posted
Forgive me for the title, but this is a very interesting book/
Joe Mintsa is a Fanghish native, citizen of the present Gabon. At the end of his studies of philology and American history from Libreville University in 1998, he migrated to England for further studies and intensive searching and thinking on the moral and political crises of his world. His determination to bring to surface the conceptual fallacies of Egyptology and Afrocentricity, to reach a more pragmatic understanding of the "African Condition" and spell out the true needs and aspirations of Africans in today’s world, took him into a totally different path as a thinker. "What is Wrong with Black People?" (2007) is the book that features the fullest extent of this philosophical discoveries.
posted
From what I read off goggle, this is a good book to think (brainstorm) about black history but it's mostly geared toward "egyptocentrists".
I think most people on this forum are already aware Ancient Egypt and Kush are only 2 kingdoms among many civilizations of Africa like Ashanti, Yoruba, Kongo, Great Zimbabwe, etc.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is nothing wrong with Afrocentricity. Afrocentric historians tell the truth about black contribution to World history. Afrocentric history also give the point of view of black people on world history.
The reason most Afrocentric people focus on Egypt is because it is the greatest, long lasting black civilization (3000 years)composed of many African ethnic groups who invented many things that became the foundation of modern civilization. Many Afrocentric books like Introduction To African Civilization by John G Jackson, The Destruction of Black Civilization by Chancellor William, When We Ruled by Robin Walker countains the history of Ancient Egypt and the history of many South of the Sahara African Kingdoms.
Joe Minta books looks like an interesting book about philosophy when he ask the question whats wrong?. He is probably wrong about Afrocentricity.
Posts: 5374 | From: sepedat/sirius | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mena7: There is nothing wrong with Afrocentricity.
The moderator says that the Egyptology forum is for mainstream Egyptology not afrocentric, afrocentric stuff is for AE froum
Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
So why are you posting this in the Egyptology forum? Desperate to build up your post count?
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is another example of Tukular banishing ideas he doesn't agree with even if such ideas are Egypt related and intellectual (and AFRICAN !) he moved this thread out of Egyptology forum into Ancient Egypt forum > A 600+ page book, he has probably only read a few pages of
This is what is wrong with Black people we are too emotional to handle debate
long live AE, where some freedom of thought still exists
notice how he only gives you the sarcastic quote from the book and tries to pass it off as the stance. He strategically quoted page 575 because he knows that page 576 which concludes the thought and is the last page of the chapter is not availble at the link.
Read some of this book and judge for yourself, it is not something you can read in an hour
Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Rate Member posted 01 March, 2015 05:45 PM will be moderated per real life societal norms also any replies to them oblivious to the mainstream will be deleted without notice.
The above only applies to these stickied past threads that I want to preserve from ES' current deteriorated level.
For any who may be interested this set theme of stickies reflects the original Ancient Egypt and Egyptology forum pre-Nov 2004 I wasn't a member until Nov 2004.
Tukuler al~Takruri, the ardo
quote:Originally posted by mena7: I like the history books
When We Ruled by Robin Walker
Introduction To African Civilization by John G Jackson
Exiled Africans by Moustafa Gadalla
quote:Originally posted by ausar: Mena
Your list has non-Egyptology books so I am forced to delete your post.
Sorry
Even Gadalla's book is propaganda not history. He just puts native Egyptian clothes on Speke's Hamitic Hypothesis (sending them westward instead of southward).
Tukuler al~Takruri, the ardo
Admittedly because new threads in Egyptology are so rare now in ES forum a thread that for this reason lingers at the top of the page called "What is Wrong with Black People?" is annoying
But isn't that what attracts people to Egyptsearch?
Do we really think Egyptology students are going to come here?
Well, we'll see if by the end of March Great Sage's regime has sparked (spanked) a new day
And some of these recent African authors, they have new, not so predictable interetsing points of view and don't want to follow AA's perspectives or either camp of centrics on history
lioness productions till the casket dropPosts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: This book's a rambling piece of ass that leaves me wondering what is wrong with Jo Mintsa, me and other people who've ignored it 8 yrs now.
Also see> Dictionnaire Français-Fang / Fang-Français (en construction) By Joe Mintsa
AND
THIS BRUTHA IS NO JOKE
peace to the Fang
Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Well, I myself, I did not have access to the next page. GOOGLE BOOKS previews varies displayable pages from country to county.
Damn, that next page is even stupider [sic] No wonder after 8yrs in print na boddy ne'er heard of it less lone anybody cites it. It is just a guy going into his rap.
I never seen a book so full of misinformation. He didn't publish with Lulu because of account reckonings. He published via Lulu because no established publishing house would accept his draft.
I hoped to discover more things Cook may've mistranslated in Diop but that chapter does little than argue the title of the English summation of two Diop books (African Origin of Civilization) uses the word African whereas the two works it abridges (Nations nègres et culture; Antériorité Des Civilisations Nègres) have Negres in their title. Trite!
Anyway, I say more power to Mintsa but his What is Wrong book sucks eggsesses It's just an opinionated rap that's all it is and why nobody knows or uses it.
The reason most Afrocentric people focus on Egypt is because it is the greatest, long lasting black civilization (3000 years)composed of many African ethnic groups who invented many things that became the foundation of modern civilization.
Well the more we learn about nubia or the region that is nubia the more we know that it was longest lasting civilization in world(8,000 or 10,000 years) that still exist and the nubia was greatest civilization.
I Would say egypt is the second greatest,but anyway all of it was/is native african culture/civilization.
Posts: 2560 | From: Somewhere | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just going on the title of the text there is one immediate out a set of others.
African peoples world-wide fail in the area of cultural advancement because of an ongoing situation of "massive alienation". It is the set of ideas that humans hold individually and collectively that lead to dispositions then action/behaviour.
African people today, for the most part, are under the spell of 2 totalising and alienating ideologies: Christianty and Islam. Christianty entered Africa by way of the Roman Empire into North Africa( Coptic Christianity in Egypt and Ethiopia has its own explanation)an and the rest of Africa by way of European colonialism. The forcibly removed Africans from West Africa also fell under the sway of Christianity in the Americas--courtesy Spanish priest Bartolomo de las Casas, who recommended that Africans replace the already enslaved Native Americans as the heavy lifters for the European colonisation of the Americas.
The result is the Africans of the Americas swear by an alienating Christianity with a Jewish messiah as the God-head. Christ sprang from the traditions of the Talmud and Torah and is viewed to be not of African lineage. Europe embraced Chrstianity is now in total control of this ideology in its many dimensions. There is Roman Christianity, Protestant Christianity, the Greek Orthodox, the Russian Orthodox and the Coptic variety. It is only in the case of Candomble of Brazil that there seems to be a genuine syncretism of the metphysical Yoruba(Nigeria and Dahomey) and Kimbundu religions of the Congo.
Corollary point: when you adapt a metaphysical system of beliefs in order to avoid alienation, one should seek to own and control it. The West has done so in the case of Christianity. The chief Christian centres of power are Rome(the Vatican) and Canterbury(England). There is no centre of Christianity in Africa--and it just may nit be worth it, given that Christianity does not offer any guide to development and progress. Japan is not Christian nor are Korea and China.
Bottom line: the African entered Christianity both as a captive/slave or a colonial peon/slave--both equally in a supine position.
With Islam the same thing. The African entered Islam as Bilal the slave/servant of Muhammad. Yet Islam is embraced enthusiastically by African Muslims despite the fact that Arabs refer to Africans pejoratively as "abd"/slave. Massive unthinking and unreflecting alienation as Macca is the dream spiritual refuge for the African Muslim. Now Boko Haram is slavishly following Isis and begging for recognition. All this massive alienation of the African spirit is played by the stupid Islam/Christian wars in Nigeria, Central African Republic, Sudan. Incredibly ignorant and alienated Africans slaughter wantonly in the name of Arab Islam in places like Somalia, Egypt, Mali, etc.
Historical Europe adopted and now owns Christianity--now being replaced by scientific secularism. In Asia indigenous Buddhism and Hinduism are dominant. Islam and Christianity are minority religions. Only Africa is dominated by 2 alien religions and much to its disadvantage. In the Americas Christianity controls the minds of the vast majority of Africans. But Candomble and Vodun are ineffective given their inability to solve the massive problems faced by the Africans living as displaced persons in those areas. There is the impressive religion of Ancient Egypt but Africans just don't pay attention to it, preferring to follow the European and Arab in their versions of such. Alienation at its maximum here.
It is on account of this ongoing alienation that the African turns to the European and the Arab for his/her salvation both in the spiritual and material worlds.
So "what is wrong with black people"? The 2 examples above are a good starting point.
This is the extent to which Joseph and Yusuf both have a serious problem.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
lamin says: Bottom line: the African entered Christianity both as a captive/slave or a colonial peon/slave --both equally in a supine position.
^^Nonsense. In fact, Christianity came to Africa in African kingdoms that were at the heights of strength and prowess. The Kushite chariot-rider in the Book if Acts came to Jerusalem on official business at the behest of his Queen, the Candace, and at his conversion still retained all the dignity of his official position as administrator under the Candace. And in fact, just a few years prior to the birth of Christ, the Kushite armies, despite some setbacks, posted some victories over Roman forces in the Sudan, and eventually were able to negotiate a favorable treaty with Roman Emperor Augustus himself in which the Romans ceded a vauable zone of the Thirty Mile Strip which included the city of Premis, and exempted the Kushites from paying tribute to Rome. It was these same people that were the among the leaders in adopting Christianity in Africa.
Hardly the "supine" peons or slaves you imagine. In fact, the Christian kingdom of Meroe, drawing on earlier developments in the Sudan were among the technological and economic leaders in "black" Africa, with its own writing system, solid iron industry, and far-flung prosperous trade links reaching from Central Africa, to India, to Rome. Christianity did not hinder them at all in these accomplishments.
The result is the Africans of the Americas swear by an alienating Christianity with a Jewish messiah as the God-head. Christ sprang from the traditions of the Talmud and Torah and is viewed to be not of African lineage.
Who says it was "alienating"? For one thing, Christianity was in Africa long before any of the Europeans that created the slave trade in the Americas appeared. It was already embraced by many Africans on the continent long before that. And as those Africans long ago pointed out, they do not worship a Jewish carpenter- they worship God- in human condition- the person of Christ. If Christ was not God as specified under their Christian doctrine, then their faith would be void. Religious leaders of modern Ethiopia have often pointed out this simple fact. When Haile Selassie came to Jamaica in the 1960s, he told the Rastas there who tried to worship him as God, that they were mistaken- and that he himself worshiped one he considered not a mere man, but God in human condition. If Christ were not God in their doctrine, then their faith was useless. Hence as others after him point out, the Africans worship God, not a mere regional Jewish figure.
This is the same ground taken by African Christians in the Americas. And far from alienation, christianity served as a mobilizing force against white oppression, as seen in events ranging from the revolts of the "Gabriel" uprising,, tot he numerous "underground" churches that preached an early doctrine of liberation specifically comparing the ensleaved blacks to the chosen people of Israel, to the liberation campaign of Christian leader martin Luther King who mobilized thousands, including white allies, to do this. Even Malcolm X pointed out that Christ may himself have been black, and that his likely swarthy middle eastern looks or complexion would have relegated to the\ back of the Jim Crow bus, just like all the other negroes. In fact Malcolm quoted from Daniel as a basis for saying this, holding that this Jim Crow treatment would have been meted out to the founder of Christianity himself. Malcolm's objection was not to Christ, but to home northern Europeans had hijacked his figure for negative racial use. Black Christianity has long recognized this and distinguished between the original an European distortion.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Typically brainwashed answer. Why so much love for the biographical life of a Jewish rabbi who broke ranks with his Talmudic traditions?
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
No what's brainwashed is your dubious reasoning, not to mention your factual errors on many things above. And who are you to lecture the kings or peoples of Kush, or those of Ethiopia, on what they should or shouldn't believe? They had no problems with their Christian faith, which they embraced long before any white people showed up. What gives you any standing to judge them? And as far as Jewish religious figures, what gives you any standing to negatively judge the faith of others, who may follow some of their teachings- such as the Rasta, who quote from, and follow the teachings of Jewish prophets, kings and patriarchs? I think you need to learn more about the actual facts on the ground re Christianity in Africa before dispensing these dubious notions. It is not the simplistic story of "slaves and peons" that you make out.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
According to the Beta Israel tradition, the Jewish kingdom of Beta Israel, later called the kingdom of Gondar, was initially established after Ezana was crowned as the Emperor of Axum (in 325 CE). Ezana, who was educated in his childhood by the missioner Frumentius, declared Christianity as the religion of the Ethiopian empire after he was crowned. The inhabitants who practiced Judaism and refused to convert to Christianity began revolting – this group was referred to as "Beta Israel" by the emperor. Following civil war between the Jewish population and the Christian population the Beta Israel appear to have forged an independent state, either in northern western Ethiopia or the eastern region of Northern Sudan. By the 13th century, the Beta Israel have already moved to the more easily defensible mountains to the northwest of the Christianized region of the plains.
Origins of Christianity in Africa
Alexandria was founded around a small Ancient Egyptian town c. 331 BC by Alexander the Great. It became an important center of the Hellenistic civilization and remained the capital of Hellenistic and Roman & Byzantine Egypt for almost 1000 years until the Muslim conquest of Egypt in AD 641, when a new capital was founded at Fustat (later absorbed into Cairo). Alexander the Great conquered Egypt at an early stage of his great journey of conquests. He respected the pharaonic religions and customs and he was declared by the priest, Pharaoh of Egypt After his death, in 323 BC, his enormous empire was divided among his generals. Egypt was given to Ptolemy I Soter. Ptolemy and his descendants showed respect to Egypt's most cherished traditions - those of religion - and turned them to their own advantage. Alexandria became the centre of the Greek and Hellenistic world and the centre of international commerce, art and sciences.
The last Pharaoh was a Greek princess, Cleopatra VII, who took her own life in 30 BC, a year after the battle of Actium. With her defeat, the Roman Empire achieved a new completeness - encompassing the entire Mediterranean. Egypt remained under Roman control for the next six centuries.
From the reign of Nero onward, Aegyptus enjoyed an era of prosperity which lasted a century. Much trouble was caused by religious conflicts between the Greeks and the Jews, particularly in Alexandria, which after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 became the world centre of Jewish religion and culture. Under Trajan a Jewish revolt occurred, resulting in the suppression of the Jews of Alexandria and the loss of all their privileges, although they soon returned.
As Rome overtook the Ptolemaic system in place for areas of Egypt, they made many changes. The effect of the Roman conquest was at first to strengthen the position of the Greeks and of Hellenism against Egyptian influences.
the Romans saw the Greeks in Aegyptus as “Egyptians”, an idea that both the native Egyptians and Greeks would have rejected.[4] To further compound the whole situation, Jews, who themselves were very Hellenized overall, had their own communities, separate from both Greeks and native Egyptians.[5] The Romans began a system of social hierarchy that revolved around ethnicity and place of residence. Other than Roman citizens, a Greek citizen of one of the Greek cities had the highest status, and a rural Egyptian would be in the lowest class.
Egyptian Christians believe that the Patriarchate of Alexandria was founded by Mark the Evangelist around AD 33, but little is known about how Christianity entered Egypt. The historian Helmut Koester has suggested, with some evidence, that originally the Christians in Egypt were predominantly influenced by Gnosticism until the efforts of Demetrius of Alexandria gradually brought the beliefs of the majority into harmony with Nicene Christianity. By AD 300 it is clear that Alexandria was one of the great Christian centres. The Christian apologists Clement of Alexandria and Origen both lived part or all of their lives in that city, where they wrote, taught, and debated. With the Edict of Milan in 313, Constantine I ended the persecution of Christians. Over the course of the 4th century, paganism was suppressed and lost its following, as the poet Palladius bitterly noted. Graffiti at Philae in Upper Egypt proves worship of Isis persisted at its temples into the 5th century. Many Egyptian Jews also became Christians, but many others refused to do so, leaving them as the only sizable religious minority in a Christian country.
Christianity in Africa began in Egypt in the middle of the 1st century. By the end of the 2nd century it had reached the region around Carthage. Mark the Evangelist became the first bishop of the Orthodox Church of Alexandria in about the year 43. At first the church in Alexandria was mainly Greek-speaking. By the end of the 2nd century the scriptures and liturgy had been translated into three local languages. Christianity in Sudan also spread in the early 1st century, and the Nubian churches there were linked to those of Egypt. Christianity also grew in northwestern Africa (today known as the Maghreb). The churches there were linked to the Church of Rome and provided Pope Gelasius I, Pope Miltiades and Pope Victor I, all of them Christian Berbers like Saint Augustine and his mother Saint Monica.
The first Christians in Egypt were common people who spoke Egyptian Coptic.[5] There were also Alexandrian Jews such as Theophilus, whom Saint Luke the Evangelist addresses in the introductory chapter of his gospel. When the church was founded by Saint Mark during the reign of the Roman emperor Nero, a great multitude of native Egyptians (as opposed to Greeks or Jews) embraced the Christian faith. Christianity spread throughout Egypt within half a century of Saint Mark's arrival in Alexandria, as is clear from the New Testament writings found in Bahnasa, in Middle Egypt, which date around the year AD 200, and a fragment of the Gospel of John, written in Coptic, which was found in Upper Egypt and can be dated to the first half of the 2nd century. In the 2nd century, Christianity began to spread to the rural areas, and scriptures were translated into the local languages, namely Coptic.
Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: This is another example of Tukular banishing ideas he doesn't agree with even if such ideas are Egypt related and intellectual (and AFRICAN !) he moved this thread out of Egyptology forum into Ancient Egypt forum > A 600+ page book, he has probably only read a few pages of
This is what is wrong with Black people we are too emotional to handle debate
long live AE, where some freedom of thought still exists
notice how he only gives you the sarcastic quote from the book and tries to pass it off as the stance. He strategically quoted page 575 because he knows that page 576 which concludes the thought and is the last page of the chapter is not availble at the link.
Read some of this book and judge for yourself, it is not something you can read in an hour
I would have to agree with Tukler. After having read about 15 pages as well as looked at contents, it seems like a rambling, "stream of consciousness" piece or essay, rather than a real work of analysis. The only thing anywhere close to Egypt in there is discussion of Diop's work, and what it means as far as Black cultural achievement, etc, but he gets some aspects wrong. Its not really an Egyptological subject per se- but leans more towards black psychology, protest, etc etc, and Afrocentrism as a part of that protest tradition.
Some thing he writes are shaky. He also says Diop could not make sense of the difference between anthropology and biology- a dubious claim- but even aside from this he has little credible argument to put forth in defending his thesis. He expresses a lot of opinion, what he thinks about stuff, but imho does not marshal good logical arguments or data in support- just what HE thinks.
HE also says Diop focuses on "Negroes" not on any other Black or African type. But here again, his claim is incoherent, and so is his supporting argument. Who says Diop regarded any other "Black" types? In fact, Diop recognized other black types of people outside of Africa- such as the Grimaldi in Europe or black Asiatics- arguing for the primacy of the phenotype. Its difficult to follow his arguments sometimes because they are not laid out with precision, again, giving the book an overall rambling feel.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: I would have to agree with Tukler. After having read about 15 pages as well as looked at contents, it seems like a rambling, "stream of consciousness" piece or essay, rather than a real work of analysis. The only thing anywhere close to Egypt in there is discussion of Diop's work,
So the unannouced new rule is - no books that are written in, to some, a "rambling" manner ?
Yet this thread:
Black UK Actors in US Media (TV/Film) It Upsets some US Blacks Why?
and others like it are fit to say on the main page in the Egyptology Forum?
______________________________________
Mintsa dicsussed Diop and Egyptology
Toronto 2014, September Worst Month for muder. WHY!!!
^^^ yet this is Egyptology?
Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^That was the bad old days of fighting racists fire with fire- before moderation was restored to E- now under the capable hands of Tukler. And don;t forget it was others who started those threads- you yourself among such. Now let's get back to the topic.
You say: By AD 300 it is clear that Alexandria was one of the great Christian centres.
True enough, and Egyptian Christians celebrate the fact that it was Africa that was foundational in protecting the genesis of CHristian faith. As Elizabeth Ischei notes in her History of Christianity in Africa- Coptics hold this, claiming that it was a hospitable Africa that protected the founder by divine providence- quote: "Modern African Christians cherish the same tradition: 'When Jesus was persecuted by the European Herod, God sent him into Africa' by this we know that Africans have naturally a true spirit of CHristianity."
But even before the Egyptians, almost the first non-Jewish convert to Christianity was not an Egyptian, but a high-ranking Kushite governmental administrator from the Sudan in the employ of his queen, Candace, who in Acts 8, was baptised by the Apostle Phillip, and returned to his land bearing the new faith. This conversion by the Apostle was within a few decades after the death of Jesus, not the centuries long wait before Egyptians showed up. Widespread dispersion of the faith in Africa, as elsewhere, would take centuries, but the black administrator was early on in place, and had already embraced the faith long before it went into Egypt and developed into the Coptic church. Egypt hogs most of the press, and the Coptic church would have strong influence later but Christianity in Africa, as far as converts, begins with Kush in the Sudan, not Egypt.
Ischei notes that Jews early on taunted Christians that they had no access to the original Jewish scriptures, but in fact, they had reasonably accurate translations via the Greek Language-Septuagint. When the Apostle Philip met the black chariot rider on the road from Jerusalem to Gaza, as detailed in Acts 8, the black man was reading from the Septuagint, leading to what was to become, per Ischei "one of the most famous encounters of the ancient world."
As far as the country we know as "Ethiopia" today, Christianity was declared the state religion in Auxum, in 330Ad under Ezana, one of the first kingdoms on earth to make it their state religion, earlier than Egypt, and arguably the first some maintain, though Armenians also claim to be first. In any event the record shows that while it was influential, Egypt is not necessarily the starting point as far as conversions re Christianity in Africa, or establishment of official religion by the state. Kush and Auxum are ahead of Egypt.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
You say: By AD 300 it is clear that Alexandria was one of the great Christian centres.
True enough, and Egyptian Christians celebrate the fact that it was Africa that was foundational in protecting the genesis of CHristian faith.
As far as the country we know as "Ethiopia" today, Christianity was declared the state religion in Auxum, in 330Ad under Ezana, one of the first kingdoms on earth to make it their state religion, earlier than Egypt, and arguably the first some maintain, though Armenians also claim to be first. In any event the record shows that while it was influential, Egypt is not necessarily the starting point as far as conversions re Christianity in Africa, or establishment of official religion by the state. Kush and Auxum are ahead of Egypt. [/QB]
You said "true enough" to By AD 300 it is clear that Alexandriawas one of the great Christian centres.
The you spoke of Auxum, in 330Ad
300 AD is earlier than 330 AD'
Christianity emerged in the Levant in the mid-1st century AD. It stand to reason that it spread to Egypt first since Egypt is closer
___________________________________
the accession of Constantine was a turning point for the Christian Church. After his victory, Constantine supported the Church financially, built various basilicas, granted privileges (e.g., exemption from certain taxes) to clergy, promoted Christians to some high-ranking offices, and returned property confiscated during the Great Persecution of Diocletian.[47] Between 324 and 330, Constantine built, virtually from scratch, a new imperial capital that came to be named for him: Constantinople. It had overtly Christian architecture, contained churches within the city walls, and had no pagan temples.[48] In accordance with a prevailing custom, Constantine was baptised on his deathbed.
Icon depicting the Emperor Constantine (centre) and the bishops of the First Council of Nicaea (325) holding the Niceno–Constantinopolitan Creed of 381. Constantine also played an active role in the leadership of the Church. In 316, he acted as a judge in a North African dispute concerning the Donatist controversy. More significantly, in 325 he summoned the Council of Nicaea, the first Ecumenical Council.
Donatism in North Africa
Donatism (Latin: Donatismus, Greek: Δονατισμός Donatismos) was a Christian sect within the Roman province of Africa that flourished in the fourth and fifth centuries among Berber Christians. Donatism had its roots in the social pressures among the long-established Christian community of Roman North Africa (present-day Berber countries Algeria and Tunisia), during the persecutions of Christians under Diocletian. The Donatists (named for the Berber Christian bishop Donatus Magnus) were members of a schismatic church not in communion with the churches of the rest of Early Christianity in Late Antiquity.
The primary disagreement between Donatists and the rest of the early Christian Church was over the treatment of those who renounced their faith during the persecution under the Roman emperor Diocletian (303–5), a disagreement that had implications both for the Church's understanding of the Sacrament of Penance and of the other sacraments in general. The rest of the Church was far more forgiving of these people than the Donatists. The Donatists refused to accept the sacraments and spiritual authority of the priests and bishops who had fallen away from the faith during the persecution. During the persecution some Church leaders had gone so far as to turn Christians over to Roman authorities and had handed over religious texts to authorities to be publicly burned.
As a result, many towns were divided between Donatist and non-Donatist congregations. The sect had particularly developed and grown in northern Africa. There was growing unrest and threats of riots in Carthage connected to the bishop controversy
Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
If Christ was not God as specified under their Christian doctrine, then their faith would be void. Religious leaders of modern Ethiopia have often pointed out this simple fact. When Haile Selassie came to Jamaica in the 1960s, he told the Rastas there who tried to worship him as God, that they were mistaken- and that he himself worshiped one he considered not a mere man, but God in human condition. If Christ were not God in their doctrine, then their faith was useless. Hence as others after him point out, the Africans worship God, not a mere regional Jewish figure....
Malcolm X pointed out that Christ may himself have been black,
Malcom, if asked would have said, as the Muslims do, that Jesus like other prophets, was to be respected but was not God.
Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I said as far as conversions, Sudanic Kush was before the Egyptians per Acts 8, and as far as official state religions, Auxum was before Egypt. As far as Malcolm sure, but the point is that he argued that the founder of Christianity was black/African. Whatever the specific doctrinal disagreements, to him it made no difference as far as that point.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Ya know it just ain't no use no more
As far as educating ES is officially dead
no nuff posters into non-chauvinistic learning learning that can hold up in any classroom
facts on the ground say AE triumphed over E w/no reversal in sight
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well there are negatives, but still some residual value left, if only archival. Yeah I hear you though. Topics such as "why black people have lighter skin on palms" will draw 60-65 responses but a good educational thread in E- little. Or some "albino" threads with minimal educational data will run for 4 pages etc etc, with the same tired, boilerplate exchanges with "Doxie" and assorted duplicate accounts.
Part of it too is that trolls shy away from E because the know such eye-rolling crud will not fly. So they congregate where there is no oversight. Predictable. Only bright spot is that their traffic keeps the overall boat afloat as far as traffic, which in turn means the archives are kept fresher in Google, undercutting and end-running assorted "stealth" moles on Wiki, and propaganda on assorted racialist forums. Time and time again I see ES data being put to use to hammer them.
Admittedly, its not the best situation, but shrug.. Still let us give lioness kudos for her busy round of posting, which in its own way, is boosting traffic. She has even been adding actual usable current info. So, far from ES disappearing into obscurity, it consistently keeps coming up early in web searches, providing hard alternative data that undercuts all the detractors and racialists.
Minimum scenario is for XYZ, A-ra, me, yourself, lioness and others to keep occasionally posting new info (already being done to some extent) and let the "albino" brigade keep the traffic counts high, so that said info is at least on the web available for use and coming up quickly in searches. This is imperfect and unsatisfying yes, but on the flip side, accomplishes some positives.
liones says: ou might be able to revive Egytpology forum if you made more new posts
and not try to over-control it as much
I'll try to go low profile there
One easy one is to post the latest jpurnal paper, it's basically copy and paste --yet can lead to good replies as it is discussed
Give it the rest of the month, the key is making new posts,
Atta girl! Keep those posts coming!
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: As far as Malcolm sure, but the point is that he argued that the founder of Christianity was black/African.
quote:
MALCOLM X: Christ wasn't white. Christ was a black man.
PLAYBOY: On what Scripture do you base this assertion?
MALCOLM X: Sir, Billy Graham has made the same statement in public. Why not ask him what Scripture he found it in? When Pope Pius XII died, LIFE magazine carried a picture of him in his privatestudy kneeling before a black Christ. What was the source of their information? All white people who have studied history and geography know that Christ was a black man. Only the poor, brainwashed American Negro has been made to believe that Christ was white, to maneuver him into worshiping the white man. After becoming a Muslim in prison, I read almost everything I could put my hands on in the prison library. I began to think back on everything I had read and especially with the histories, I realized that nearly all of them read by the general public have been made into white histories. I found out that the history-whitening process either had left out great things that black men had done, or some of the great black men had gotten whitened.
The Playboy Interview Malcolm X, Alex Haley
Taken from Playboy Magazine, May, 1963
quote: “Jesus was not a white man; He was not a black man. He came from that part of the world that touches Africa and Asia and Europe. Christianity is not a white man’s religion, and don’t let anybody ever tell you that it’s white or black. Christ belongs to all people; He belongs to the whole world.”
quote:No what's brainwashed is your dubious reasoning, not to mention your factual errors on many things above. And who are you to lecture the kings or peoples of Kush, or those of Ethiopia, on what they should or shouldn't believe? They had no problems with their Christian faith, which they embraced long before any white people showed up. What gives you any standing to judge them? And as far as Jewish religious figures, what gives you any standing to negatively judge the faith of others, who may follow some of their teachings- such as the Rasta, who quote from, and follow the teachings of Jewish prophets, kings and patriarchs? I think you need to learn more about the actual facts on the ground re Christianity in Africa before dispensing these dubious notions. It is not the simplistic story of "slaves and peons" that you make out.
All nonsense. The only places in Africa that Coptic Christianity is embraced are Egypt and Ethiopia. Those populations amount to less 10% of African Christians. But even so how is Coptic Christianity helping them? Give all of them a safe boat and calm seas and they are on their way to Europe for salvation. Alas!
The Christianity that the rest of Africa and its diaspora practices derives directly from colonial imposition both on African captives in the Americas and conquered colonial peons/serfs in Africa.
But the central question is this: in what way have the religions of a Jewish rabbi and an Arab war lord benefited Africans in this world? "Jesus saves" and "Allahu Akbar"--are phrases and slogans that Africans everywhere love to shout. But the universe is cold and unforgiving. Nobody pays attention.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The dude wrote a bunch of selfopiniated bollocks. No, scientific analyses. He's not wordy my time. Thus the question becomes, what's wrong with Joe Mintsa?
quote:"Ancient finds in the Western Desert of Egypt at Gebel Ramlah circa 5,000 BC show culture closely linked with indigenous tropical Africans of both the Saharan and sub-Saharan regions, not Europe or the Middle East. Dental studies put the inhabitants of Gebel Ramlah, closest to indigenous tropical African populations.
"During three seasons of research (in 2000, 2001 and 2003) carried out by the Combined Prehistoric Expedition at Gebel Ramlah in the southern part of the Egyptian Western Desert, three separate Final Neolithic cemeteries were discovered and excavated. Skeletal remains of 67 individuals, comprising both primary and secondary interments, were recovered from 32 discrete burial pits. Numerous grave goods were found, including lithics, pottery and ground stone objects, as well as items of personal adornment, pigments, shells and sheets of mica. Imports from distant areas prove far-reaching contacts.
Analysis of the finds sheds important light on the burial rituals and social conditions of the Final Neolithic cattle keepers inhabiting Ramlah Playa. This community, dated to the mid-fifth millennium B.C. (calibrated), was composed of a phenotypically diverse population derived from both North and sub-Saharan Africa. There were no indications of social differentiation. The deteriorating climatic conditions probably forced these people to migrate toward the Nile Valley where they undoubtedly contributed to the birth of ancient Egyptian civilization."
-- Burial practices of the Final Neolithic pastoralists at Gebel Ramlah, Western Desert of Egypt
Michal Kobusiewicz, Jacek Kabacinski, Romuald Schild, Joel D. Irish and Fred Wendorf
British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt and Sudan 13 (2009): 147–74
quote:Originally posted by lamin: All nonsense. The only places in Africa that Coptic Christianity is embraced are Egypt and Ethiopia. Those populations amount to less 10% of African Christians. But even so how is Coptic Christianity helping them? Give all of them a safe boat and calm seas and they are on their way to Europe for salvation. Alas!
The Christianity that the rest of Africa and its diaspora practices derives directly from colonial imposition both on African captives in the Americas and conquered colonial peons/serfs in Africa.
But the central question is this: in what way have the religions of a Jewish rabbi and an Arab war lord benefited Africans in this world? "Jesus saves" and "Allahu Akbar"--are phrases and slogans that Africans everywhere love to shout. But the universe is cold and unforgiving. Nobody pays attention. [/QB]
These books of these religions are a sets of rules that some people like to organize their lives by
You have suggested before why don't Africans return to traditional beliefs but those traditional beliefs are what led to the religions
When you say the " universe is cold and unforgiving" that would raise more the issue of "why don't Africans become atheists"?
Obviously a science minded person like yourself is not going to be believing in forest spirits and sorcery , right?
Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
lamin says: All nonsense. The only places in Africa that Coptic Christianity is embraced are Egypt and Ethiopia. [/b]
Lamin you need to have a grasp of the facts, instead of merely offering wild opinion. In fact, Christianity is the fast growing religion in Africa. Recent studies published by well known research outfit the Pew Forum -on Religion & Public Life has found that Christians now outnumber Muslims by 2 to 1 making Islam a minority belief.[6][7] The number of adherents to Christianity in sub-Saharan Africa grew from fewer than 9 million in 1910 to 516 million today, a 60-fold increase eclipsing the growth of Islam.[8] See for example sources such as- Global Christianity: A Report on the Size and Distribution of the World's Christian Population - The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, December 19, 2011 or The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, April 15, 2010
You simply do not know what you are talking about.
Those populations amount to less 10% of African Christians. But even so how is Coptic Christianity helping them? Give all of them a safe boat and calm seas and they are on their way to Europe for salvation. Alas! Your claim that Christianity is somehow confined to Coptics in Africa is complete nonsense, as I demonstrated above. And as for the promise in the afterlife- this is nothing new in religion, and nothing new in African religion. The Yoruba religion for example speaks of a separation of spheres in the afterlife. There is the orun rere (good heaven) and an orun apadi/orun buruku (bad heaven). Each went to the appropriate place, depending on his conduct on earth. There are differences with Christianity but the pointis that safety and bliss in the afterlife based on conduct on earth is part of African religion and is not unique to Christianity. In fact this is one of the reasons Christian missionaries made some headway in getting converts- they could appeal to established religious traditions like the above, though there was still much difference in doctrines- yet there was also common ground that Africans could sometimes see in the Christian message..
The Christianity that the rest of Africa and its diaspora practices derives directly from colonial imposition both on African captives in the Americas and conquered colonial peons/serfs in Africa.
^Laughable baloney as already demonstrated. Think man think! If CHristianity was in Africa circa a few decades after Christ's death, long before the Americas were "discovered" by Europeans, how are the Christian doctrines also practiced by black Christians in the Americas due directly to colonial impositions circa 1500? The core bottom line doctrines were long BEFORE 1500- are the same- they havent changed. In Africa, the Christians of Kush held to the doctrine of salvation fron one's sins through Christ. In America black people hold to the SAME doctrine. There are some church differences, of course, like anywher else, but the fundamental core doctrines, the bottom lines that define Christianity are the same in America as they are in the Sudan or Ethiopia. The white man is merely the local transmitter to a message already long in place in Africa. That message was not created by Europeans. In fact Europe itself had to be converted from the Celtic, Germanic, Slavic religions. They aren't anything special.
But the central question is this: in what way have the religions of a Jewish rabbi and an Arab war lord benefited Africans in this world? "Jesus saves" and "Allahu Akbar"--are phrases and slogans that Africans everywhere love to shout. But the universe is cold and unforgiving.
Actually Christianity has brought a lot of benefit, despite the racism of some of its white practitioners, who cast aside their own Christian message to engage in oppression and lies. Africans in fact embraced Christianity both for its spiritual message as well as the material benefits brought- from numerous hospitals, orphanages and institutions of mercy, to medical missions that saved the lives of thousands by healing diseases & medicine, to missions that save the lives of thousands via fammine relief, to the schools, workshops translations of native lanugages into written form, and other essentials of modernization.
You say "nobody listens" but this too is nonsense. In fact many Africans have listened quite closely and benefited as they chose what worked for them. This is why even a nationalist like Jomo Kenyata though condemning racism of certain various, pays tribute to the Christian mission efforts that brought education, medicine, advanced technology, and other benefits. Indeed Kenyatta himself was educated in a mission school, and would not have risen to be leader of a modern state without such things. Does this mean all was perfect? Of course not- and we all know there were greedy exploiters using Chrisianity for nefarious ends. Of course. But the actual facts, debunk your simplistic claims.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:You have suggested before why don't Africans return to traditional beliefs but those traditional beliefs are what led to the religions
When you say the " universe is cold and unforgiving" that would raise more the issue of "why don't Africans become atheists"?
Obviously a science minded person like yourself is not going to be believing in forest spirits and sorcery , right?
If Africans want to believe in some kind of metaphysical system then that of the Ancient Egyptians is the place to start. But mental laziness is one of the reasons why that has not been done.
There are scores of traditional belief systems in Africa but the problem is that they are not written down so as to "spread the word", and ethnic chauvinism would be an impediment for any single one spreading. People shamelessly prefer to fanatically worship a Jewish rabbi and an Arab warlord.
In terms of human conduct, whole tomes combined with nonsensical rituals are not necessary. Just a simple application of the Golden Rule is all that is necessary.
The most successful countries have no need for Christ or Muhammad. I am talking about Japan, Korea, China, and Taiwan. And the countries that are most disposed to human welfare have been discarding religion as they rely more on their own brains and their learned dispositions about human rights, etc. Norway, Sweden, Finland, etc. come to mind.
It just points to human stupidity when fanatically religious Somalis get on rickety boats to cross over into places where Sunday is for football and the parks-rather than church.
Whether you pluck a rosary non-stop or bang your head on the hard ground 5 times a day no one in the sky will pay attention. Common sense and inductive inference should inform an intelligent man that most of that stuff is just BS.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
The Kilimanjaro Gene. Although Eurasians are ultimately all “out of Africa,” this rare autosomal allele mostly stayed on the African Continent until modern times when it spread with the forced migration of 15 million Africans destined to be slaves in the Western Hemisphere. It is thus more common in Africans than African Americans and is practically absent in Central Asia, the Mediterranean, Middle East and Far East. Kilimanjaro is the highest mountain in Africa and dominates the Great Rift, the volcanic fault line believed to mark the early home of humanity. The Kilimanjaro gene, although relatively rare even in Africa, is 500 times more common in West Africans than Greeks and 265 times more common in African and African American populations than Mediterranean peoples. Only 1 in every 200 Africans or African Americans have it—half of one percent. It has only a negligible appearance in Central Asian or East European DNA.
The Thuya Gene. One of the autosomal ancestry markers that ran strong in the Royal Egyptian families of the New Kingdom, this not-so-rare gene is Central African in origin and was passed to Thuya from her forbears, Queens of Upper and Lower Egypt and High Priestesses of Hathor, the Mother Goddess. Thuya passed it to her grandson Akhenaten and great-grandson Tutankhamun, among others, as documented in a study of the Amarna mummies by Zahi Hawass, head of the Supreme Council of Antiquities in Cairo, in 2010. It is found in 1 in 6 Egyptians and 1 in 8 Africans or African Americans. It crops up in unlikely places around the world such as the Basque region and in Melungeons but is virtually unknown in East and South Asia, as well as Native America.
The Akhenaten Gene. Named for the pharaoh who attempted to convert Egypt to monotheism, this autosomal ancestry marker like most of the Amarna family group’s DNA is clearly African in origin. Akhenaten received it from his mother, Queen Tiye. It is most common today in Copts, the successors to the ancient Egyptians. The ancient marker makes a good showing in the Middle East and parts of southern Europe close to Africa, such as southern Italy and Spain. But it is mostly absent in Asia and the Americas, except where brought there by Africans or people carrying some African ancestry. About 1 in 6 Africans or African Americans has it.
The King Tut Gene. Tutankhamun is the most famous of all pharaohs. He was the son and successor of Akhenaten, grandson of Amenhotep III and Queen Tiye and great-grandson of the royal matriarch Queen Thuya. The archeologist Howard Carter’s opening of his intact tomb in the Valley of the Kings in 1922 ranks among the most splendid discoveries of history. In 2010, genetic fingerprinting of his mummy determined that he died at the early age of 19 as the result of violence or an accident to which the incestuous relationship of his parents and several genetic defects contributed. Tutankhamun actually carries a “double dose” of the allele named for him. Like most of the other genes in the family, it is Central African in ancient origin, but unlike the other alleles it has a widespread, albeit sparse distribution outside Africa. Still, Africans (and African-influenced populations) are ten times more likely to have it than non-Africans.
Citation: Hawass Z, Gad YZ, Ismail S, et al. Ancestry and Pathology in King Tutankhamun's Family. JAMA. 2010;303(7):638-647.
The Egyptian Gene. Although not carried in the royal mummies whose DNA has been studied so far, this autosomal ancestry marker is also clearly African in origin and enjoys its greatest spread in Egyptians. Quite rare worldwide, it is found in about 1 in 10 Copts, today’s successors to the ancient Egyptians. Less than one percent of European Americans have it, while African Americans preserve it at a rate of three times that of their white neighbors. Oddly, East Coast Indians and Melungeons have it at elevated levels. It is hardly noticeable in Asia, suggesting that it did not form a significant part of the Great Migration of Humanity out of Africa about 100,000 years ago but spread to Eurasian populations primarily from Egypt and the Middle East in historical times.
The Christianity that the rest of Africa and its diaspora practices derives directly from colonial imposition both on African captives in the Americas and conquered colonial peons/serfs in Africa.
Very true. Zarahan is being ridiculous.
While some coptic christians in Africa were converted earlier, they are not the ones which converted black people in West Africa, most of Africa and in the Americas (not that it would change anything beside the truth). It was the white colonial masters and his missionaries. Using the carrot and the stick techniques.
I'm not a practitioner of any religions or spirituality. But from a traditionalists point of view, christianity and islam are absurd (less so judaism even if it's not like traditional African religions), because each people, each populations, each family, have their own customs and spiritual knowledge. There's no need to become some little religious Hitler to impose your belief to the whole world.
In African "religions" you can even pray and communicate to your own grandfathers and ancestors if you want to.
Note: Jewish people only imposed their religions to their own people -there's only one god and his name is Yahveh- which is bad by itself. In reality, each populations have their own knowledge and name for God.
For example, even if Zulu are black people and great proud people, it doesn't mean populations in Ghana must adopt their Zulu customs and religions. Yes, there's many similarities and even a shared common Niger-Kordofanian origin with Zulu speakers, but there's also differences too.
The same applies for Ancient Egyptian or Abrahamic religions. It seems to be a bit the point of the book.
lamin:if you read more about African history and religious beliefs, you will understand how traditions of neighboring ethnic groups influence each others. We can see it also to some degree in Ancient Egyptian history (beside the quickly reversed Akhenaten megalomaniac reign and his corrupted aten cult).
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
If Africans want to believe in some kind of metaphysical system then that of the Ancient Egyptians is the place to start. But mental laziness is one of the reasons why that has not been done.
There are scores of traditional belief systems in Africa but the problem is that they are not written down so as to "spread the word", and ethnic chauvinism would be an impediment for any single one spreading. People shamelessly prefer to fanatically worship a Jewish rabbi and an Arab warlord.
In terms of human conduct, whole tomes combined with nonsensical rituals are not necessary. Just a simple application of the Golden Rule is all that is necessary. ---------------------------------------------
Africans don't have to start with Egypt for a metaphysical system. Complex systems were in place BEFORE Dynastic Egypt arose, and in fact, Egyptian religion is based on indigenous African religion such as the numerous cults, or the divine king as chief ritualist, etc. And they aren't mentally lazy if they are attracted to other religious concepts like Christianity, anymore than white people are lazy by being attracted to Rastafari, or Buddhism. You have too simplistic a view of Africans, who you make seem like childlike automatons. All I am saying is do not take this simplistic view- look at the overall picture. And the Golden Rule by the way is only ONE part of many belief systems. There is much more to such systems than that.
Very true. Zarahan is being ridiculous. While some coptic christians in Africa were converted earlier, they are not the ones which converted black people in West Africa, most of Africa and in the Americas (not that it would change anything beside the truth). It was the white colonial masters and his missionaries. Using the carrot and the stick techniques.
As usual on this forum, you appear to be having severe reading comprehension problems, and knee-jerk style start with mere restatements of the obvious that people have already noted. No one said Copts were the people that converted blacks in West Africa- duh. No need to set up this shallow strawman to "refute." And yes it is ALREADY noted that colonialists converted people in the Americas and in areas they ruled. This is painfully obvious, so obvious it hardly needs restatement in your usual breathless style as if you are making some sort of significant "discovery." **roll eyes** The point to lamin is that Christianity did not begin in Africa with white people who showed up on the West African coast, and in many cases the new faith was willingly embraced, for spiritual as well as material reasons- just like anywhere else. The picture is a mixed one, not a simplistic one.
Jewish people only imposed their religions to their own people -there's only one god and his name is Yahveh- which is bad by itself. In reality, each populations have their own knowledge and name for God. Gee another statement of the obvious from Captain Obvious. You really think people around the world have their own local name and knowledge for their concept of a god or divine being? Wow.. really? WHat a discovery.
And why would the Jewish name for Yahveh be "bad"? Can you enlighten us with your theological wit and wisdom oh wise one as to why it would be "bad"? How so, Cap Obvious? And if the Jewish "Yahveh" be bad, why isn't the Yoruba Supreme God- Olodumare/Olorun/Olofi "bad" as well?
I'm not a practitioner of any religions or spirituality. But from a traditionalists point of view, christianity and islam are absurd (less so judaism even if it's not like traditional African religions), because each people, each populations, each family, have their own customs and spiritual knowledge. There's no need to become some little religious Hitler to impose your belief to the whole world.
Traditional religions are not exempt from imposing their own religious hierarchies on others. The Inca specifically moved the most prominent idols or statutes of conquered peoples into their own territory in a secure location to impress upon the conquered that the Inca gods were more powerful than their own. The Romans seized and/or destroyed the temples, priests and religious resources of peoples they defeated, as did the Assyrians. The Actecs likewise removed images of defeated peoples' gods and relocated them to their capital to demonstrate the powerlessness of the defeated. And those wacky Aztecs,! They sacrificed thousands to their gods, under their "kinder, gentler" religious practice.
In Africa, victorious pre-dynastics in Egypt sometimes seized the images of defeated enemies and incorporated them into local or regional pantheons, with the conqueror on top- demonstrating that the desirable features of the conquered deities would be appropriated or assimilated by the victorious god to enhance his own powers. Religious hierarchism and oppression of the conquered is a phenomenon occurring on every continent. In Dahomey, the defeated had to provide a stream of captives for human sacrifice to satisfy the victorious Dahomean gods, ancestors or other divine beings. Too bad for you, if your tribe lost, there was no "kinder, gentler" religion waiting for you, only butchery on the chopping block as determined by the Annual "customs" for that year. Even slaves captured from the conquered were perennially in danger of being offered up as human sacrifice to the Dahomean religious bigwigs. See book: (Throughout Your Generations Forever: Sacrifice, Religion, and Paternity, By Nancy Jay 1992)
In fact human sacrifice not only functioned religiously but was a means of social control. The Ashanti king told one visitor in 1848 that without human sacrifice "I should deprive myself to one of the most effectual means of keeping the people in subjection." Operating on a larger scale the kings of Dahomey reportedly sacrificed of male and a female daily to his ancestors, "to carry to them his message of gratitude for another day of life." (Jay 1992)
For example, even if Zulu are black people and great proud people, it doesn't mean populations in Ghana must adopt their Zulu customs and religions. Yes, there's many similarities and even a shared com Gee another obvious "discovery".. wow... the Zulu be black people, and "proud" people. Uh huh.. And Ghana people don;t have to be Zulu people. Dang! Now why didn't we think of that? Mmmm.. such "obvious" wisdom...
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: It is argued that just as there is a common Afroasiatic language family, so too there is a common Afroasiatic family of religions. There is an inner logic to be found in myths, folk-tales, rituals, customs and beliefs as far apart as Yemen and Nigeria which go back to an ancient past shared by the Bible and the pharaohs.
Using the method of comparative mythology, the author sifts through the work of scholars - including anthropologists, religious historians, archaeologists and classical Greek writers and contemporary comments on them by professional Egyptologists - to build his picture of the Afroasiatic heritage, and how much of it is still with us in modern Western thought.
--Julian Baldick,
Black God: The Afroasiatic Roots of the Jewish, Christian and Muslim Religions
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Zarahan I have a lot of respect for you but you surely lost the plot here. You act like a hurt little baby trying to find problems in my statements instead of trying to understand my statements as a whole. Did my statements hurt you? Did me saying you were being "ridiculous" too much for you? I'm sorry if it was.
I state 'facts' you reply 'obvious'. I'm sorry buddy but what I say doesn't seem obvious to you considering your reply to me above. Yes, facts are supposed to be obvious. That's how you start a book, an academic discussion or an argument with a basic set of facts. But again, obvious to you, no, I don't think so....
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: [QB] As usual on this forum, you appear to be having severe reading comprehension problems, and knee-jerk style start with mere restatements of the obvious that people have already noted. No one said Copts were the people that converted blacks in West Africa- duh. No need to set up this shallow strawman to "refute." And yes it is ALREADY noted that colonialists converted people in the Americas and in areas they ruled. This is painfully obvious, so obvious it hardly needs restatement in your usual breathless style as if you are making some sort of significant "discovery." **roll eyes** The point to lamin is that Christianity did not begin in Africa with white people who showed up on the West African coast, and in many cases the new faith was willingly embraced, for spiritual as well as material reasons- just like anywhere else. The picture is a mixed one, not a simplistic one.[QB]
Here's what Lamin said and your reply to it:
quote:
quote:Lamin: The Christianity that the rest of Africa and its diaspora practices derives directly from colonial imposition both on African captives in the Americas and conquered colonial peons/serfs in Africa.
Zarahan reply:
^Laughable baloney as already demonstrated.
You're the one suffering from a reading problem. Lamin already said in the REST of Africa, African captives and colonial peons. Do you understand the expression 'rest of'. Anyway it doesn't matter if Northeastern Africans (or whoever) were first converted to Christianity (due to their geographic proximity). Those people still had/have their own sets of religious beliefs before their conversion to christianity or islam. As all African populations do.
quote:Jewish people only imposed their religions to their own people -there's only one god and his name is Yahveh- which is bad by itself. In reality, each populations have their own knowledge and name for God. Gee another statement of the obvious from Captain Obvious. You really think people around the world have their own local name and knowledge for their concept of a god or divine being? Wow.. really? WHat a discovery.
And why would the Jewish name for Yahveh be "bad"? Can you enlighten us with your theological wit and wisdom oh wise one as to why it would be "bad"?
The answer to your question is obvious to anybody but you. Can't you read? Because they **imposed** one set of religious beliefs to their people. That's what I said, but you act like a hurt little baby who can't read.
Of course, as a non-jewish, it doesn't bother me as much, but this is what started it all since christianity and islam are both born out of Jewish faith (and this fascist idea they have of imposing their beliefs to other people).
quote:Traditional religions are not exempt from imposing their own religious hierarchies on others.
While they often share many similarities, all traditional religions are unique. Yes, it's obvious but not to you considering you're talking about Aztec to me.
Even if somehow the Fang had the "worst" traditional religions in the world (which is not the case and doesn't mean anything anyway). It doesn't mean all traditional religions in Africa are similar to Fang. So please, Aztec?!? You're better than this Zarahan...
This is the same thing as saying Northeastern Africans (or whoever) were converted first to Christianity or Islam. Why should I care? All African populations are their own people with their own history, their own culture, their own sets of beliefs, etc. Yes, there's a lot of similarities but also a lot of differences.
quote:Amun-Ra The Ultimate: For example, even if Zulu are black people and great proud people, it doesn't mean populations in Ghana must adopt their Zulu customs and religions. Yes, there's many similarities and even a shared common Niger-Kordofanian origin with Zulu speakers, but there's also differences too.
Zaharan replies: Gee another obvious "discovery".. wow... the Zulu be black people, and "proud" people. Uh huh.. And Ghana people don;t have to be Zulu people. Dang! Now why didn't we think of that? Mmmm.. such "obvious" wisdom...
Yes, it's obvious and true hence why I said:
The same applies for Ancient Egyptian or Abrahamic religions. It seems to be a bit the point of the book.
Each African populations have their own sets of religious beliefs. There's no need to become some little religious Hitler to impose your beliefs to the whole world like Jewish, European and Arab people did. Even more so since western people (Europeans, Americans) are now abandoning religion for a more, let's say, scientific/natural world view.
I like to read about Ancient Egypt and their religious belief (my ID name pay homage to Amun-Ra like the name(s) of many Ancient Egyptians Kings) but I would never try to claim THIS is the only religion black people should follow. I know there's various religious belief all across Africa. Sure they share a lot of similarities but there's differences too. They are different people with their own history and culture. It's a bit what is discussed in the book I think.
I sincerely hope you understand my point of view better now.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor: Black God: The Afroasiatic Roots of the Jewish, Christian and Muslim Religions
It doesn't matter even if Jewish people, Jesus, Moses, Paul and Mohammed would be black Africans themselves. Zulu are black and proud people, it doesn't mean people in Ghana must convert to their customs and religious beliefs. Each African populations are their own people, with their own history, customs, cultures, languages, etc. They share both similarities and differences between each others. For Africans and the whole world, it's always about unity in diversity.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
No I mainly see repetition of the obvious as if you "discovered" some point. As for you "hurting" me, dude, please. Hold that nonsense. Telling me about "the rest of Africa" is another example of your Captain Obvious approach. It is already obvious that Christianity was substantially spread by the colonialists, particularly in West/Central/South Africa. That was never at issue.
But keep in mind that there are huge parts of Africa from Morocco to Carthage to Libya that where the faith took hold, WITHOUT needing any white colonialists to "impose" it. The Coptic area is only a small one when Africa is considered overall. What is at issue with lamin, which you conveniently skip over, is (a) the shaky notion that early African Christianity is mostly confined to the Copts -(I pointed out that it is not), (b) the notion of sweeping imposition across the board- when in fact the core doctrines of Christianity are what most African Christians practice. The message and printed Bible was brought to West Africa by colonialists, but they brought the core doctrines that the Christians of the Sudan and Ethiopia practiced from the early times. Doctrines such as the resurrection are not "white" doctrines. Many Africans already embraced them before white people showed up. In fact the new faith spread quite willingly in many parts of Africa, even as it does now in the modern era. It does not merely exist as an "imposition" as lamin claimed.
Nor (3)were said Africans necessarily "peons and serfs" - to accept the faith- another point at issue I questioned lamin on.
Again keep in mind that Christianity was a fact on the ground in Africa from end to end in the north- from Morocco to Carthage to Egypt- and on into the Sudan and Auxum/Ethiopia. Here again, the notion of white colonialists "imposing" Christianity outside the Coptic area doesn't hold up. At one time, Christianity was in place from coast to coast in Africa, in a broad stretch of the continent OUTSIDE Coptic Egypt, and long BEFORE northern Europeans showed up to allegedly "impose" it.
those people still had/have their own sets of religious beliefs before their conversion to christianity or islam. As all African populations do... All African populations are their own people with their own history, their own culture, their own sets of beliefs, etc. Yes, there's a lot of similarities but also a lot of differences.
^^You mean to tell me that African people have their "own history, beliefs etc?" Wow. Blinding insight, indeed.
I sincerely hope you understand my point of view better now.
I have no problems with things not at issue, and yes of course Africans have their own adaptations, and their own traditions, beliefs etc. Of course. But I did not understand this statement of yours above. You say:
Jewish people only imposed their religions to their own people -there's only one god and his name is Yahveh- which is bad by itself. In reality, each populations have their own knowledge and name for God.
As already asked, why would the Jewish name for Yahveh be "bad"? And if the Jewish "Yahveh" be bad, why isn't the Yoruba Supreme God- Olodumare/Olorun/Olofi "bad" or named manifestations thereof, be "bad" as well?
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: You say:
Jewish people only imposed their religions to their own people -there's only one god and his name is Yahveh- which is bad by itself. In reality, each populations have their own knowledge and name for God.
As already asked, why would the Jewish name for Yahveh be "bad"? And if the Jewish "Yahveh" be bad, why isn't the Yoruba Supreme God- Olodumare/Olorun/Olofi "bad" or named manifestations thereof, be "bad" as well?
As already answered to you above, it's not the name of the god which is bad, it is the fact that they ***imposed*** one set of belief to their own people, which eventually started the whole Abrahamic proselytizing craze.
When you start to believe you're the ONLY true follower of the words of god himself and that other people are infidels, heretics, pagans, etc if not converted. It can only lead to conflicts with other people (atheist, agnostic, non-believers, people of other religions and denominations, etc). In fact, it can only lead to conflicts even within the same religion as each denominations are fighting one another (catholic vs protestant vs sunni vs shia vs independant churches vs Jews/judaism, etc). This all started with the idea that there was only one religion (in fact, one denomination) which is true while the other religions are not. Others are heretics, infidels, non-believers, pagans, etc. that needed to be converted to the ONLY true religion.
In fact, while writing my post, I included the stuff between -- after I wrote:
Jewish people only imposed their religions to their own people which is bad by itself.
My sentence above can be read easily without the stuff between the -- which I used here only as a form of parenthesis (a side note).
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
^^^ there are some interesting parts of Joe Mintsa's book on Christianity
I got 22 hits, here are 2 of them,
Versus
quote:The God of the monotheistic ('one God') religions - Judaism, Christianity and Islam - is usually perceived in one of two ways: (1) as a formless spirit or (2) as a white man (see for example the image from the Biblioteca Aposotolica Vaticana which graces the front-jacket of Bernhard Lang's recent book, The Hebrew God: Portrait of an Ancient Deity: the image is of God the creator as a white-bearded, purple-robed, white male). But these conceptions of God, Dr. Wesley Muhammad demonstrates, are not rooted in the primary texts-Bible and Qu'ran-but instead stem from ideas and sensitivities of a later period and a foreign cultural-intellectual orientation (Hellenism or Greek philosophy). In contrast, the God of the Semitic monotheistic tradition, that tradition from which sprung the Bible and Qur'an, is neither formless nor white: he is a man-immortal, supremely holy, and possessing a black body. This is the same black God that we encounter in the religious literature throughout the ancient Near East. The black body of God was the focus of the ancient mysteries, for example in New Kingdom Egypt and Vedic India, and was at the center of the esoteric tradition of theTemple in Jerusalem. One of the priests of this Temple and custodians of the secret of this Black God was the priest responsible for the editing of the Torah (the so-called Five Books of Moses or Pentateuch of the Old Testament) The Truth of God is a History-of-Religions study based on a critical examination of the primary texts of scripture (Bible, Qur'an, Sunnah) in Hebrew, Greek and Arabic, as well as the critical scholarship in the secondary literature: English, German and French. This multi-lingual literacy has enabled Dr. Wesley Muhammad to answer the question, 'Who is God?' from the scriptural perspective with a depth not heretofore seen in writing. Dr. Wesley Muhammad has also drawn extensively from the religious texts, in translation, of the ancient Near East and India. With these primary and secondary sources he has been able to demonstrate that: (1) According to a widespread ancient Near and Far Eastern tradition, as evidenced in Egyptian, Sumerian/Babylonian, and Indic sources, God the creator was a black god, with a black body. The answers to such questions as: how did this body develop, of what substance was this body made, and why was this body black, were the focus of the mysteries in these nations. (2) The Creator God of Ancient Israel was this same Black God, and those responsible for forming the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) were devotees of this Black God. (3) The Black God of ancient Near Eastern and Semitic monotheistic traditions was a self-created black man-god, whose physical (though not spiritual) beginnings were from an atom hidden in a primordial darkness. The Hebrew of Genesis I specifies that this was a triple-darkness in which this atom was hidden and from which Elohim (God) emerged. (4) According to the Hebrew Bible and Arabic Qur'an the original black man, in his original state, was God on earth. (5) The Bible and the Qur'an/Sunnah, when allowed to speak their own languages (Hebrew, Greek and Arabic) affirm that God is a transcendent man, not a transcendent, formless spirit. (6) The God of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and the Qur'an is this same Black God of the ancient Near East and ancient Israel. The claim of modern Muslim theologians that God has no form and could never be a man is based on later theological developments away from the Qur'an and Sunnah, developments inspired by the introduction of Greek philosophic ideas into Islam.
--Wesley Muhammad
The Truth of God: The Bible, The Quran and the Secret of the Black God
quote:there are some interesting parts of Joe Mintsa's book on Christianity
Mintsa rambles on an on while saying nothing that is coherent or even sensible. Plus, he unabashedly continues to use stupid colonial and Eurocentric terms like "negros", "Black Africa", etc. This foolish man tells us that a true map of Africa would be a map with its "nations" delineated by language. that would mean a map of Africa with over 3,000 nations. Just silly, and unrealistic.
The world's most successful and influential nations are mostly monolingual. China, Japan, Germany, U.S., Korea, etc. In fact, the largest ethnic[not racial] group in the U.S. is German yet it is doubtful that the members of that group communicate in German--even at home.
Mintsa's text--the little I've read of it--seems like an exercise in intellectual naivete and silly rambling. 600 pages of what?
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:there are some interesting parts of Joe Mintsa's book on Christianity
Mintsa rambles on an on while saying nothing that is coherent or even sensible. Plus, he unabashedly continues to use stupid colonial and Eurocentric terms like "negros", "Black Africa", etc. This foolish man tells us that a true map of Africa would be a map with its "nations" delineated by language. that would mean a map of Africa with over 3,000 nations. Just silly, and unrealistic.
The world's most successful and influential nations are mostly monolingual. China, Japan, Germany, U.S., Korea, etc. In fact, the largest ethnic[not racial] group in the U.S. is German yet it is doubtful that the members of that group communicate in German--even at home.
Mintsa's text--the little I've read of it--seems like an exercise in intellectual naivete and silly rambling. 600 pages of what?
What is his academical background?
Ifa and Islam as Sibling Rivals: The Black Arabian Origins of the Yoruba
Patrol said: Ifa and Islam as Sibling Rivals: The Black Arabian Origins of the Yoruba [by Dr Wesley Muhammed]
Critics of Wesley Muhammed says he downplays the destructive Islamic jihads in Yorubaland, and that he is stealing the culture of the Yoruba people by trying to appropriate it for Arabs and Muslims. They hold that any claim that the Yoruba are from Arabia is false pseudo-history, and that the Yoruba are indigenous West Africans, with DNA and linguistic profiles that have little to do with Arabia. C. Skutch 2013 in Encyclopedia of WOrld's Minorities for example, holds that mainstream linguists classify the Yoruba languages with others from West Africa- Igbo, Edo, Nupe with those of the Niger-Benue confluence in West Africa, not Arabic. Other critics hold that archaelogy shows continuous occupation of the Yoruba area, and while Yoruba legends sometimes speak of "coming from the east" this has nothing to do with Arabia, and that said legends have been false appropriated by Muslims.
Other critics of Dr Wesley see him as an erroneous Muslim in that he fails to acknowledge Prophet Muhammed as white, in accordance with many Muslim writings. These Muslim scholars hold that any attempt to see Muhammed as other than white is insulting to the Prophet, perhaps even infidel. For example, modern Iranian Shi’it shaykhs Maulana Muhammad Zakaria and Ahmed E. Bemat authoritavely stated in 2006:
" “the Holy Prophet’s (s) white complexion had a touch of redness and there was a luster in it…Hence the Imams have stated that ‘if someone says that the Holy Prophet’s (s) complexion was black, we will issue a fatwa of infidelity (kufr) for him because he insulted and disparaged the Holy Prophet (s) and the insulting and disparaging of a prophet amounts to infidelity…” (inShamail-e-Tirmizi, trans. Prof. Murtaza Hussain F. Qurashi [New Delhi: Kitab Bhavan, 2006] 3).
Similarly, internationally renowned Syrian (Sunni) scholar, Shaykh Muhammad al-Yaqoubi who teaches today at the Grand Umayyad Mosque in Syria, in the following video matter-of-factly informs us of the Prophet Muhammad that:
"“His skin color was white, but not jet white…there was some redness on his skin…he had a touch of pink color…”
Sahih Al Bukhary Volume 4, Book 56, Number 744: Narrated Isma'il bin Abi Khalid: I heard Abii Juhaifa saying, "I saw the Prophet, and Al-Hasan bin 'Ali resembled him." I said to Abu- Juhaifa, "Describe him for me." He said, "He was white and his beard was black with some white hair. He promised to give us 13 young she-camels, but he expired before we could get them."
-----------------------------------------
Interestingly enough, some Muslim hadiths hold that Jesus was black, reported for example by Ali Qawi al-Harawi (d. 1605) in his commentary on al-Tirmidhi’s famous al-Shama’il al-Muhammadiyah, according to which Muhammad said regarding Jesus: “I saw a black-skinned man (rajul adam), the best one can see among black-skinned men.”
Thus, Jesus and Moses in this variant, would have been black-skinned men.
Without getting into the details of these controversies, I think the origin of the Yoruba needs more study. "From the east" could mean the Saharan zone, Central Africa, Chad, maybe even the Nile Valley. DNA and more anthro/archaeo research will shed further light.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that the book is only good to brainstorm some ideas but I disagree with most of his "conclusions" from what I read thus far from google books.
quote:Originally posted by lamin: [QUOTE] The world's most successful and influential nations are mostly monolingual.
You use a European mindset to analyse Africa, dividing Africa into nations in your head because it is divided that way politically. What is important with Europe and even large part of Asia like Japan, China, South Korea, etc is that they use their own languages. Even colonized country reverted back to their own language, which was a source of success and development. For example, each and every single country in Europe use their own languages for business, schools and everyday life. Even small and advanced countries like Finland, Sweden, Denmark, etc. A characteristic of African country that is different than Europe is that they are multilingual, but Europe as a whole is multilingual. This reality must be taken into account. Bilingualism/multilingualism and the use of lingua franca resolve all the issue of intercommunication (like in China and Europe as a whole).
In fact, bilingualism makes people, thus our children, more intelligent (as a sort of gymnastic for the mind):
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: Without getting into the details of these controversies, I think the origin of the Yoruba needs more study. "From the east" could mean the Saharan zone, Central Africa, Chad, maybe even the Nile Valley. DNA and more anthro/archaeo research will shed further light. p.
We know a lot already. We know West Africans share a common E-P2 origins (as well as various MtDNA) with East Africans somewhere in NorthEastern Africa around Sudan (See study). We're talking about well before 10 000 years ago. But after this common origin and migration to their respective West and East African current location there's little evidence of admixtures between E1b1b and E1b1a carriers in both East and West Africa. We can see it with autosomal DNA, but also with the lack of E1b1b in Western Africa and vice versa for Northeastern Africa especially along the coast to some degree depending on the population (Somali have little if none E1b1a in their populations). Of course nowadays, Northeastern Africans like Somali are heavily admixed with Semitic people from West Asia/Arabia/Yemen both biologically and culturally.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
Among other aspect, people may check out the table called: Supp Table 4: Proportion of Eurasian ancestry in AGVP populations in the supplementary documents.
We can see in this table the proportion of Eurasian admixtures among various African populations.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic