quote:Originally posted by awlaadberry: Fulani is a tribe and
In what way are the Fulani a tribe? See, you yourself see a unifying feature in Africa without noticing by appealing to the superficial Eurocentric notion that ethic groups, clans, and nations consisting of over 1 million people can collectively be referred to as "tribes" in Africa. If we were discussing an equally large group from Europe, you wouldn't be referring to them a just some "tribe"..
What are you talking about? Of course the Fulani are a tribe. What do YOU think they are? The Hausa are also a tribe and they number much more than the Fulani. What do YOU call them?
There are over 27 Million Fulani spread across at least 20 African countries. Please provide your definition of what a "tribe" is and why say, the Dutch, who stand at 17,000 million and are geographically condensed as a group, are not considered a "tribe". Oh, I forgot, only African populations, no matter the size and organization of the group, can be considered 'tribes' without due regard to comparative nomenclature. Yes, to you all Africans are indeed the same, but you don't see it.
In this circumstance I can see where Alwaadberry is coming from. The Irish stand at about 36 Million alone in America, yet I can see if people were to advocate the Irish as a tribe. They have their own culture, language, accent, and identity that is usually different(and sometimes at conflict) with the Anglo Saxon/British.
What I think Alwaadberry is saying is the Fulani have a common Culture that is different than other Africans.
Yea, do not see his point at all and unfortunately your attempt at clarification did not bring that home. Say what you just did, then replace "Irish" with "Fula". You can see the internal logic of regarding the Irish as a "tribe of people", but they are not regarded as such yet Fulani are here, instead of simply being regarded as an ethnic population. This is not sinking in for me. No one has defined "tribe" outside of the connotation of the crude disorganized, small band of primitives.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by awlaadberry: Fulani is a tribe and
In what way are the Fulani a tribe? See, you yourself see a unifying feature in Africa without noticing by appealing to the superficial Eurocentric notion that ethic groups, clans, and nations consisting of over 1 million people can collectively be referred to as "tribes" in Africa. If we were discussing an equally large group from Europe, you wouldn't be referring to them a just some "tribe"..
What are you talking about? Of course the Fulani are a tribe. What do YOU think they are? The Hausa are also a tribe and they number much more than the Fulani. What do YOU call them?
There are over 27 Million Fulani spread across at least 20 African countries. Please provide your definition of what a "tribe" is and why say, the Dutch, who stand at 17,000 million and are geographically condensed as a group, are not considered a "tribe". Oh, I forgot, only African populations, no matter the size and organization of the group, can be considered 'tribes' without due regard to comparative nomenclature. Yes, to you all Africans are indeed the same, but you don't see it.
A tribe is a group of families and clans with a common ancestry. If you don't like the term "tribe", use another term.
I DO use another term for the Fulani, especially since that definition does them no justice. LMAO @ 27 million people being equivalent to "a group of families"..
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by awlaadberry: Fulani is a tribe and
In what way are the Fulani a tribe? See, you yourself see a unifying feature in Africa without noticing by appealing to the superficial Eurocentric notion that ethic groups, clans, and nations consisting of over 1 million people can collectively be referred to as "tribes" in Africa. If we were discussing an equally large group from Europe, you wouldn't be referring to them a just some "tribe"..
What are you talking about? Of course the Fulani are a tribe. What do YOU think they are? The Hausa are also a tribe and they number much more than the Fulani. What do YOU call them?
There are over 27 Million Fulani spread across at least 20 African countries. Please provide your definition of what a "tribe" is and why say, the Dutch, who stand at 17,000 million and are geographically condensed as a group, are not considered a "tribe". Oh, I forgot, only African populations, no matter the size and organization of the group, can be considered 'tribes' without due regard to comparative nomenclature. Yes, to you all Africans are indeed the same, but you don't see it.
In this circumstance I can see where Alwaadberry is coming from. The Irish stand at about 36 Million alone in America, yet I can see if people were to advocate the Irish as a tribe. They have their own culture, language, accent, and identity that is usually different(and sometimes at conflict) with the Anglo Saxon/British.
What I think Alwaadberry is saying is the Fulani have a common Culture that is different than other Africans.
Yea, do not see his point at all and unfortunately your attempt at clarification did not bring that home. Say what you just did, then replace "Irish" with "Fula". You can see the internal logic of regarding the Irish as a "tribe of people", but they are not regarded as such yet Fulani are here, instead of simply being regarded as an ethnic population. This is not sinking in for me. No one has defined "tribe" outside of the connotation of the crude disorganized, small band of primitives.
You have the wrong idea about the meaning of the word tribe. What's the difference - in your opinion - between a tribe and an ethnic population? An ethnic population can consist of many different tribes. That's if I understand you correctly when you say ethnic population.
Posts: 895 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by awlaadberry: Fulani is a tribe and
In what way are the Fulani a tribe? See, you yourself see a unifying feature in Africa without noticing by appealing to the superficial Eurocentric notion that ethic groups, clans, and nations consisting of over 1 million people can collectively be referred to as "tribes" in Africa. If we were discussing an equally large group from Europe, you wouldn't be referring to them a just some "tribe"..
What are you talking about? Of course the Fulani are a tribe. What do YOU think they are? The Hausa are also a tribe and they number much more than the Fulani. What do YOU call them?
There are over 27 Million Fulani spread across at least 20 African countries. Please provide your definition of what a "tribe" is and why say, the Dutch, who stand at 17,000 million and are geographically condensed as a group, are not considered a "tribe". Oh, I forgot, only African populations, no matter the size and organization of the group, can be considered 'tribes' without due regard to comparative nomenclature. Yes, to you all Africans are indeed the same, but you don't see it.
In this circumstance I can see where Alwaadberry is coming from. The Irish stand at about 36 Million alone in America, yet I can see if people were to advocate the Irish as a tribe. They have their own culture, language, accent, and identity that is usually different(and sometimes at conflict) with the Anglo Saxon/British.
What I think Alwaadberry is saying is the Fulani have a common Culture that is different than other Africans.
Yea, do not see his point at all and unfortunately your attempt at clarification did not bring that home. Say what you just did, then replace "Irish" with "Fula". You can see the internal logic of regarding the Irish as a "tribe of people", but they are not regarded as such yet Fulani are here, instead of simply being regarded as an ethnic population. This is not sinking in for me. No one has defined "tribe" outside of the connotation of the crude disorganized, small band of primitives.
posted
^One is a population, connected through common identity but with regional variation in culture, differences in group membership and collective memories/oral tradition, etc. that won't allow them to be homogenized into one small, clan oriented 'tribe'.
A "tribe" is like you said, a relatively smaller group of families and clans who not only share common ancestry, but have shared interests in that one segment effects the other. Tribes have shared destiny. Fulani in one area, or even the focal point could disappear, but there would still be a Fulani diaspora and thus, Fula identity. What "tribe" has a diasporic population?
We were just discussing this in class. My problem is not with the term "tribe", but with the fact that BECAUSE of what it connotes, it is always associated with Africa, even in the presence of any double standards.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anyways, to your question. Trying to describe people in terms of their landmass is common. No one ever asks how are "Native Americans" really Native Americans if no one ever referred to these two continents collectively as "America". Actually, these are people geographically spread across two different continents, yet they are treated collectively as the same people. This is because it can be demonstrated that these people share a common origin outside of America and later their commonality grew from the common origin and shared landmass.
Same can apply to Africa, no? Common origins (as all humans), except they share the same landmass as well? Native Africans. Why the double standard?
-------------------- mr.writer.asa@gmail.com Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: Anyways, to your question. Trying to describe people in terms of their landmass is common. No one ever asks how are "Native Americans" really Native Americans if no one ever referred to these two continents collectively as "America". Actually, these are people geographically spread across two different continents, yet they are treated collectively as the same people. This is because it can be demonstrated that these people share a common origin outside of America and later their commonality grew from the common origin and shared landmass.
Same can apply to Africa, no? Common origins (as all humans), except they share the same landmass as well? Native Africans. Why the double standard?
The term "Native American" doesn't mean much either. It just means the people who were in America before Columbus arrived and there were sundry tribes and peoples there.
Posts: 895 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Having molded nations, states, and empires, and expanding from Senegal to Saudi in the last few centuries, all the while incorporating folk not descended from Bajjemonga 'inniraawo, losing fluency or even the ability to speak any lect of Pulaar/Fulfulde nor subscribing to pulaaku, the Fulani are no more a tribal people than are any similar characterised populations be they Saudis or the former Celtic tribesmen now called Irish.
At this stage in time the Fulbe are a far flung (multi) ethnic group that in many, but not all, instances can be further split into tribes, clans, families, and clients.
This is not a point of discussion. All are free to accept or reject that fact, no longer to remain ignorant of it. [SIDEBAR: A relative example would be the biblical Israelites. As a people they were `Am Yisra'el composed of twelve tribes. One tribe was Lewi. Lewi had four clans; Gershom, Q*hat, and M*rari. Each Levite clan in turn had numerous families, i.e., Q*hati clan families were `Amiynadab, Qorahh, and Assiyr. Canaanite clients (netaniym) were attached to the several Levite clans.]
quote:Originally posted by awlaadberry: Fulani is a tribe and Mali and Axsum are dynasties. That's not what I am talking about. When you say "African" you don't mean a tribe and you don't mean a dynasty. Chinese and Indian are not tribes or dynasties. They are races. Historically speaking, there is no race called "African".
You are wrong. People called Indian belong to different groups just like Africans: Aryan, Munda and etc. The same thing with the Chinese.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: Awlaadberry Again, you compared Indians to "Africans". Indian is a race, but "African" isn't, so what do you mean here by "African"?
Who said Indians are a Race!! certainly not I, Indians are people living on a sub-continent called India,Africans are people living on a landmass called Africa who has deep cultural roots tied to that land mass.
Dravidians and Hans are both Asian they even overlapped culturally. Indian And Chinese Buddhist sculptures respectively
Just to point out, but the the overlap you point out is due to Buddhist influence from India.
Posts: 26337 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by awlaadberry: Fulani is a tribe and Mali and Axsum are dynasties. That's not what I am talking about. When you say "African" you don't mean a tribe and you don't mean a dynasty. Chinese and Indian are not tribes or dynasties. They are races. Historically speaking, there is no race called "African".
You are wrong. People called Indian belong to different groups just like Africans: Aryan, Munda and etc. The same thing with the Chinese.
I never said that Indians don't belong to different groups (tribes). They do, and all of the tribes/groups belong to the Indian race. And Aryans don't belong to the Indian race. They later invaded India. In history, there is no race called "African".
Posts: 895 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: [QB] Having molded nations, states, and empires, and expanding from Senegal to Saudi in the last few centuries, all the while incorporating folk not descended from Bajjemonga 'inniraawo, losing fluency or even the ability to speak any lect of Pulaar/Fulfulde nor subscribing to pulaaku, the Fulani are no more a tribal people than are any similar characterised populations be they Saudis or the former Celtic tribesmen now called Irish.
At this stage in time the Fulbe are a far flung (multi) ethnic group that in many, but not all, instances can be further split into tribes, clans, families, and clients.
This is not a point of discussion. All are free to accept or reject that fact, no longer to remain ignorant of it.
When I say Fulani, I mean anyone descended from Da`atu, Naasa, Waya, and Wa`araba the children of Uqba and Bajimanga. That's the Fulani tribe.
Posts: 895 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: Awlaadberry Again, you compared Indians to "Africans". Indian is a race, but "African" isn't, so what do you mean here by "African"?
Who said Indians are a Race!! certainly not I, Indians are people living on a sub-continent called India,Africans are people living on a landmass called Africa who has deep cultural roots tied to that land mass.
Dravidians and Hans are both Asian they even overlapped culturally. Indian And Chinese Buddhist sculptures respectively I believe there was give and take but if the Sahara and other cultural incubators was before the rise of Kmt proper it will be difficult to figure out much influence Kmt has on it's neighbors take for instance the hangool from Somalia and the Ws scepter from Kmt who gave what to whom or did they originate in the same location and fan out from there. [B]Below, we have an early and a rather simple rendition dating back to ca. 3500 BC, found in the Hierakonpolis tomb 100, sporting several individuals holding what appear to be Was scepter [B]The following is a "North Saharan" — from "Kargur Talh" in particular — rendition dating to ca. 6ky to 7ky BP; it notably sports a male figure holding what appears to be a staff, reminiscent of the Was scepter.. Southern African headrest and Kemetian headrest http://egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=hist&action=display&thread=254&page=3 [B]Reposted from here^ this is showing African cultural connectiveness across linguistic and geographical lines within Africa
Are these images supposed to prove something?
Indians are not Chinese, And those common customs like the headrest and staffs can easily be explained through trade route channels or cultural influence. Other Africans could have simply derived some customs from Egyptians or vice versa without there being any racial links. The Egyptians wore Nubian / Black wigs for example because of their interest in Nubian / Black hair styles yet studies have proven that their real hair was Caucasian. Again, simply because they were both African doesn't mean they are both of the same race.
Posts: 175 | From: Who knows? | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Spiralman Are these images supposed to prove something? Indians are not Chinese, And those common customs like the headrest and staffs can easily be explained through trade route channels or cultural influence. Other Africans could have simply derived some customs from Egyptians or vice versa without there being any racial links. The Egyptians wore Nubian / Black wigs for example because of their interest in Nubian / Black hair styles yet studies have proven that their real hair was Caucasian. Again, simply because they were both African doesn't mean they are both of the same race.
Yes they are supposed to prove cultural links that may have It's origins in the Sahara and beyond people on that continent interacting with each other millennia before a Kemet or Kush a crooked staff known as the was scepter is more than just a crooked piece of stick culturally to those ancient Africans and some modern ones.
One more thing I do not subscribe to a non existent entity called "race" unless one is speaking of the entire modern human family..and before you say it this is not some kumbahyaa lets all hold hands feel good concept but a scientific reality.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: Spiralman Are these images supposed to prove something? Indians are not Chinese, And those common customs like the headrest and staffs can easily be explained through trade route channels or cultural influence. Other Africans could have simply derived some customs from Egyptians or vice versa without there being any racial links. The Egyptians wore Nubian / Black wigs for example because of their interest in Nubian / Black hair styles yet studies have proven that their real hair was Caucasian. Again, simply because they were both African doesn't mean they are both of the same race.
Yes they are supposed to prove cultural links that may have It's origins in the Sahara and beyond people on that continent interacting with each other millennia before a Kemet or Kush a crooked staff known as the was scepter is more than just a crooked piece of stick culturally to those ancient Africans and some modern ones.
One more thing I do not subscribe to a non existent entity called "race" unless one is speaking of the entire modern human family..and before you say it this is not some kumbahyaa lets all hold hands feel good concept but a scientific reality.
What do you mean when you say that races don't exist?
Posts: 895 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Awlaaldberry What do you mean when you say that races don't exist? Discrete biological entities called race does not exist not in science anyways,however,socially races do exist and so does racism.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: zarahan says Africans are defined by having tropically adapted limbs.
Tropically adapted limbs are arms and legs which are longer in proportion to the body.
Lioness,
The topic here is what is an "African".
I'm telling you, according to zarahan an African is a person with tropically adapted limbs. Nobody other people in the world has tropically adapted limbs This is the new definition
Posts: 42977 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
What is the ancient or historic name for what you all are calling "Arica"? And why do so many people use the term "Africa" and "African" when talking about history. This is VERY misleading.
It is no more misleading than the terms used to describe other continents.
I will agree with you on one point though, that the continent is almost always treated as a gigantic country by 'westerners' and other outsiders, in what is essentially a double standard approach in looking at the world. For instance, you hear Europeans saying that they are going to Paris, London, Frankfurt, Rome, etc. But when it comes to Africa, all you hear is, "so and so is going to Africa". Rarely is the exact name of the destination point mentioned.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
What is the ancient or historic name for what you all are calling "Arica"? And why do so many people use the term "Africa" and "African" when talking about history. This is VERY misleading.
It is no more misleading than the terms used to describe other continents.
I will agree with you on one point though, that the continent is almost always treated as a gigantic country by 'westerners' and other outsiders, in what is essentially a double standard approach in looking at the world. For instance, you hear Europeans saying that they are going to Paris, London, Frankfurt, Rome, etc. But when it comes to Africa, all you hear is, "so and so is going to Africa". Rarely is the exact name of the destination point mentioned.
Because Romans are considered Romans, Greeks are considered Greeks, Franks are considered Franks, Basques are considered Basques, Celts are considered Celts. But you seem to speak of "Africans" as one people and one culture and one origin. You seem to speak of "Africans" as a race - not simply a geographic location.
Posts: 895 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
So what do you mean by expressions like: "It's an African thing; you wouldn't understand."
Simple: Being an African -- meaning, being born and bred on the continent, I understand the cultural issue under discussion; whereas, you as an outsider, wouldn't, which is why describing these matters catch you off-guard.
If you are trying to read "race" into this, it will be a mighty tricky one to establish. Furthermore, should discussions from other threads be best kept in their rightful threads, instead of being all over the place. Being the initiator of this thread, I'd think you would understand this.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
So what do you mean by expressions like: "It's an African thing; you wouldn't understand."
Simple: Being an African -- meaning, being born and bred on the continent, I understand the cultural issue under discussion; whereas, you as an outsider, wouldn't, which is why describing these matters catch you off-guard.
If you are trying to read "race" into this, it will be a mighty tricky one to establish. Furthermore, should discussions from other threads be best kept in their rightful threads, instead of being all over the place. Being the initiator of this thread, I'd think you would understand this.
So there is one culture in what you call "Africa", right? "The African culture". Is that what you mean by your understanding "the cultural issue"? You know "the African culture", right? So you are saying that there is "an African culture". I thought "Africa" was just a landmass.
Posts: 895 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by awlaadberry: So there is one culture in what you call "Africa", right? "The African culture". Is that what you mean by your understanding "the cultural issue"? You know "the African culture", right? So you are saying that there is "an African culture". I thought "Africa" was just a landmass.
You are forgiven for your reading deficit in English. You are an Arab, after all.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: Awlaaldberry What do you mean when you say that races don't exist? Discrete biological entities called race does not exist not in science anyways,however,socially races do exist and so does racism.
Yeah but that does'nt stop racists like you Afroentrics from pushing your racist Agenda.
Race does'nt exist as long as whitey says there is a race, when your Afrocentric heros say it exists you don't say a damn thing.
The Hypocrisy is Mind Boggling!!
Posts: 8806 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't worry yourself Brada. Jari's just upset cause Afrocentrics dont believe in his sun god.
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
In what way are the Fulani a tribe? See, you yourself see a unifying feature in Africa without noticing by appealing to the superficial Eurocentric notion that ethic groups, clans, and nations consisting of over 1 million people can collectively be referred to as "tribes" in Africa. If we were discussing an equally large group from Europe, you wouldn't be referring to them a just some "tribe".. 
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic