quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: How exactly did this magic gene cause them to advance 2000 years later?
You're a fabricating distorter, the gene is evidence that Africans were in southern Europe over 6000 years ago, and so were so called near Easterners.
The present modern Greek population are evidence to this testimony in that they carry 25% African Y chromosome genetics, and 25% near Eastern, which means 50% of modern Greek Y-dna gene pool is directly African, and near eastern.
These lineages are carried at 50% to this day and also found over 6000 years ago in Greece.
No wonder the only places in ancient Europe that advanced are these mentioned areas in southern Europe, that ultimately received genetic influence, and still show this African and near Eastern influence genetically still to this day.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Look-- 12% of the american population is black another 12 or 13 % has black blood somewhere in their family That means that, like the Greeks 25% of americans have a African genetic marker.
It hasn't caused any great civilization here. All they have done here was pick cotton, invent peanut butter and rob 7/11's. They may have done the same for the Greeks.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
Difference is these Africans had invented agriculture, domestication and developed cities etc.. independently before Europeans, southern Europe ultimately received influence from incoming migrants...
...and it's really no wonder the only places in ancient Europe that advanced are these mentioned areas in southern Europe, that ultimately received genetic influence, and still show this African and near Eastern influence genetically still to this day.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Discussing genetics with AmericanPatriot is like trying to speak French or Arabic to the guy; he has no comprehension of it at all.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
It hasn't caused any great civilization here. All they have done here was pick cotton, invent peanut butter...
And even then, their "white" imitators cannot get it right, distributing contaminated peanut butter killing and getting people sick across the country.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: What do classical scholars have to do with the study of mans origins and spread from Africa over 100,000 years ago or the tools and techniques that they took with them? Nothing. Classical scholars do not cover such topics and therefore are irrelevant to such a discussion, which is about genetics and anthropology. But just like you failed history 101 you also fail genetics and anthropology 101, because all humans originate in Africa, therefore it would make sense that all human lineages originate there. It also would make sense that African lineages would be found in Europe as Europe is not a cradle of human beings. They had to come from somewhere else and that somewhere else is Africa and Asia. Again Europe is not a primary source of civilization, culture or humanity. It is nothing but the result of a model of cultural assimilation and domination of those ancient cultures and populations around them that they want to emulate and identify with as their own. The same with Rome and Greece vis a vis the Persians and Babylonians. Modern Europe is where it is because of the accumulated cultural elements from cultures all over the world, not because of Europe itself originating everything. But because of their histrionics they must make everyone else believe that once they adopt something they become the originators when it is not so.
No high school drop out, the subject is civilization. Period. Civilization didn't start with the West or anything Western, but of course that is the point, which is why you and many Europeans resort to focusing on something "Western" about civilization as if it is a starting point, when it isn't.
Again, Europe and "The West" are no cradle of civilization, which means writing, art, math, organized government, cosmology or anything else.
And "classical" scholars are not anthropologists. Studying so called classical history does not make one an expert on civilization because "classical" history is far too RECENT of a time frame 5-700 B.C.
Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
It hasn't caused any great civilization here. All they have done here was pick cotton, invent peanut butter...
And even then, their "white" imitators cannot get it right, distributing contaminated peanut butter killing and getting people sick across the country.
Good one!
Hammer doesn't understand that when Marco Polo returned from China and told people about the wonders he'd seen, Europeans labeled him the greatest liar in history.
Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doug, at least Mindover understood what we were having an argument about. I agree with you that humanity began in Africa. Now go back and reread the thread and at least try to get back on the right subject.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: You are as crazy as a loon mindover. Africa had nothing, actually less than nothing, with the development of European civilization. This is where you people go right over the cliff.
ROTFLOL
The guy says the above right after Mind cited a source showing the introduction of African neolithic culture into Europe, a source which by the way was written by European scholars! And nevermind Egypt and the many other African civilizations that developed later on in the African continent!
Posts: 26383 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ And this is the persona of the creator of YOUR A.I.. How can the apple not fall far from the tree. Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: So again Doug, You are trying to make a historical point from 1000 years ago by showing me a modern photograph? You should be banned from ever holding a history book in your hands.
Either learn how to do this stuff or get a day job, you are not that stupid.
Can you imagine what would happen if you walked into an ancient history seminar and your proof was MODERN PHOTOGRAPHS !!!!!
Actually, the purpose of Doug's photos are to show that there are blacks living north of the Sahara along the Mediterranean basin, but we have provided you with evidence countless times professor that they have always been in that area since prehistoric times! Blacks are native to ALL of Africa and not just south of the Sahara.
quote: Mindover, You leave me no room to make an argument because you gave me no evidence to refute. First you trot out some ancient genetic markers that you cannot tie to a single historical event that has anything to do with Greece or southern Europe. Secondly, if I found some way to give credit of some kind to your data you cannot tie it to a single historical event in European history or the history of any place else. The people you speak of may not even have been black africans by the time you speak of, you cannot even prove that for Christ's sake.
Doug, It is interesting that you call me a light weight. I would never use modern photos to prove a point from 1000 years ago. Who does that make the light weight?
First of all we are not discussing Greece here but Iberia. The Moors were indeed black Africans who invaded Iberia during Medieval times, but what Mind cited was that blacks have been crossing over into Iberia long before that. This evidence is not only genetic but archaeological as well.
quote: That does not make your point. there is a sub saharan marker in some neolithic peoples and you want to try to morph this into the founding of western civilization. Do you have any earthly idea of how looney that sounds? First of all you are thousands of years before the fact. this is all mumbo jumbo. You have no point.
Actually it's not loony at all to say blacks had a role in the development of civilization in Europe if the neolithic founders there have African ancestry.
quote:It is as nutty as Doug's contention that since man began in Africa blacks invented western civilization. Try again.
That was not Doug's contention at all, but he just wanted to point out the fact that all humans ultimately have black African ancestry. It's just that southern Europeans in particular have recent African ancestry from the neolithic.
quote:Mindover, What you are doing is like trying to say that since the Souix Indians were here 800 years ago they founded modern American civilization.
Incorrect. Since all of the sources he cited refers to neolithic Europe and not modern Europe.
Ignoring all the other stuff about Greece...
quote: 1.. The Cow does not prove that. You cannot say how the cow got there, who brought it or how many. This is weak scholarship.
LOL Did you not read the source that the cattle were African in origin and that archaeological remains of the people who owned them show affinities with African cultures in the Sahara??!
quote:2. The marker does not prove Africans were there. It proves people with an african genetic marker were there, not the same thing.
And how do you think these people got their African genes?? What about the archaeology which shows affinities with the Sahara??
quote:3.None of what you say has anything to do with western civilization.
4. classical historians?
We are dealing with Iberia here and NOT Greece, but in the case of the Moors yes, their presence did have an impact on the modern 'Western' civilization such as the lead to the Renaissance etc.
Posts: 26383 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The genetic argument afrocentrics try to sell is invald. In fact, it is not even reasonable. This is the very reason classical scholars give it no credibility. 75% of Greeks had not a single genetic marker from Africa and the ones that di got it 2000 years before. The problem is that people who promote this silly idea do not care if it is valid or not. Their views will continue to be disregarded by scholars in the field.
Djehuti, Mindover and I morphed into a conversation last night on this stupid genetic argument concerning Greece that you guys push. We did not return to Spain before we signed off at 2AM.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ The problem you fail to understand is that the African genetic marker is dated to the neolithic period which is the time that Aegeans including mainland Greeks recieved knowledge in agriculture and animal domestication. That plus anthropological remains cited by folks like Larry Angel make the implications clear that neolithic introuction to Greece was spurred by peoples of African descent.
As far as 2am chats, I have better things to do at that time like sleep.
Getting back to the topic...
Professor, you still cling to your ridiculous view of a non-black North Africa.
Here is a good reply to this.
quote:Originally posted by zarahan:
As for the 2005 "questionable origin of the Neolithic" the resemblance is towards the Africans BEFORE modern Europeans, as you rightly point out. Hence we can begin a recap as follows although it may need to be refined as new info comes in:
As for the Moors themselves, again have you looked up the info I provided??...
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: And this is the persona of the creator of YOUR A.I.. How can the apple not fall far from the tree.
This makes no sense. I am an intelligent man of color, Bush is not.
But you and Bush share one thing in common-- you're both not intelligent at all 'artificial' or what not.
Posts: 26383 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Sorry, I didn't have a Dick Cheney picture available. Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, we do not make stupid arguments that even scholars in that specific field reject.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
As for the 2005 "questionable origin of the Neolithic" the resemblance is towards the Africans BEFORE modern Europeans, as you rightly point out. Hence we can begin a recap as follows although it may need to be refined as new info comes in:
As for the Moors themselves, again have you looked up the info I provided??...
the actual Islamic dysnasties that controlled Spain: Almoravid and AlmohadPosts: 26383 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Djehuti, You are too smart to get sucked into to these crack pot radical black positions. Moor was not an ethnic term. The arab armies swept across north africa and INTO SPAIN. If you want to say that there were some black africans in the force OK. If you want to say it was a balck african event you have lost your mind.
"Until the early twentieth century "Moor" was often used by Western geographers to refer to "mixed" Arab-Berber North Africans, especially of the towns, as distinct from supposedly more pure-blooded Arabs and Berbers; thus the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica defines "Moor" as "the name which, as at present used, is loosely applied to any native of Morocco, but in its stricter sense only to the townsmen of mixed descent. In this sense it is also used of the Mahommedan townsmen in the other Barbary states." But even then, it recognized that "the term Moors has no real ethnological value."
Related Topics: Twentieth century - Geographers - Arab - Berber - Town - 1911 - Encyclopædia Britannica - Morocco - Barbary - State
posted
^ Again, you ignore the fact that Arabs were a minority in North Africa with the native Africans making up the majority of the people including armies! The source you cited was only partially true, the vast majority of the invaders of Spain were North African Berbers, which does NOT change the fact they are still black. Of course 'Moor' is not an accurate ethnic name but is merely a physical description as Moor meant black Muslim! It was only after time passed that the word evolved to mean any North African Muslim regardless of ancestry!
the actual Islamic dysnasties that controlled Spain: Almoravid and Almohad
You also ignore the countless other evidence shown-- not only portraits made by Europeans but also testimonies such as this one below:
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718:
PRINCE AMONG SLAVES
Ab-dul Rahman Ibrahima Ibn Sori (a.k.a. Abdul-Rahman) was a prince from West Africa who was made a slave in the United States. In 1828, by the order of President John Quincy Adams and Secretary of State Henry Clay, he was freed after spending 40 years in slavery.
He was born in Timbo, West Africa, (in present day Guinea, Fouta Djallon). He was known as the "Prince of Slaves" or "Prince." He was a Fulbe or Fulani, (Fula) from the land of Futa Jallon. Abrahim left Futa in 1774 to study in Mali at Timbuktu. Abrahim was leader of one of his father's army divisions. After losing a battle to warring tribes he was captured and sold to slave traders in 1788 at the age of 26. He was bought by a Natchez, Mississippi cotton and tobacco farmer, where he eventually became the overseer of the plantation of Thomas Foster. In 1794 he married Isabella, another slave of Foster’s, and eventually fathered a large family -- 5 sons and 4 daughters.
By using his knowledge of growing cotton in Futa Jallon, Abdul-Rahman rose to a position of authority on the plantation and became the de facto foreman. This granted him the opportunity to grow his own vegetable garden and sell at the local market. During this time, he met an old acquaintance, Dr. John Cox. Dr. Cox was an Irish surgeon who served on an English ship. He was the first white man to reach Timbo after being stranded by his ship and falling ill. Cox stayed ashore for six months and was taken in by Abdul-Rahman's family. Cox appealed to Foster to sell him "Prince" so he could return to Africa. However, Foster would not budge, since Abdul-Rahman had made himself indispensable to the Foster farm. Dr. Cox continued, until his death in 1816, to seek Abdul-Rahman's freedom, to no avail. After Cox died, his son took up the cause.
In 1826, Abdul-Rahman wrote a letter to his relatives in Africa. A local newspaperman, Andrew Marschalk, who was originally from New York, sent a copy to Senator Thomas Reed in Washington, who forwarded it to the U.S. Consulate in Morocco. Since Abdul-Rahman wrote in Arabic, Marschalk and the U.S. government assumed that he was a Moor. After the Sultan of Morocco read the letter, he asked President Adams and Secretary of State Henry Clay to release Abrahim Abdul Rahman. In 1828, Thomas Foster agreed to the release of Abdul-Rahman, without payment, with the stipulation that Abdul-Rahman had to return to Africa and could not enjoy the rights of being a free man in America. Within two days, Abdul-Rahman raised $200 to buy his wife's freedom and assumed he could do the same for his children.
Before he returned home, he and his wife went to various states and Washington, D.C. He solicited donations, through the press, personal appearances, the American Colonization Society and politicians, to free his family back in Mississppi. Word got back to Foster, who considered this a breach of the agreement. Abdul-Rahman's actions and freedom were also used against President John Quincy Adams by future president Andrew Jackson during the presidential election.
After ten months, Abdul-Rahman and Isabella had only raised half the funds to free their children. They made arrangements to leave America. On March 18, 1829, Abdul-Rahman returned to Africa to die. He went to Monrovia, Liberia with his wife. Abdul-Rahman lived for four months before he contracted a fever and died at the age of 67. He never saw Futa Jallon or his children again.
Why would white Americans mistake the black man above for a 'Moor' when there was nothing 'Arab' looking about him?
Posts: 26383 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
So there you go. Moor is a word created within the English language and it is only logical that books on the English language would be a good reference as to its usage and meaning. And seeing as the English have been documenting their language for over a few hundred years, I am sure that it should be straight forward to trace the meaning of the term even farther back in time.
But suffice to say, in 1817, the word Moor was used as a reference to black people and this is documented in texts from that time period. Therefore, the only people you are questioning are your fellow Europeans and their definition of words in the English language and not anyone else. Kind of sounds odd doesn't it?
Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You have to realistic Doug. Until modern times Europeans did not have the detailed understanding of exact racial groups we have today. They were all over the road in their descriptions of darker skinned peoples. Any history student for at least the last 30 years would understand that. You seem to insist on wanting to invent history. Yes, there were clacks in the Muslim invassion of Spain...no, it was not a black africaqn event.
Djehuti, Blacks have never been a majority in North Africa, either in ancient times or today.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
So there you go. Moor is a word created within the English language and it is only logical that books on the English language would be a good reference as to its usage and meaning. And seeing as the English have been documenting their language for over a few hundred years, I am sure that it should be straight forward to trace the meaning of the term even farther back in time.
But suffice to say, in 1817, the word Moor was used as a reference to black people and this is documented in texts from that time period. Therefore, the only people you are questioning are your fellow Europeans and their definition of words in the English language and not anyone else. Kind of sounds odd doesn't it?
Correct. As I edited in my reply above, Moor originally mean black, but later devolved to mean any Muslim in general. That still does not change the original meaning and etymology of the word which is itself derived from the Greek Maure meaning BLACK.
But yes, I at least commend AP for actually citing a source, something he so very rarely does!
Posts: 26383 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Djehuti, You are too smart to get sucked into to these crack pot radical black positions.
Translation: You are programmed to think like me. What's matter wit yo programming! Issue product recall.
Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: You have to realistic Doug. Until modern times Europeans did not have the detailed understanding of exact racial groups we have today. They were all over the road in their descriptions of darker skinned peoples. Any history student for at least the last 30 years would understand that. You seem to insist on wanting to invent history. Yes, there were clacks in the Muslim invassion of Spain...no, it was not a black africaqn event.
Incorrect. The meaning and etymology of the word 'Moor' and its Greek root Maure is quite clear! It means 'black' pure and simple and not some vague term for 'dark skin' in general! This is why even Europeans of the time distinguished the Moors from 'Saracens' who were lighter-skinned Muslims such as Arabs from Syria etc.
quote:Djehuti, Blacks have never been a majority in North Africa, either in ancient times or today.
And why not?? What excuse do you have to deny that blacks were the indigenous population of North Africa just as they were south of the Sahara??
Need I remind you of the countless examples we've shown you with regards to Egyptians alone?!
From Zarahan:
Keita: "The Sahara does not delimit Africanity..."
Sforza: "Blacks were the original inhabitants of the Sahara (North Africa).."
Tell me if blacks were never a majority in North Africa then who was? Your 'cacasians'?? Where did these so-called cacasians come from, or are you saying they are indigenous to the African continent??
Do you see how silly your argument sounds? It's no different at all from saying whites are and never were a majority in southern Europe! Posts: 26383 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What you show me is a bunch of crap. Why to you goofballs keep trying to go back to the dawn of humanity to make a point. You presentation is incoherent and unorganized. I do not give a damn who lived in Africa or Europe or on Mars 100,000 years ago. It has no application to our conversation. If you want to accept these looney ideas knock yourself out. You cannot have a conversation with someone who is willing to just make things up.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Exactly why I don't bother. African Americans have been trying to educate you for 400 years. If it hasn't taken by now, it never will. Time to move on. But let's observe how adoptive the Robot's sw is.
Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: What you show me is a bunch of crap. Why to you goofballs keep trying to go back to the dawn of humanity to make a point. You presentation is incoherent and unorganized. I do not give a damn who lived in Africa or Europe or on Mars 100,000 years ago. It has no application to our conversation.
And what you express above is a bunch of noisy incoherent ranting!! What does the "dawn of humanity" have to do with anything??! I am referring to *all* of African history including ancient and historical times YOU speak of! Blacks are native to ALL of Africa including North of the Sahara. This is proven via archaeology, anthropology, genetics, and even historical documentation by even Europeans themselves!!
quote:If you want to accept these looney ideas knock yourself out. You cannot have a conversation with someone who is willing to just make things up.
LOL These are not ideas, let alone "looney" ones that I presented but pure and unadulterated FACTS, simple as that! Nothing "made up", just established historical, and scientific FACTS. It's obvious these facts disturb you deeply and make you ashamed to come up with a sensless retort as you did. Posts: 26383 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: What you show me is a bunch of crap. Why to you goofballs keep trying to go back to the dawn of humanity to make a point. You presentation is incoherent and unorganized. I do not give a damn who lived in Africa or Europe or on Mars 100,000 years ago. It has no application to our conversation. If you want to accept these looney ideas knock yourself out. You cannot have a conversation with someone who is willing to just make things up.
As usual more whining and complaining because you cannot refute facts. I post an actual historical text of the English language and because you cannot challenge it, you throw a tantrum. But that is simply a reflection of your childish attitudes and inability to accept truth.
The facts are that Europeans and everyone else ultimately descends from Africans and that Europe has been receiving waves of migration from the very beginning of the human presence in Europe to the present day. And one example of the significance of this is the Moorish period in Europe, which represented the profound influence of African, Levantine and Asian cultures and civilizations on Europe.
Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Doug, maybe you should leave out the part of humanity originating in Africa. It seems to confuse the poor professor and leaves him to build silly red-herring arguments about "dawn of mankind". We are not discussing the dawn of mankind or human evolution here. We are discussing the simple and basic historical fact that the Moors were black.
One does not need to go far back in human evolution to show this. It is a well established fact of World History in general and as much as African and even European history.
Everything we've thrown at the professor does not come from any "afrocentric" sources but from EUROPEAN scholarly ones, and the guy still calls it 'crap'?! LOL It's obvious the professor is nutty. Posts: 26383 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Mary, your outstanding obligations will haunt you forever. Address them and free yourself from your contradictions of appearing to be against Eurocentrism while simultaneously adhering to its tenets.
quote:Originally posted by akoben: Mary, your outstanding obligations will haunt you forever. Address them and free yourself from your contradictions of appearing to be against Eurocentrism while simultaneously adhering to its tenets.
LOL My name is not 'Mary' and neither do I have any obligations let alone any to YOU. You keep linking to the 'Stolen Legacy' thread, when it's obvious you lost your point long time ago as was brought up by the author of that thread as well as by me.
Perhaps you can continue your obsessed obligation to prove otherpoints lost.
Oh and again, "Mary", "Jesus" or any Jew can't help you and neither can any of your boyfriends like Argyle. Posts: 26383 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Then the *historic* southern Europeans who were living the times in question, must have lost their mind; after all, they did push these forward:
...acknowledging "Moorish" Iberia as a "black African event".
Correct, and not only Iberia mind you but also the French Island of Corsica and Sicily have also encountered the Moors and created depictions of them as the black people they were. Perhaps, professor, you can tell all these people and other Europeans that they were wrong and some how suffering from somekind of mass delusion! LOLPosts: 26383 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your theory that Greek classical philosophy was "home grown" and not a stolen legacy has not been proven as well as your reasons for dismissing Professor James book as "silly". Come on Mary, face your challenges like a brave little girl.
posted
^ I'm not a female (nor do I wish to be one unlike YOU) and I don't have any challenges either. Again, you choose to ignore the fact that I specified time and again that by "homegrown" I meant Classical texts. The foreign texts borrowed by the Greeks date to pre-Classical times, which is no secret and is NOT really "stolen" by the Greeks as explained in the very thread you linked to, idiot! The phrase "stolen" only arose later on as a description of later 'Western' European false acrediting.
So go ahead and repeat your lies as often as you want. Nobody here is buying them, and everyone knows that you are a phony africanist fraud, who is really a pathetic white loser from the UK. As proof by your desperate denial of African admixturein Europeans which in turn stems from actual phobia of Africans which is not quite as grotesque as your phobia of jews.
Now, could you please get off my dick and stop trying to stalk me from thread to thread like the derranged attention-seeking shemale that you are?? Posts: 26383 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Djehuti knows, as do we all that North Africa was populated by Phoenicans early on.
"The Phoenicians and Carthage The Phoenicians came from the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea in land we now call Lebanon. Their land was arid and inhospitable for farming, so they turned to the sea to become the greatest travelers and traders of their time. The Phoenicians invented the alphabet, and taught several cultures their advanced system of writing.
The Phoenicians extended their influence across North Africa and settled Carthage in the modern nation of Tunisia, as a trading post. The word Carthage means "new city". The Phoenicians chose Carthage because of its location in the center of North Africa, a short distance away from Sicily and the Italian Peninsula. When the Assyrians and the Persians conquered the original homeland of the Phoenicians, Carthage became an independent state.
It was against a rival city in Italy, Rome, that Carthage fought and lost three brutal wars that eventually destroyed the city. The wars were known as the Punic Wars because Puncia was the Roman name for Carthage. The Roman navy surprised the sea trading people in the first war in 238BC. The Carthaginians acquired a new base in Spain from which a great military leader named Hannibal led a team of elephants across southern France and into Italy. Hannibal won some early victories but his forces were outnumbered, allowing Rome to win an even more brutal war lasting almost fifteen years until 204BC.
Carthage lost all political and military power by the end of the second Punic War, but the Romans moved a half-century later to destroy the city. After a siege in 146BC, the Romans went from house to house slaughtering the Carthaginians. The few survivors were sold into slavery, the city and harbor were destroyed, and the Romans poured salt over the farmland to ensure its barrenness."
There was almost no black african influence on north africa in the historical period.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Nice try professor, but I and everyone else with smarts in this board know that the Phoenicians colonized North Africa yes, but how does this negate the fact that there black natives there. In fact all sources from the Greeks and Romans to the Phoenicians themselves state there were indigenous people already in the area that later became Carthage under Phoenician rule.
I suggest you look up peoples like the Numidians. There is even a Roman mural depicting the indigenes of Tunisia as the blacks that they were. Takruri posted it several times, but I can't find it.
Posts: 26383 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nice try Mary, by "home grown" you meant "Greek" classical philosophy which was what the author of the thread clearly objected to and asked you (without calling your name) to respond to. All you did was dodge the request. As for the accusations of a stolen legacy, James clearly states in his book that it was Aristotle's wish to appropriate the wisdom of Egypt and this was carried out by his school hence the stolen legacy was started by the Greeks. Is this way you dismissed his book as "silly" Mary? Like I said, face your demons and stop pretending you are something that you're not.
posted
Just standard history Djehuti. That you would argue those points is astonishing.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by assopen: Nice try Mary, by "home grown" you meant "Greek" classical philosophy which was what the author of the thread clearly objected to and asked you (without calling your name) to respond to. All you did was dodge the request. As for the accusations of a stolen legacy, James clearly states in his book that it was Aristotle's wish to appropriate the wisdom of Egypt and this was carried out by his school hence the stolen legacy was started by the Greeks. Is this way you dismissed his book as "silly" Mary? Like I said, face your demons and stop pretending you are something that you're not.
I didn't dodge anything you degenerat nitwit. Everything was clarified in my last response as it was a dozen times to you before.
And you are also the last person to be accusing others of "pretending" you fraud africanist loser.
If you are too stupid or too crazy to realize that, too bad. Get off my nuts, you batty boy-george!
Posts: 26383 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Just standard history Djehuti. That you would argue those points is astonishing.
Where did I argue against it?! I merely pointed out the FACT that you or your souce that you failed to properly cite did not mention anything of the indigenous black populations that already lived in the area the Phoenicians colonized. Posts: 26383 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, it is not fact. If you took that data into an ancient history seminar they would laugh you out of the place. You guys have some bizarre and unconventional views. Obviously you have a right to think whatever you wish, just as do people who believe in UFO's.
When you get that wierd it is difficult to have a conversation.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
When are you going to stop whining and actually cite some evidence? There is abundant scholarship and evidence both of black Africans in present North Africa, but also in antiquity. If you were a real scholar you would know that. And if anyone should be laughed at it is you for trying to pretend to be a scholar and familiar with scholarship on the subject. You are a phony as can be seen in the fact that you never ever post any scholarship or substantial evidence and rely on irrelevant innuendo to "prove" your claims, which is nothing compared to the tons of evidence cited here and elsewhere. So stop whining and actually go study some history for a change. Europe is not the cradle or origin of civilization it is not the home of or basis of history and Europeans are not the official historians of the planet. Who cares what "Western" Europeans think? They only came along 700 years ago and found out that there was a planet with people on it and want to pretend that history starts with them finally coming out of the hole they had been in. But every since they were taught how to navigate and sail by the Moors and Muslims they have been trying to twist history to into a make believe fantasy of European origins which has no basis in fact. Europe is not an island of humanity and intellect floating off on its own in time and space. It is nothing but the direct result of thousands of years of human development which took place in Africa and Asia before there was a European to speak of. Therefore, for them to continue to portray themselves as cavemen and the first humans is not only hilarious but stupid. And all of this nonsense that they have come up with called "history" is based on this absurd world view.
Soap does not come from Europe. Poetry does not come from Europe. Architecture does not come from Europe. Writing does not come from Europe. Paper does not come from Europe. Religious ceremonies does not come from Europe. Organized government does not come from Europe. Warfare does not come from Europe. Steel working does not come from Europe. Cosmetics does not come from Europe. Boat making does not come from Europe. Textile making does not come from Europe. Pottery making does not come from Europe. Jewelry does not come from Europe. Painting does not come from Europe. Math does not come from Europe. Farming does not come from Europe.
These things and a great many more were introduced to Europe either by the first settlers of Europe from Africa, the Levant and Asia or a as a result of subsequent contacts over time. The Moorish period in Spain is but one example of this.
quote: It is widely accepted that modern humans originated in sub-Saharan Africa ≈150–200 thousand years ago (ka), but their route of dispersal across the currently hyperarid Sahara remains controversial. Given that the first modern humans north of the Sahara are found in the Levant ≈120–90 ka, northward dispersal likely occurred during a humid episode in the Sahara within Marine Isotope Stage (MIS) 5e (130–117 ka). The obvious dispersal route, the Nile, may be ruled out by notable differences between archaeological finds in the Nile Valley and the Levant at the critical time. Further west, space-born radar images reveal networks of—now buried—fossil river channels that extend across the desert to the Mediterranean coast, which represent alternative dispersal corridors. These corridors would explain scattered findings at desert oases of Middle Stone Age Aterian lithic industries with bifacial and tanged points that can be linked with industries further to the east and as far north as the Mediterranean coast. Here we present geochemical data that demonstrate that water in these fossil systems derived from the south during wet episodes in general, and penetrated all of the way to the Mediterranean during MIS 5e in particular. This proves the existence of an uninterrupted freshwater corridor across a currently hyperarid region of the Sahara at a key time for early modern human migrations to the north and out of Africa.
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: No, it is not fact. If you took that data into an ancient history seminar they would laugh you out of the place. You guys have some bizarre and unconventional views. Obviously you have a right to think whatever you wish, just as do people who believe in UFO's.
When you get that wierd it is difficult to have a conversation.
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: No, it is not fact. If you took that data into an ancient history seminar they would laugh you out of the place. You guys have some bizarre and unconventional views. Obviously you have a right to think whatever you wish, just as do people who believe in UFO's.
When you get that wierd it is difficult to have a conversation.
Exactly what is not fact?? That Phoenicians were foreign colonists who were not natives of North Africa, or the fact that the populations who were natives were blacks??!
Exactly what is so funny or bizarre about any of the data we presented which is based on both historical records and archaeology as well as scientific from bio-anthropology??!
Seriously professor, do you not have a clue how deranged you sound right about now??
You keep insisting that blacks are not native to North Africa or were somehow not a majority there without offering anything to validate such a view. Instead you bring up 'Arabs' as the main people who invaded Iberia even though they were a colonist minority and were NOT the Moors whom Europeans spoke of. You go further back and bring up Phoenicians who were also colonists of North Africa. Both Arabs and Phoenicians were foreign colonists from the 'Near-East' and were not the predominant native populations of North Africa! You failed to make your absurd point.
In the meantime here are a few Roman mosaics of indigenous people from Carthage for you to ponder over:
Posts: 26383 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Libyans were in North Africa for centuries before the Phoenicans. Namphamo was a semite, Clearly their were no black African civilizations in north Africa during the historical period. I suppose if you want do as Doug likes to do and go back 100,000 years you might find one. Here is the bottom line guys. The idea of a black african seeded Europe during the historical period is never going to be accepted as fact. You can believe this stuff if you wish, worship door knobs or anything else you wish but it is not going to happen.
Doug, why do you continue to post modern pictures in the middle of a conversation about ancient times?
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic