will deal with who they really are; and how they came to be in the position to call themselves by the names of the ancient creators of civilization. As a visual aid, I will use this Wiki map of the western world at the time of the fall of the last Black civilization (the Sassian Persian), and the beginning of the falsely called; Arab invasion.
posted
Though people who descend from Greeks and Romans call themselves Arabs: (Greek occupation 320 B.C. to 30 B.C.) - (Roman occupation 30 B.C. to 627 A.D.), the overwhelming majority of people who call themselves Arab; are ethnically Turks. So let us begin with the Turks. The first Black country that the Turks conquer is Anatolia (now called Turkey).
Culture centers and civilization is very old in Anatolia, perhaps predating Sumer and Egypt. It is believed to have been started by descendants of the Khoisan Grimaldi. In Anatolia, we find the worlds oldest megalithic structure: The temple at Gobekli Tepe; about 11,500 B.C.
Anatolia was also home to many famous kingdoms:
The Hatti are probably the original "advanced civilization" of Anatolia. They ruled a kingdom in central Anatolia that was made up of several Small city-states. Their language is extinct and little is known of it, but it could possibly have been Sumerian, since there are signs of Mesopotamian influence on Hatti art and culture.
The Phrygians of Phrygia, who inhabited north-central Anatolia, is very difficult to pin down. As is the truth of their King Midas, (of Midas's Gold fame) was he a mythical king or a real person? Another part of the Phrygian mystery is the city of Troy (of Trojan Horse Fame).
Another important kingdom of Anatolia, was that of "Urartu" which was in the eastern part of Anatolia. Urartu was a considerable military power around 1,000 B.C. However the Urartians were displaced in that area, in the 6th century B.C, by the Armenians (not the modern Armenians). These Armenians called themselves "The Hayk", and may have been from the Indus Valley. The Hurri were yet another people, their territory extended into eastern Anatolia. Later these Hurri, who originated in northern Elam, united into a nation called Mitanni.
The Hayk, as the Armenians name themselves, were not able to achieve the power and independence of their predecessors (Hatti, Urartians), and were first rapidly incorporated by Cyaxares into the Median empire and then annexed with Media by Cyrus II to form part of the Achaemenian Empire of Persia (550 B.C.). The country is mentioned as Armina and Armaniya in the Bisitun inscription of Darius I (522 B.C.), and according to Herodotus, formed part of the 13th satrapy (province) of Persia, the Alarodioi forming part of the 18th. Xenophon's Anabasis, recounting the adventures of Greek mercenaries in Persia, describes the local government at about 400 B.C, as being in the hands of village headmen, part of whose tribute to the Persian king consisted of horses. Armenia continued to be governed by Persian or native satraps until its absorption into the Macedonian empire of Alexander the Great (331 B.C.) and its successor, the Seleucid empire (301 B.C.).
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I know of no Africanist historian or lay man that argues for race as a biologically distinct entity
Hold up Stop that is the point no need to continue.
Dr. Shomarka Keita from the National Geographic Interview Keita said something to this effect
“Basically in Africa the homeland of modern humans there’s great diversity “
“So the question to really ask is rather the diversity we see there in Africa is Indigenous. Is it of African Origin?”
Posts: 567 | From: USA | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Armenia did not begin to take on it's modern identity until the 11th. century A.D. By the time of the invasions of the Turkish Seljuq peoples in the 11th century A.D, the Armenian kingdoms had already been destroyed from the west. The province of Taron had been annexed to the Byzantine Empire in 968 A.D, and the expansionist policy of the Byzantine emperor Basil II finally extinguished Armenian independence.
The possessions of David of Tayq were annexed in 1000 A.D, and the kingdom of Vaspurakan in 1022 A.D. In the latter year, the Bagratid king of Ani, Yovhannes-Smbat, was compelled to make the Roman emperor heir to his estates, and in 1045 A.D, despite the resistance of Gagik II, Ani was seized by the Roman Constantine IX.
The Byzantine conquest was however short-lived: in 1048 A.D, The Turks arrived, Toghrïl Beg led the first Seljuq Turk raid into Armenia in 1064 A.D. Ani and Kars fell to Toghrïl's nephew and heir Alp-Arslan, and after the Battle of Manzikert (1071 A.D.), most of the country was in Turkish hands. In 1072 A.D, the Kurdish Shaddadids received Ani as a fiefdom. A few native Armenian rulers survived for a time in the Kiurikian kingdom of Lori, the Siuniqian kingdom of Baghq or Kapan, and the principates of Khachen (Artzakh) and Sasun.
In the 12th century many former Armenian regions became parts of Georgia, and between 1236 and 1242 A.D, the whole of Armenia and Georgia fell into the hands of the Mongols. Soon the Turkic Ottoman Empire will raise, below is a short history of the Turks.
Turks Turks are Eurasians who may be any of various peoples whose members speak languages belonging to the Turkic subfamily of the Altaic family of languages. They are historically and linguistically connected with the T'u-chüeh, the name given by the Chinese to the nomadic people who in the 6th century A.D. founded an empire stretching from Mongolia and the northern frontier of China to the Black Sea. With some exceptions, notably in the European part of Turkey and in the Volga region, the Turkic peoples are confined to Asia. Their most important cultural link, aside from history and language, is that with Islam, for with the exception of the Sakha (Yakut) of eastern Siberia and the Chuvash of the Volga region of Russia, they are all Muslim.
The Turkic peoples may be divided into two main groups: the western and the eastern. The western group includes the Turkic peoples of southeastern Europe and those of southwestern Asia inhabiting Anatolia (Turkey) and northwestern Iran. The eastern group comprises the Turkic peoples of Central Asia, Kazakhstan, and the Uighur Autonomous Region of Xinjiang in China. Turkic peoples display a great variety of ethnic types.
Little is known about the origins of the Turkic peoples, and much of their history even up to the time of the Mongol conquests in the 10th–13th A.D. is shrouded in obscurity. Chinese documents of the 6th century A.D. refer to the empire of the T'u-chüeh as consisting of two parts, the northern and western Turks. This empire submitted to the nominal suzerainty of the Chinese T'ang dynasty in the 7th century, but the northern Turks regained their independence in 682 and retained it until 744 A.D. The Orhon inscriptions, the oldest known Turkic records (8th century A.D.), refer to this empire and particularly to the confederation of Turkic tribes known as the Oguz; to the Uighur, who lived along the Selenga River (in present-day Mongolia); and to the Kyrgyz, who lived along the Yenisey River (in north-central Russia).
When able to escape the domination of the T'ang dynasty, these northern Turkic groups fought each other for control of Mongolia from the 8th to the 11th century, when the Oguz migrated westward into Persia and Afghanistan. In Persia the family of Oguz tribes known as Seljuqs created an empire that by the late 11th century stretched from the Amu Darya south to the Persian Gulf and from the Indus River west to the Mediterranean Sea.
The Khazars were another ancient Turkic people who first appeared in Transcaucasia, {the transitional region between Europe and Asia, extending from the Greater Caucasus to the Turkish and Iranian borders, between the Black and Caspian seas.} in the 2nd century A.D, and subsequently settled in the lower Volga region. They emerged as a force in the 7th century and rose to great power. By the 8th century the Khazar empire extended from the northern shores of the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea to the Urals and as far westward as Kiev. Also in the 8th Century, the Khazars converted to the Hebrew religion and made Judaism the State religion. “Itil” the Khazar capital in the Volga delta, was a great commercial center. The Khazar Empire fell, when Sviatoslav, duke of Kiev (945–72), son of Igor and of St. Olga, defeated its army in 965 A.D. The Khazars are the progenitors of European Jewry, the entomology of the term Jew or Jewish probably relates to these people. {Hebrews were not known as Jews}.
Farther east, in Central Asia, the Uighur were driven out of Mongolia and settled in the 9th century in what is now the Xinjiang region of northwestern China. Some Uighur moved westward into what is now Uzbekistan, where they forsook nomadic pastoralism for a sedentary lifestyle. These people became known as Uzbek, named for a ruler of a local Mongol dynasty of that name.
The Mongol conquests, which began in the early 13th century, caused a general series of movements of the Turkic peoples that continued for several centuries. The Mongols eventually brought under their domination almost all the areas held or inhabited by Turkic peoples. The Kipchak, a Turkic people who had moved from the Irtysh River southwest across Kazakhstan to establish themselves in what is now southwestern Russia, were destroyed by the expanding Mongols in 1239, and the last remnants of the declining Seljuq empire in Persia were likewise subjugated. But when the Mongol empire was divided following Genghis Khan's death (1227), a process of Islamization and Turkification ensued that resulted in the virtual absorption by the Turks of those Mongols outside Mongolian territory. The influence of the Mongol rulers diminished, and real power in Central Asia passed to their Turkic provincial governors, one of whom, Timur, was able to extend his own authority over most of southwestern Asia and parts of South Asia, in the late 14th century. In the 15th century, Russian expansion south toward the Caspian Sea drove the Turkic inhabitants there eastward into what is now Kazakhstan, where they are known as Kazakh.
Because of these processes of migration, conquest, intermarriage, and assimilation, many of the Turkic peoples that now inhabit Central and Southwest Asia are of mixed origins, often stemming from fragments of many different tribes, though they speak closely related languages. Apart from the Turks of Turkey, none of the Turkic peoples can be said to have had any continuous national or political existence until the formation, after the Russian Revolution of 1917, of the various Soviet republics and, after 1955, of the Xinjiang region in China. The achievement of independence by Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Turkmenistan in 1991 was the most important political development among the Turkic peoples since the Russian Revolution of 1917.
The most numerous of the Turkic peoples, after the Turks of Turkey, is the Uzbek of Uzbekistan and Afghanistan. Their name seems to have originated from Beg, the greatest khan of the Golden Horde, who embraced Islam; the name came to be applied to the Muslim ruling class of the Golden Horde.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
mike 111 there is something you have to consider more than trying to estsblish something taht is not going to go anywhere besides this forum and that is that ALL and i mean ALL Ethnic/political/racial whatever you want ti call it have original members and assimilated members. EX. Interesting there are people(caucasians) in america that have a view regarding the identity of the so-called african-american which run into degrees and this view is also shared by foreigners. One view is that blacks are americans and need to be more assimilated like everybody else. another view is that they are not true americans because the 13th-15th amendments, according to them, was ratifies by force therfore making such ruling under duress and not being applicable to blacks native to america. It is well known that blacks are heavy e3a carriers who phenotypically share with continental africans and have some pocket- cultural tendencies in which people grasp at to attribute to africa. This would apply to almost the whole world. With this they are called african-american but quote you
quote: You can’t be Arab AND Egyptian at the same time
so how can one be american and african at the same time. of course one will answer easy because one is born and raised in america but possesses genealogicaly african parents. Could this same rule, applied to every boat-hopper in the U.S., also apply to people of egyptian descent who speak arabic and consider themselves arabs and participate in arabic culture(islam) and live with arabs?
-------------------- لا اله الا الله و محمد الرسول الله Posts: 495 | From: anchorage, alaska | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
anyway this topic is something medieval arab scholars have discussed far as who is an arab. This is were the encyclopedia II definition derives from. just like W.E.B. Du Bois and other African-American scholars have discussed the identity and membership of one being an African-American.
-------------------- لا اله الا الله و محمد الرسول الله Posts: 495 | From: anchorage, alaska | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
oh by the way. The thing about saudis not being arab. This is something old with peninsula arabs and they didnt need no dna to tell them. They have their own system and it is known. their lineage can only be traced 500 yrs.
-------------------- لا اله الا الله و محمد الرسول الله Posts: 495 | From: anchorage, alaska | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by abdulkarem3: mike 111 there is something you have to consider more than trying to estsblish something taht is not going to go anywhere besides this forum and that is that ALL and i mean ALL Ethnic/political/racial whatever you want ti call it have original members and assimilated members. EX. Interesting there are people(caucasians) in america that have a view regarding the identity of the so-called african-american which run into degrees and this view is also shared by foreigners. One view is that blacks are americans and need to be more assimilated like everybody else. another view is that they are not true americans because the 13th-15th amendments, according to them, was ratifies by force therfore making such ruling under duress and not being applicable to blacks native to america. It is well known that blacks are heavy e3a carriers who phenotypically share with continental africans and have some pocket- cultural tendencies in which people grasp at to attribute to africa. This would apply to almost the whole world. With this they are called african-american but quote you
quote: You can’t be Arab AND Egyptian at the same time
so how can one be american and african at the same time. of course one will answer easy because one is born and raised in america but possesses genealogicaly african parents. Could this same rule, applied to every boat-hopper in the U.S., also apply to people of egyptian descent who speak arabic and consider themselves arabs and participate in arabic culture(islam) and live with arabs?
It does'nt matter WHO are WHAT the "Arabs" call themselves, Turks, Egyptians...ect, they DO NOT represent the Kemmou nor the state of Km.t. The "Modern" Egyptians are the result of mixing with Invaders to the Nile Valley. To claim the Egyptians are the same as they were 3000 years ago is not only absurd...it illogical and very stupid. Most
The closeset to the Kemmou by the words of Egyptologists, Geneticits...ECT...are the Saadis and the Upper Egyptians such as the Aswanis.
The "Modern" Egyptians DON'T EVEN claim decendancy from the Kemmou..They want to connect themselves with some pedifile Prophet...SO WHY ARE THEY SO OFFENDED by people saying the Kemmou were black...WHEN THEY CARE MORE ABOUT A PROPHET MUHAMMED than they do about Menes or Amunhotep the 3rd.
Km.t was the gem of Ancient Africa together with Kush, Africans deserve a nation to look at for inspiration by a people simular culturally and physically. Just as Nordics and West Euros do to Greece.
No African American I know claims to be an Egyptian...LOL.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
quote: You can’t be Arab AND Egyptian at the same time
abdulkarem3 wrote: so how can one be american and african at the same time. of course one will answer easy because one is born and raised in america but possesses genealogicaly african parents. Could this same rule, applied to every boat-hopper in the U.S., also apply to people of egyptian descent who speak arabic and consider themselves arabs and participate in arabic culture(islam) and live with arabs?
abdulkarem3 – There are many levels to my to answer to you.
1) The FIRST and original Americans ARE Africans.
Analysis of available data suggests that the chronology of migration to the Americas goes something like this:
20,000 B.C. and well Before – Australoids were coming in, from the south. 20,000 B.C. to 7,000 B.C. – Polynesians were coming in, from the south. 7,000 B.C. – Amerindians were coming in, from the north across the Bering Straits, with the Eskimo being the last of these migrants. Olmec – there is still no definitive word, as to when the Olmec got here, 8000-4,000 B.C.?
2) American is a Nationality NOT an Ethnicity. Black Americans do not claim to be American Indians. Even though the reverse is obviously partially true. Black Americans show enough respect for Americans Indians to not encroach on their Heritage, even though, unlike the Turk/Arab nonsense: American Indian culture and technology is derived from Africans.
3) My argument is with Turks, Greeks, and Romans, (White people), calling themselves by the ancient names. If you are genetically an Egyptian, and want to call yourself an Arab, that’s your business.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BTW - The contents of threads on ES are indexed by all of the search engines, and then returned on subject searches. Those posting nonsense and foul language might keep that in mind. It lives forever in the archives.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Saudi Arabs had only a minority sub-Saharan Africa component (7%), similar to the specific North-African contribution (5%). In addition, a small Indian influence (3%) was also detected.
I suspect that "sub-Saharan" means for the authors that haplogroups E3b and L3 were excluded.
After all, E3b--which is also "sub-Saharan"--predominates in North Africa.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Saudi Arabs had only a minority sub-Saharan Africa component (7%), similar to the specific North-African contribution (5%). In addition, a small Indian influence (3%) was also detected.
I suspect that "sub-Saharan" means for the authors that haplogroups E3b and L3 were excluded.
After all, E3b--which is also "sub-Saharan"--predominates in North Africa.
As the title says: Eurasian and African (Eurasian=White) mitochondrial DNA influences in the Saudi Arabian population
They were looking to determine what percentage of the Saudi population is predominately "White".
Since they are apparently lovers of all things White, they should be very happy with the study. But I doubt that they will relinquish their false claim of being Arabs.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by akoben08: Africanist "race chasers". lol You love straw men Rasolowitz.
No, we love truth, clarity, and scholarship you can trust to be honest. At least I do.
Who cares what rasol likes?
Oh, and maybe a little tact.
I'm sure we all agree that strategy is best when the time is right, like now.
quote: I know of no Africanist historian or lay man that argues for race as a biologically distinct entity as whites have traditionally defined it. Their definition is the same as yours, "Kemet as a Black, and not white, society [Black society is precisely what the term Km.t Nw.t means]", which Eurocentrics simply interpret as an argument in favour of a black "racial" origin of AE and then proceed to create their straw man, precisely what you are doing in that above post.
^Wrong.
You fail to realize, that discourse with us - unlike the discourse with people who are still plugged in - isn't about us verses 'the Afrocentrists', and it never has been.
'We' (in certain matters, certain members agree on things) generally jugde substance.
Check out the old threads, danmitt. Not (ligitamate contributing member) regular still here is afraid of being labled 'afrocentrist' or even 'Eurocentrist', so you can stop the name-tagging, cuz when used with redundancy it is nothing but a side-show/distraction from what's real.
So basically, you're saying that what rasol (since he's yoursubject) says in is in no way contradicting to the biological reality, and that he shouldn't write it 'as if it contradicts Afrocentrists'?
What ever.
**************************** Bottom Line:
There simply is no scientific\biological basis for sub-dividing the human species, because, sadly or otherwise, (in other words throw out your subjective azz opinions or sentiment) there are as of yet (and likely for some time to come) no distinct species of humans that have evolved, and neither have any sub-species come about.
So on whatever arbitrary basis you wish (generally speaking) to divide up the human or homo sapien sapien species, both your freedom to do this, and its irrelevancy to the biological origins of Kemet (or the people of any other body or polity), are acknowledged. Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Oh Jesus, are you being contrary or what? Look, I don't ascribe to race as whites have traditionally done: sub-dividing human species etc I am saying Rasolowitz is building straw men when he talks of Africanist "race chasers". I know of no Africanist historian that argues for race as whites have traditionally done biological basis for sub-dividing the human species. Diop doesn't, yet he is branded a "racist" by Eurocentrics this is because they are using straw men, same as Rasolowitz.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
ALL Ethnic/political/racial whatever you want ti call it have original members and assimilated members.
This is important to keep in mind as constructs (ethnicities, race, nationalities) are not static and change with time and shifting situations. We can talk of original members of a specific group/nation etc in order to bring clarity and combat distortion (i.e. with AE), but in the final analysis labels can change. So Arab and Egyptian are not necessarily contradictions today.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Saudi Arabs had only a minority sub-Saharan Africa component (7%), similar to the specific North-African contribution (5%). In addition, a small Indian influence (3%) was also detected.
I suspect that "sub-Saharan" means for the authors that haplogroups E3b and L3 were excluded.
After all, E3b--which is also "sub-Saharan"--predominates in North Africa.
E3a and E3b are male Y chromosoms the paper is investigating the Mitochondrial DNA of Saudis, whis is the maternal side.
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by akoben08: ^ Oh Jesus, are you being contrary
Nope, I'm sayin that that's what you're doing.
No one's hatin on Africanists, mr.
quote:I know of no Africanist historian or laymen that argues for race as whites have
There are alot of laymen.
Infact I could totally freakin' blow the shyt outta your computers memory with pages and YT videos full of 'Africanists' who play the game by 'the white man's' rules.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh my god, you are being contrary. By lay man I don't mean any crackpot posing as "Afrocentrist" who claims black origins for evrything. I mean people not having formal education in Egyptology, anthropology etc but read Diop etc.
But let's not lose the original claim by Rasolowitz: Race allows Eurocentrists to evade the reality of the African, and not European, origins of Nile Valley Civilisation, and of Kemet as a Black, and not white, society [Black society is precisely what the term Km.t Nw.t means]. By chasing Eurocentrism's race tautologies, you allow them to turn their utter defeat, into a stalemate. Africanist "race chasers" are thus outmanouvered.
My point is that Euros don't need "race chasers" to avoid anything, they still see Diop as racist even though he is no race chaser by any stretch of the imagination. So Rasolowitz straw men of Africanist race chasers helping Euros is irrelevant.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:To claim the Egyptians are the same as they were 3000 years ago is not only absurd...it illogical and very stupid
Yes, I read about this argument too many times before, so I just use the Melanin test done by Diop and the German team, and as usually no answers or just flat out denial that African Mummies with Melanin in Kemet = Black
Posts: 567 | From: USA | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Check out the old threads, danmitt. Not (ligitamate contributing member) regular still here is afraid of being labled 'afrocentrist'
I like my Kemetology "Afrocentic label" it's like a Badge of Honor Egypt is going back into Africa
Posts: 567 | From: USA | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
As alluded to in the DNA study above, the strategic position of Arabia made it a target for incursion by all dominant players in the middle-east interested in controlling Sea routes. When the Greeks controlled the Middle East, they had a presence in Arabia. As did the Romans, when they became masters of the region.
Christian Advance in Arabia - Missions had continued to penetrate Arabia with its backward and illiterate population since the second century. Most of the evidence of this expansion consists of references by Syrian and Palestinian authors of the many Arabian Christians who come over to visit shrines and monasteries in the Roman realm.
The first known bishop to the Arabian nomads was Pamphilos Bishop of the Tannaye whose signature stands among his fellow bishops who signed the Nicene Creed in 325. The Tannaye were likely a tribe or clan related to the western Tanukhs living in the Syrian desert somewhere between Damascus and the Euphrates. The Tanukhs had migrated from Yemen. Mawiyya, the Christian queen of the western Tanukhs after the death of her husband about 373 rebelled from the Roman Emperor Valens, demanded and received from him a desert ascetic to serve as bishop for her tribe as the price of loyalty. The successors of these western Tanukhs included the Ghassan tribe (banu Jafn), very prominent along the western fringe of the Syrian desert during the fifth and sixth centuries.
They continued to be identified as Christians, and their chiefs entered into treaties with the Roman emperors to guard the Roman frontiers. Their sheik, Al-Harith ibn Jabala al-A'raj, was a favorite of Emperor Justinian, who allowed him to consolidate the several tribes along the whole desert frontier into a confederation under his rule. Another early Christian development in Arabia was the result of outreach from the Church of the East during the times of the heaviest persecution by the Sassanids. Christianity was established in Qatar and Bahrain on the Persian Gulf about 390. Also at Hira, in the desert fringe near Babylon, the staging point for a caravan route to Yemen, a settled (not nomadic) community of Arabian Christians existed from about 400.
Hira was ruled during the fifth and sixth centuries by the leaders of the Arabian Lakhmid tribe (banu Lakhmid) who were also part of the Tanukh migration from Yemen to the north. Since the Lakhmid king of Hira was subject to the Sassanid overlords of Persia it was not politically correct for them to be Christian, but during the sixth century many of the women of the royal clan were prominent Christians. There is another nearly legendary account of the mission of Theophilus the deacon whom Emperor Constantius send in 356 as ambassador to India. He was delayed in Yemen awaiting the proper sailing season and took the opportunity to found three or four churches there. Among his converts were the Himyarites, the ruling clan in that region. The numbers of Christians in Yemen increased as many Christians from Persia came to Yemen as refugees as a result of the intermittent persecution in Persia during the fourth and fifth centuries.
Early in the fifth century a Yemani merchant named Hayyan based in the Himyarite kingdom of Yemen traveled to Constantinople on business and returned by way of The Euphrates. He came to al-Hirta (Hira) on the edge of the desert preparing to join a caravan heading for Yemen. At al-Hirta the Christian Arabs who had been evangelized by the Church of the East converted him. Hayyan spent the rest of his life evangelizing his fellow Arabs in the Himyarite kingdom of Yemen. Meanwhile the Himyarite ruling clan had adopted Judaism! About 500 AD the neighboring southwestern Arabian region of Najran began to be evangelized by a Syrian Jacobite (Monophysite) ascetic Phemion who had been captured in the north and brought there as a slave.
For various reasons violence broke out between Yemen and Najran about 522 with the Jacobite Christians of Najran burning Jewish Synagogue buildings and the Jews of Yemen vandalizing Christian church buildings. In 523 in response to an appeal from the Christians of Najran the ruler of the Christian (Monophysite) Ethiopian kingdom of Axum, Ela Asbeha, drove dhu Nawas, the Jewish Himyarite King of Yemen from his capital and installed an Ethiopian garrison. The Himyarite Jewish king dhu-Nawas counterattacked, slaughtered the garrison and then ruthlessly exterminated the Christians in Najran.
The Christians of Ethiopia sent a massive retaliatory force under the general Abraha who killed dhu Nawas and installed a puppet governor at San'a. This puppet ruled for about a decade before Abraha declared himself king about 535. Under Abraha's rule, till 570, Christianity flourished in southwestern Arabia. The Persian king Chosroes I conquered and ruled southwestern Arabia between 570 and 580, but the Christians survived, especially in Najran.
Skipping the ascension of the Prophet Muhammad.
In 1516 A.D. the Ottoman Turks along with other Eastern European troops (Serbs and Bosnians), defeated the Mamluk Turks.
In 1798, the French army under Napoleon, invaded and occupied Egypt.
In 1801, the British invaded and occupied Egypt.
In March 1803 the British were evacuated in accordance with the Peace of Amiens. But the Ottomans, determined to reassert their control over Egypt remained, establishing their power through a viceroy and an occupying army of Albanians. The Albanians later mutinied and installed their own leader as acting viceroy. When he was assassinated shortly afterward, the command of the Albanians passed to his lieutenant, Muhammad Ali.
The Changeover: note Albanians are also Turks
In Arabia, the domination of Mecca and Medina by puritanical Wahhabi Muslims was a serious embarrassment to the Ottoman sultan, who was the titular overlord of the Arabian territory of the Hejaz and the leading Muslim sovereign. At the invitation of Sultan Mahmud II (1808-39), Muhammad Ali sent an Albanian expedition to Arabia that between 1811 and 1813 expelled the Wahhabis from the Hejaz. In a further campaign (1816-18), Ibrahim Pasha, the viceroy's eldest son, defeated the Wahhabis in their homeland of Najd, and brought central Arabia under Albanian control.
Changeover in Sudan:
In 1820-21 Muhammad Ali sent an expedition up the Nile and conquered much of what is now the northern Sudan. By so doing, he made himself master of one of the principal channels of the slave trade, and began an African Empire that was to be expanded under his successors.
The conquest of the Sudan was intended to provide recruits. But the slaves, encamped at Aswan, died wholesale, and Muhammad Ali had to look elsewhere for his troops. In 1823 he took to conscripting Egyptian peasants for the rank and file of his new army. On the other hand, the officers were mostly Turkish Ottomans, while the director of the whole enterprise, Sulayman Pasha (Colonel Sève), was a former French officer. The conscription was brutally administered.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:They want to connect themselves with some pedifile Prophet
its probably better than connecting with this guy huh does this guy even count
AFRICAN SLAVE African slave (Photo taken by Paul Bravender-Coyle during Mission to Africa. Copyright P Bravender-Coyle).
The Society estimates that there are 8,000 girl-slaves — slaves in the fullest sense of the term — in West Africa today. These girls are hierodulic slaves, combining the roles of agricultural slave, domestic slave, temple slave and sex slave.
Originally offered as human sacrifice to ensure success in war, these girls are the helpless victims of a traditional form of slavery which has survived intact since the pre-colonial era. These slaves live in villages just a half-day’s journey inland from the very coast from which slaves were once shipped to the Americas.
Taken from their mothers from the age of four, these girls work from dawn to dusk in the fields. From the age of five they are beaten with canes or with specially-made wire whips. They are raped from as young as eight years old. Their masters, the voodoo priests, claim the traditional right of masters since the dawn of history to free sexual access to the slaves, and the girls are beaten into submission if they refuse.
The material in this report is based on a Mission to West Africa by the Society's Secretary-General.
THE SOCIETY IN ACTION Since 1996, the Society, in discharging its historic role, has purchased the emancipation or manumission of over 500 of these slave girls, despite the efforts of the other masters waging a vigorous campaign against the emancipation of their slaves, either by refusing to permit their slaves to be purchased or demanding exorbitant prices for them.
-------------------- لا اله الا الله و محمد الرسول الله Posts: 495 | From: anchorage, alaska | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:They want to connect themselves with some pedifile Prophet
does this guy even count
^ Don't know how comparing prophet mohammad to michael jackson can help you.
It's like you see yourself as comparing him to 'other' pedophiles. lol.
You make some stupid arguments. I'm not muslim, but if i were, i'd consider your 'defense' of mohammad and insult.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I never really want to get into a debate about the Koran but. I have a few problemsw with it.
First why does heaven seem more like what you can get on earth.
The thing I have a problem with first is the least of the followers of the "Prophet" gets 72 virgins to all likely to sleep with. Why would God make women just so you could sleep with? What about your Wife?
And then 300 servant boys to serve you who get this will not Bleed. I also forget that they will look "Beautiful" like scattred pearls. Now this just seems messed up. Why would you need Boys that look "Beautiful" to serve you and that won't bleed. What will you be doing with these boys. It seems more like something out of Mickeal Jacksons Dream.
Then you get to all the food and Alcohol you will be drinking and eating and you wonder when will you just be worshipping Allah. What do Women get out of this "Heaven"
I used to respect Islam alot but after learning about thye religion there just seems to be alot of things that seem messed up with it.
I also hear that the "Prophet" used to molest a little girl at age 6 called Aisha she later became his youngest wife. Now there is debate over her age at the time but in her personal Hadith she says that she consumated the marriage with the "prophet" at age 9.
I can't be the only person that learned about some of the stuff in the Koran and has questions. Muslim followers should also have questions instead of just following what the Quran says and not ask about some of the stuff it says.
There is a person on youtube who I am learning about who is a ex muslim who I hear is talking about some of these stuff from the Koran his name is *Investigate Islam* I think he may be able to tell me some more stuff about the Koran and the way women are treated.
Sadly I also hear in Islam that Women should give there Breast to strangers to suckle on .
I am against anything that abuses Women or Children. Children are the future and should be protected. Allah giving you 300 slave boys to entertain you just seems like child abuse.
Also was it not the Ayatollah Kohemni. Who created a green book and in it he says it's okay to sodomize a toddler and sleep with animals .
How can anybody follow a religion that allows people to write such filthy disgusting things about children and animals. If anyone can maybe tell me a little about what makes Isalm special then I will listen but all I have learned from research is that there is alot of evil aspects to Islam and needs to be outed.
I don't mean to get any muslims angry but this is just some of the stuff I learned about Islam and just wanted to share it.
Free your mind.
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a layman who pretends to be a budding anthropologist, isn't the best way to mark similarities and differences of a group is to:
1. WIth modern tools, do DNA on the modern present sample size (MtDNA and Y chromosome), i.e. Egyptians of all 'demographic areas'
2. Backtrack to the maternal and paternal DNA and which areas of Africa to which their are matches!
3. SOLVED! Are't the true Arabs, as stated previously, from the Arabian peninsula only! This is similar to the Hispanic thing where when you ask Hispanics their origin in English their roots and they say 'Spanish', where we know anyting Spanish is from Spain (de Espana). The language obviously is from Spain but the ethnicity of the speaker is usually diverse enough to show the many cultural roots of Hispanidad.
The concept of al-Arabiyya is the same thing! Would a Turk or Persian embrace al-Arabiyya? maybe yes and maybe no! Language has a big impact on the response.
Posts: 1290 | From: usa | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:which would make your straw Africanist "race chasers" irrelevant....
This isn't a straw, something used to build up a fake opponents argument, then demolish, acting as if you have defeated your opponent's argument.
It's a statement, and maybe even a thesis in that post.
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?
**************************
Africanist 'race' chasers allow Eurocentrists an escape into stalemate, if the take the race-bait.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:which would make your straw Africanist "race chasers" irrelevant....
This isn't a straw, something used to build up a fake opponents argument, then demolish, acting as if you have defeated your opponent's argument.
It's a statement, and maybe even a thesis in that post.
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?
**************************
Africanist 'race' chasers allow Eurocentrists an escape into stalemate, if the take the race-bait.
^ No. Euros don't need an excuse to keep lying about AE. The Africanist 'race' chasers here are irrelevant.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by akoben08: ^ No. Euros don't need an excuse to keep lying about AE. The Africanist 'race' chasers here are irrelevant.
I see, we're focusing on two different things.
You're focusing on what icentive 'Europeans' need to lie. (false sense of entitlement blowing up in their faces pretty much somes that up)
I'm focusing on the more professional, and scholarly arguements that take place.
I really couldn't care less what the vast sea of lay Euros think.
I've seen so many rediculous arguements that end I end up turning on their heads, it is, truly, rediculous. Which is why I've realized that it is pointless worrying about them.
I was talking about interms of the actual debate of 'who' the Kemau really were.
If you accept their scientifically bankrupt, out-dated, and now in dis-use *racial terms*, the game is over before it begins, and mixocentrism prevails in order to stalemate.
This is not an attack on Africanists, and a defence of Eurocentrism, it SHO AIN'T. Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
The Persian capital of Persepolis falls to the Greek invaders in April 330 B.C, and Darius III, the last Achaemenid king, is murdered in the same year while fleeing the conquerors. Greece annexes the Persian Empire, and establishes the greatest Empire known to man.
With the end of the Achaemenian Empire, southern Mesopotamia and Persia were partitioned by Alexander into the satrapy of Babylonia in the south, while the northern part of Mesopotamia was joined with Syria into another satrapy. One of his generals, Seleucus (later Seleucus I Nicator), received the satrapy of Babylonia to rule. Seleucus thus became the ruler of a large empire, stretching from modern Afghanistan to the Mediterranean Sea. He founded a number of cities, the most important of which were Seleucia on the Tigris, and Antioch on the Orontes River in Syria. The Parthian's
It was during the reign of a later Seleucid king "Antiochus III", that one of the Caucasian tribes, which had earlier migrated in from the northeast - the Parthians - under their king Mithradates I, conquered Seleucid territory in Persia, and entered the city of Seleucia in 141 B.C. He established the kingdom of Parthia.
In 224 A.D, the resurgent Persians, under their king "Ardašir", culminated the war with Parthia: that his father "Papak" had started. He defeated the last Parthian king "Artabanus V" in battle, and two years later, Ardašir took Ctesiphon. This meant the end of Parthia, and it also meant the beginning of the second Persian Empire, one ruled by the Sassanid kings.
Interestingly: The Sassanian Persians may be the first of the Black Empires to be made White. Note the now “White” Sassanian King Khosrau II (left), submitting to Byzantine Emperor Heraclius, from a plaque on a 12th century French cross.
King Khosrau II as he looks on his coin.
The Arab invasion
The Arab Lakhmid had been Sassanian Persian vassals and the Arab Ghassanids were vassals of the Byzantine Empire. They acted as frontier guardians of the two empires against fellow Arabs: While the Meccan and Medinese Arabs had established commercial connections with both the Byzantines and Sassanids.
But Arab tribalism beyond urban fringes was deeply embedded in the desert tribes. After Mecca and Medina had become Muslim, it was essential that the Muslims win the desert Arabs' allegiance in order to secure the routes they depended on for trade and communication. In the process of doing this, wars over water holes, scanty pastures, men-at-arms, and camels were enlarged into international campaigns of expansion.
The vulnerability of Sassanian Persia assisted the expansionist process. In 623 A.D. the Byzantine emperor Heraclius reversed previous Persian successes over the Roman army —namely, by capturing Jerusalem in 614 A.D. and winning at Chalcedon in 617 A.D. The Persian king Khosrow Parviz, died in 628 A.D. and left Persia prey to a succession of puppet rulers who were frequently deposed by a combination of nobles and Zoroastrian clergy. Thus, when Yazdegerd III, Persia's last Sassanid and Zoroastrian sovereign, came to the throne in 632 A.D, the year of Muhammad's death, he inherited an empire weakened by Byzantine wars and internal dissension.
The former Arab vassals on the empire's southwestern border realized that their moment had arrived, and their raids into Sassanian territory were quickly joined by Muhammad's caliphs, or deputies, at Medina—Abu Bakr and 'Umar ibn al-Khattab—making it a Muslim, pan-Arab attack on Persia.
An Arab victory at Al-Qadisiyyah in 636/637 A.D. was followed by the sack of the Sassanian winter capital at Ctesiphon on the Tigris. The Battle of Nahavand in 642 A.D. completed the Sassanids' vanquishment. Yazdegerd fled to the empire's northeastern outpost of Merv, whose Marzban, or March-lord, Mahuyeh, became soured by the imperious and expensive demands of Yazdegerd III. Mahuyeh turned against his emperor and defeated him with the help of Hephthalites from Badghis. The Hephthalites, an independent border power, had troubled the Sassanids since at least 590 A.D, when they had sided with Bahram Chubin, Khosrow Parviz's rebel general. A Miller near Merv murdered the fugitive Yazdegerd III for his purse.
Hephthalites The Hephthalites were a powerful dynasty ruling a Central Asian nomadic confederation of Hua and White Huns whose precise origins and composition remain obscure. They were called Ephthalites by the Greeks, but known as simply Hunas among the Indians. Chinese chronicles considered they were originally a tribe living to the north of the Great Wall known as Hoa or Hoa-tun. Elsewhere they were called White Huns. They had no cities, lived in felt tents, and practiced polyandry. There is no definitive evidence that they were related to the European Huns - this is a term which has been used by outside observers to denote very different nomadic confederations. Furthermore, very little is known of their language.
White Huns were an agricultural people with a developed set of laws. They were first mentioned by the Chinese, who described them as living in Dzungaria around AD 125. They displaced the Scythians and conquered Sogdiana and Khorasan before 425. After that, they crossed the Syr Darya (Jaxartes) River and invaded Persia. In Persia, they were initially held off by Bahram Gur but later around AD 483–85, they succeeded in making Persia a tributary state. After a series of wars in the period around AD 503-513, they were driven out of Persia and were completely defeated in AD 557 by Khosru I though their polity came under the Gokturks thereafter. The White Huns also invaded India and succeeded in extending their domain to include the Ganges valley. They temporarily overthrew the Gupta empire but were eventually driven out of India in 528 by a Hindu coalition.
Gokturks The Göktürkler(s) or Köktürkler(s) were a Turkic people of ancient Central Asia. Known in medieval Chinese sources as Tujue (突厥 Tūjué), the Göktürks under the leadership of Bumin Khan (d. 552) and his sons succeeded the Xiongnu as the main Turkic power in the region and took hold of the lucrative Silk Road trade. The Göktürk rulers originated from the Ashina tribe, an Altaic people who lived in the northern corner of the area presently called Xinjiang. Under their leadership, the Göktürks rapidly expanded to rule huge territories in north-western China, North Asia and Eastern Europe (as far west as the Crimea). They were the first Turkic tribe known to use the name "Turk" as a political name.
The Arabs
Soon After their victory; factionalism was growing among Arabs, partly the result of the jealousies and rivalries that accompanied the acquisition of new territories and partly the result of the competition between first arrivals in Persia and those who followed.
In Persia the first Arab conquerors had concluded treaties with local Persian magnates who had assumed authority when the Sassanian imperial government disintegrated. These notables—the marzbans and landlords (dehqans)—undertook to continue tax collection on behalf of the new Muslim power. The advent of Arab colonizers, who preferred to cultivate the land rather than campaign farther into Asia, produced a further complication. Once the Arabs had settled in Persian lands, they, like the Persian cultivators, were required to pay the kharaj, or land tax, which was collected by Persian notables for the Muslims in a system similar to that, which had predated the conquest. The system was ripe for abuse, and the Persian collectors extorted large sums, arousing the hostility of both Arabs and Persians.
Another source of discontent was the jizyah, or head tax, which was applied to non-Muslims of the tolerated religions—Judaism, Christianity, and Zoroastrianism. After they had converted to Islam, Persians expected to be exempt from this tax. But the Umayyad government, burdened with imperial expenses, often refused to exempt the Persian converts.
The tax demands of the Damascus government were as distasteful to those urbanized Arabs and Persians in commerce as they were to those in agriculture, and hopes of easier conditions under the new rulers than under the Sassanids were not fully realized.
The Umayyads ignored Persian agricultural conditions, which required constant reinvestment to maintain irrigation works and to halt the encroachment of the desert. This no doubt made the tax burden, from which no returns were visible, all the more odious. Furthermore, the regime failed to maintain the peace so necessary to trade. Damascus feared the breaking away of remote provinces where the Arab colonists were becoming assimilated with the local populations. The government, therefore, deliberately encouraged tribal factionalism in order to prevent a united opposition against it.
In 750 A.D. Umayyad power was destroyed, and the revolution gave the caliphate to the 'Abbasids. Hejazi commercial interests had in a sense overcome the military party among leading Muslim Arabs. Greater concern for the east was manifested by the new caliphate's choice of Baghdad as its capital—situated on the Tigris a short distance north of Ctesiphon and designed as a new city, to be free of the factions of the old Umayyad garrison cities of Al-Kufah, Wasit, and Al-Basrah.
Despite the development of a distinctive Islamic culture, the military problems of the empire were left unsolved. The 'Abbasids were under pressure from the infidel on several fronts—Turks in Central Asia, pagans in India and in the Hindu Kush, and Christians in Byzantium. War for the faith, or jihad, against these infidels was a Muslim duty. But, whereas the Umayyads had been expansionists and had seen themselves as heads of a military empire, the 'Abbasids were more pacific and saw themselves as the supporters of more than an Arab, conquering militia. Yet rebellions within the imperial frontiers had to be contained and the frontiers protected.
Rebellion within the Arab empire took the form of peasant revolts in Azerbaijan and Khorasan, coalesced by popular religious appeals centered on men who assumed or were accorded mysterious powers. Abu Muslim — executed in 755 by the second 'Abbasid caliph, al-Mansur, who feared his influence — became one such messianic figure. Another was al-Muqanna' (Arabic: “the Veiled One”), who used Abu Muslim's mystique and whose movement lasted from 777 to 780. The Khorram-dinan (Persian: “Glad Religionists”), under the Azerbaijanian Babak (816–838), also necessitated vigorous military suppression. Babak eluded capture for two decades, defying the caliph in Azerbaijan and western Persia, before being caught and brought to Baghdad to be tortured and executed. These heresiarchs revived such creeds as that of the anti-Sassanid religious leader Mazdak (died 528 or 529), expressive of social and millenarian aspirations that were later canalized into Sufism on the one hand and into Shi'ism on the other.
The Saffarids Over-exploitation of agriculture by Arab governors had debilitated rural life, and Kharijites (puritanical Arabs), who found refuge in Sistan (Persia's southeastern border area) from the Umayyads, organized or attracted bands of local peasants and vagabonds who had strayed south from Khorasan. Kharijite bands isolated the cities and threatened their supplies. Sistan needed an urban champion who could come to terms with the Kharijites and divert them to what could legitimately be termed jihad across the border, forming the gangsters into a well-disciplined loyal army. Such a man was Ya'qub ibn Layth, who founded the Saffarid dynasty, the first purely Persian dynasty of the Islamic era, and threatened the Muslim empire with the first resurgence of Persian independence.
Ya'qub ibn Layth seized Baghdad's breadbaskets—Fars and Khuzestan—and drove the Tahirid emir from Neyshabur. His march on Baghdad itself was halted only by the stratagem devised by the caliph's commander in chief: who inundated Ya'qub's army by bursting dikes. Ya'qub died soon after, in 879. He had made an empire, minted his own coinage, fashioned a new style of army loyal to its leader rather than to any religious or doctrinal concept, and required that verses in his praise be put into his own language—Persian—from Arabic, which he did not understand. He began the Persian resurgence.
The collapse of the Tahirid viceroyalty left Baghdad faced with a power vacuum in Khorasan and southern Persia. The caliph reluctantly confirmed Ya'qub's brother 'Amr as governor of Fars and Khorasan but withdrew his recognition on three occasions, and 'Amr's authority was disclaimed to the Khorasanian pilgrims to Mecca when they passed through Baghdad. But 'Amr remained useful to Baghdad so long as Khorasan was victimized by the rebels Ahmad al-Khujistani and, for longer, Rafi' ibn Harthama. After Rafi' had been finally defeated in 896, 'Amr's broader ambitions gave the caliph al-Mu'tadid his chance. 'Amr conceived designs on Transoxania, but there the Samanids held the caliph's license to rule, after having nominally been Tahirid deputies. When 'Amr demanded and obtained the former Tahirid tutelage over the Samanids in 898, Baghdad could leave the Saffarid and Samanid to fight each other, and the Samanid Isma'il (reigned 892–907) won. 'Amr was sent to Baghdad, where he was put to death in 902. His family survived as Samanid vassals in Sistan and were heard of until the 16th century. Ya'qub remains a popular hero in Persian history.
The Samanids There was nothing of the popular hero in the Samanids' origin. Their eponym was Saman-Khoda, a landlord in the district of Balkh and, according to the dynasty's claims, a descendant of Bahram Chubin, the Sassanian general. Saman became Muslim. His four grandsons were rewarded for services to the caliph al-Ma'mun (reigned 813–833) and received the caliph's investiture for areas that included Samarkand and Herat. They thus gained wealthy Transoxanian and east Khorasanian entry-port cities, where they could profit from trade that reached across Asia, even as far as Scandinavia, and from providing Turkish slaves—much in demand in Baghdad as royal troops—while they protected the frontiers and provided security for merchants in Bukhara, Samarkand, Khujand, and Herat. With one transitory exception, they upheld Sunnism and at each new accession to power paid a tribute to Baghdad for the tokens of investiture from the caliph whereby their rule represented lawful authority.
The Turks Thus, legal transactions in Samanid realms would be valid, and Baghdad received tribute in return for the insignia prayed over and signed by the caliph. This tribute took the place of regular revenue, so that it represented a solution of the taxation problems and consequent resentments that had bedeviled the Umayyad regime. In modern assessments of imperial power, Baghdad may seem to have been politically the weaker for this type of arrangement, but ensuring the reign of Islam in peripheral provinces was important to the caliphs. To insure Islam's portals to East Asia were adequately guarded, the supply of Turkish slaves essential for the caliph's bodyguard was maintained, and Turkish pagan tribes were converted to Islam under the Samanids.
The Ghaznavids (Islamic Dynasty of Turkish slave origin) Rudaki, in a poem about the Samanid emir's court, describes how “row upon row” of Turkish slave guards were part of its adornment. From these guards' ranks two military families arose—the Simjurids and Ghaznavids—who ultimately proved disastrous to the Samanids. The Simjurids received an appendage in the Kuhestan region of southern Khorasan. Alp Tigin founded the Ghaznavid fortunes when he established himself at Ghazna (modern Ghazni, Afghanistan) in 962. He and Abu al-Hasan Simjuri, as Samanid generals, competed with each other for the governorship of Khorasan and control of the Samanid Empire by placing on the throne emirs they could dominate. Abu al-Hasan died in 961, but a court party instigated by men of the scribal class—civilian ministers as contrasted with Turkish generals—rejected Alp Tigin's candidate for the Samanid throne. Mansur I was installed, and Alp Tigin prudently retired to his fief of Ghazna. The Simjurids enjoyed control of Khorasan south of the Oxus but were hard-pressed by a third great Persian dynasty, the Buyids, and were unable to survive the collapse of the Samanids and the rise of the Ghaznavids.
The struggles of the Turkish slave generals for mastery of the throne with the help of shifting allegiance from the court's ministerial leaders both demonstrated and accelerated the Samanid decline. Samanid weakness attracted into Transoxania the Qarluq Turks, who had recently converted to Islam. They occupied Bukhara in 992 to establish in Transoxania the Qarakhanid, or Ilek Khanid, dynasty. Alp Tigin had been succeeded at Ghazna by Sebüktigin (died 997). Sebüktigin's son Mahmud made an agreement with the Qarakhanids whereby the Oxus was recognized as their mutual boundary. Thus the Samanids' dominion was divided and Mahmud was freed to advance westward into Khorasan to meet the Buyids.
The Buyids The homeland of the Buyids was Daylam, in the Gilan uplands in northern Persia. There, at the end of the 9th century, hardy valley dwellers had been stirred into martial activity by a number of factors, among them the rebel Rafi' ibn Harthama's attempt to penetrate the region, ostensibly with Samanid support. 'Amr ibn Layth had pursued the rebel into the region. Other factors had been the formation of Shi'ite principalities in the area and continued Samanid attempts to subjugate them. After the Tahirid collapse, the lack of stability in northern Persia south of the Elburz Mountains attracted many Daylamite mercenaries into the area on military adventures. Among them Makan ibn Kaki served the Samanids with his compatriots, the sons of Buyeh, and their allies the Ziyarids under Mardavij. Mardavij introduced the three Buyid brothers to the Persian plateau, where he established an empire reaching as far south as Esfahan and Hamadan. He was murdered in 935, but his Ziyarid descendants sought Samanid protection. They adhered to Sunnism and maintained themselves in the region southeast of the Caspian Sea.
Mardavij's expansionism south of the Elburz was taken up by his Buyid lieutenants: the eldest brother, 'Ali, consolidated power for himself in Esfahan and Fars and obtained the caliph's recognition; another brother, Hasan, occupied Rayy and Hamadan; and the youngest brother, Ahmad, took Kerman in the southeast and Khuzestan in the southwest. The caliphs al-Muttaqi and al-Mustakfi of the 940s were at the mercy of the Turkish slaves in their palace guard. The generals of the guard competed with each other for the office of amir al-umara' (commander in chief), who virtually ruled Iraq on behalf of the caliphs. When Ahmad gained Khuzestan, he was close to the scene of the amir al-umara' contests, which he chose to settle by himself.
The other Turks Although the Buyids were careful to avoid sectarian strife, family quarrels weakened them sufficiently for Mahmud of Ghazna to gain Rayy in 1029. But Mahmud (reigned 998–1030) went no farther: his dynasty paid great deference to the caliphate's legitimating power, and he made no bid to contest the Buyids' role as its protectors. Mahmud's agreement with the Samanids' Ilek Khanid successors, that the Oxus should be their mutual boundary, held, but south of the river the Ghaznavids had to contend with their own distant relatives, the Oguz Turks. Contrary to the sage counsel of Persian ministers, Mahmud and his successor Mas'ud (reigned 1031–41) permitted these tribesmen to use Khorasanian grazing grounds, which they entered from north of the Oxus. United under descendants of an Oguz leader named Seljuq, between 1038 and 1040 these nomads drove the Ghaznavids out of northeastern Persia. The final encounter was at Dandanqan in 1040.
After their defeat by the Seljuqs, the Ghaznavids, patrons of Islamic culture and letters, were deflected eastward into India, where Mahmud had already conducted successful raids. The raids took the form of jihad (or holy war), and the Ghaznavids carried Islam and Persian Muslim art to the Indian subcontinent. In Persia it was the Seljuqs' turn to create a new imperial synthesis with the 'Abbasid caliphs. Toghril Beg, the Seljuq sultan, entered Baghdad in 1055, and Buyid power was terminated, thus ending what Vladimir Minorsky, the great Persiaologist, called the “Persian intermezzo.”
Turkish Rule
The Seljuqs Toghril I had proclaimed himself sultan at Neyshabur in 1038 and had espoused strict Sunnism, by which he gained the caliph's confidence and undermined the Buyid position in Baghdad. The Oguz Turks had accepted Islam late in the 10th century, and their leaders displayed a convert's zeal in their efforts to restore a Muslim polity along orthodox lines. Their efforts were made all the more urgent by the spread of Fatimid Isma'ili propaganda (Arabic da'wah) in the eastern Caliphate by means of an underground network of propagandists, or da'is, intent on undermining the Buyid regime, and by the threat posed by the Christian Crusaders.
The Buyids' usurpation of the caliph's secular power had given rise to a new theory of state formulated by al-Mawardi (died 1058). Al-Mawardi's treatise partly prepared the theoretical ground for Toghril's attempt to establish an orthodox Muslim state in which conflict between the caliph-imam's spiritual-juridical authority on the one side and the secular power of the sultan on the other could be resolved, or at least regulated, by convention. Al-Mawardi reminded the Muslim world of the necessity of the imamate; but the treatise realistically admitted the existence of, and thus accommodated, the fact of military usurpation of power. The Seljuqs' own political theorist al-Ghazali (died 1111) carried this admission further by explaining that the position of a powerless caliph, overshadowed by a strong Seljuq master, was one in which the latter's presence guaranteed the former's capacity to defend and extend Islam.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
rasol this is not your jurisdiction. And y would i compare the best of creation to scum. focus on your blackness like your precious r. kelly and michael jackson [quote]I'm not muslim, but if i were[/quote who-znujuck cares about what you are and your un-based copy-paste garbage ya zabalee. while you attack in your front-sight you will be discarded on the flanks and decimated by your blind-sight.
-------------------- لا اله الا الله و محمد الرسول الله Posts: 495 | From: anchorage, alaska | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
abdul, I'm late, but I gotta give you props for this one too:
quote:Thats why a horner may call black americans adoon in america mimicking the same people who will call him abeed in saudia arabia, while at the same time that same adoon of america will be treated with the utmost respect in saudia arabia and not deported.
quote:I know of no Africanist historian or lay man that argues for race as a biologically distinct entity.
^ Dr. Winters does, and he cites the dwindling number of white racialist anthropologists as proof of point.
Now if he doesn't believe in biological races, then let him say so, clearly and without mumble-mouthed qualifications and I will happily stand corrected.
quote:Rasolowitz
^ Your rabid anti-semiticism accomplishes nothing other than to render you silly and impotent.
And since I'm not Jewish, it doesn't accomplish the intended goal of baiting or irritating.
It reads as: "You're a desparate bigot, who emotes hate as a substitute for and inability to think".
You see phantom Jews everywhere and behind everything, don't you?
quote:Originally posted by Alive-(What Box): abdul, I'm late, but I gotta give you props for this one too:
quote:Thats why a horner may call black americans adoon in america mimicking the same people who will call him abeed in saudia arabia, while at the same time that same adoon of america will be treated with the utmost respect in saudia arabia and not deported.
^Nice one.
^ I don't see the original post from which this is quoted so, not sure about the context, but I agree and have said before that there is obvious over-compensation going on with some of the Black African - "Wannabe Arabs" - who are quite rightly held in contempt, in the main, by Asiatic Arabs.
And yes, it is true that gulf-states are submissive clients towards America [which is one reason why the Bin-Ladenists hate America.], which means being submissive to Black Americans [mostly soldiers] who move around in Arabia with blithe disregard for Islamic traditions. And actually, it is said that Michael Jackson is some sort of pop icon still among young Arabists who envy Wst culture. Ironically. In most of Africa the guy is just seen as a straight up freak. Less of and African, than and Alien.
Which is why the comparison between him and Mohammad is so weird.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic