posted
I think there are some people here, who fall into the trap of trying to separate East Africans from the rest of the continent, just as others attempt to separate Northern Africa from the rest of the continent. To exemplify this, we have:
quote:Cobra: I believe that the Ancient Egyptions are more closer to the current day EAST Africans then the SO COLLED Caucasian, what ever that means!!. Or Samites OR EVEN WEST AFRICAN NEGROES.
This fails to take into account, the fact that Africans of the once fertile Sahara also found their way to the Nile Valley, in addition to those who directly came from east Africa.
The manner in which, "West Africans" in the aforementioned comment was followed by the word "Negroes", while the same was not applied to "East Africans", suggests that so-called Negro is somehow supposed to be limited to a homogenous west Africa. What it actually means in the context provided in the quote, will perhaps be best explained by the author.
Wittingly or otherwise, people who speak of East Africans in the manner just exemplified, seem to be painting East Africans as some sort of a homogenous entity, just as they do, the so-called West Africans. There are both broad and narrow facial physiognomy in either side of the continent.
East Africans:
In Sudan alone...
Continued.
[This message has been edited by Super car (edited 07 May 2005).]
Indeed, to capture the diversity of Africans East to West, not to mention North to South, we could go on with many more examples. The genealogical and cultural (particularly, language) relationships of these groups, has now been pointed out many times.
[This message has been edited by Super car (edited 07 May 2005).]
posted
All quite correct Supercar. There is no single 'true' African phenotype. Africa has always had a great deal of native physical variety. And there is neither a geographical boundary nor climate-divide between East and West Africa to provide rationale for contrived stereotypes.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: There is no single 'true' African phenotype. Africa has always had a great deal of native physical variety. And there is neither a geographical boundary nor climate-divide between East and West Africa to provide rationale for contrived stereotypes.
Quite true; sometimes in order to really get a point through, it is best to suppliment history, genetics and linguistics with photographs, that imediately instill the actual images of the people being talked about, in the minds of the potential audience. Those who have actually been to various places in Africa, ought to already be familiar with these variations, but those who only read about Africans, will only get narrow views of Africans, lest they diversify sources of information. Genetics tells a lot about population relationships, but with the power of photography, it gets even better.
Just think about how many times now, a point has been made to show the diversity and biological relationships of Africans, and yet, we still get comments along the lines of unsubstantiated stereotypes.
[This message has been edited by Super car (edited 07 May 2005).]
posted
This article was brought to my attention by Charlie Bass elsewhere, containing some history, but its relevance here should become clear:
Crossing the Sahara: The Failure of an Early Modern Attempt to Unify Islamic Africa
by Stephen Cory; University of California at Santa Barbara.
Invisible Barriers: The Problem with Regionalization
The traditional area studies approach towards Africa is to divide the continent between North Africa (Arab Africa) and sub-Saharan Africa (Black Africa). The North African states of Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Algeria, and Morocco (and sometimes also the Sudan and Mauritania) are linked with the Arab world and the Middle East.1 The countries that border these lands to the south, and that are geographically much closer than those of the Middle East, are usually studied separately as West Africa, East Africa, or Central Africa. Through the use of this model, a mental barrier is constructed, located approximately in the middle of the Sahara desert, which can blind scholars to the many economic, cultural, religious, and ethnic links between North Africa and sub-Saharan Africa. These links have always existed, and continue to exist today, as evidenced by the presence of many sub-Saharan Africans living and working in the states of North Africa, and by the current claims of the Moroccan government to sovereignty over the Western Sahara.
Economic connections between North Africa and the regions south of the Sahara were established long before the Islamic conquests of North Africa in the early eighth century. Trade was carried out along several dominant caravan routes over the course of hundreds of years. Over the centuries, the main commodities being exchanged included gold, ivory, ostrich feathers, cola nuts, civet, ambergris, animal hides, camels, and slaves. These things were traded for items such as salt, sugar, cloths, brass vessels, horses, and books.
E. W. Bovill describes the cross-Saharan trade in this manner: From the Nile valley in the east to the Atlantic in the west there was trafficking in gold with the interior of Africa at all times in recorded history. Slaves and gold, gold and slaves, provided the life-blood of the trade of the Maghrib with the Sudan. This trade was so prosperous that changes in the trade routes led to the rise and fall of different trading centers over the centuries. The wealth of the caravan trade also inspired numerous efforts by African and European states to establish control over the trade routes. Yet, the source of the West African gold trade remained surprisingly elusive for the foreign potentates who made these attempts.
Another link between the two regions was provided by the Islamic religion. In both East and West Africa, the spread of Islam moved from north to south.3 The expansion of Islam was initially connected with the work of Muslim traders in the regions south of the Sahara.The official recognition of Islam by African rulers led to its further infiltration into African tribal communities. Often Islam was carried to the south through the efforts of Sufi brotherhoods that originated in North Africa. One example of this can be seen in the Tijaniyya brotherhood, which began in southern Algeria during the eighteenth century, and which spread extensively throughout West Africa.The connection to the Tijaniyya is so strong today that many West African Muslims make a stop at the shrine of Ahmad al-Tijani in Fes prior to completing the pilgrimage to Mecca5...
Although Westerners have often failed to recognize these links between North Africa and sub-Saharan Africa [more like intentionally dividing the continent], this mental barrier has not always existed in the minds of Africans...
As mentioned before, it was North Africans who first brought Islam into these regions, through their contacts of trade and travel. As Islam expanded south of the Sahara, it took on a different flavor than it had in the northern part of the continent. Yet, it never completely lost its connections with North African Islam. Black African scholars kept themselves abreast of intellectual and political developments in such northern centers as Cairo and Fes, and those Africans who were fortunate enough to make the pilgrimage to Mecca passed through these lands, further strengthening connections. Sometimes influences would actually run in the other direction. In fact, it was nomad tribes from the southern Sahara who established the famous Almoravid dynasty, which ruled the western Maghrib and al-Andalus for over one hundred years.
Despite these connections, no thought appears to have been given to creating a state that would link the regions north and south of the Sahara until the sixteenth century. It was the Moroccan Sadi dynasty that made the first attempts in this direction.
By the mid-sixteenth century, the Sadis had managed to wrest control of Morocco from the hands of the Portuguese colonizers and the Berber Wattasid dynasty, and could begin to direct their attention towards the south. In 1557, the Sadi sultan Muhammad al-Shaykh launched an invasion of the salt mines of Taghaza, which had been under the control of the West African Songhay dynasty to that time. Salt was an important element in that it served as the main commodity that was traded for gold. Muhammad al-Shaykh was unable to follow up on this victory, however, since he was murdered by Turkish mercenaries shortly afterwards. However, this same interest in the south would be shown by the son of Muhammad al-Shaykh in the 1580s, but this time with a slightly different thrust.
Ahmad al-Mansur rose to the throne in Marrakech on the heels of the Sadis magnificent victory over the Portuguese in the Battle of Wadi al-Makhazen (August 4, 1578). An ambitious man, al-Mansur would not be satisfied with simply ruling over the lands of Morocco. However, with the powerful Spanish state to the north, and the Ottoman Empire having established control to the east in Algiers, al-Mansur had no direction in which to expand other than southwards. The region was certainly tempting economically, due to the wealth that was generated by the gold and slave trades originating in West Africa. Al-Mansur believed that his possession of firearms and the modern military practices utilized by his army should enable him to triumph over the swords, spears, and tribal confederations available to the Songhay state.
And yet, the sultan had more than simply economic motivations for considering an invasion to the south. Sadi rhetoric itself propelled al-Mansur towards expanding his state. Unlike the preceding Berber dynasties, the Sadis claimed to be sharifs, or descendants of the Prophet Muhammad. In their competition with the Wattasids, they had argued successfully that, as sharifs, they were the divinely appointed rulers of the country. Backing up their position with the use of Quranic verses and hadith that asserted the superiority of the Prophet' family, the Sadis had used their sharifian status as the primary justification for their rule. In fact, the logic of this argument meant that the Sadi sharifs were not only the legitimate rulers over Morocco, but also over the entire Islamic world. Muhammad al-Shaykh had clearly implied this through statements such as his derisive reference to the Ottoman sultan as The Sultan of the Fishermen and his claims that he would meet up with him in Cairo (which was being administered at that time by the Ottomans).8 It was for such swagger as this, put into action when Muhammad al-Shaykh attempted to take Tlemcen on the western borders of Ottoman territory, that the Turkish sultan had the Sadi leader assassinated.
Ahmad al-Mansur had similar ambitions as his father, but he was enough of a political realistic to recognize that he lacked the strength to challenge the Ottomans directly. And yet, it was under al-Mansur that the theory of sharifian supremacy was developed to its fullest extent. The sultan employed court panegyrists and poets such as Ibn al-Qadi, al-Fishtali, and al-Masfiwi to trumpet the superiority of his claim to Islamic headship, particularly in the eastern Islamic lands.9 In the meantime, al-Mansur made concrete plans to exert his authority over the Islamic states of sub-Saharan Africa, using the ancient theory of the caliphate as his justification. Al-Mansur's claims represented an attempt by an Early Modern monarch to reinvigorate an Islamic institution that had been important during the earliest centuries of Islam, but which had vanished in all but name after the decline and fall of the Abbasid Empire.10
The original caliphs were believed to be successors of the Prophet Muhammad. Their position initially involved both spiritual and political leadership, which is reflected in the title Prince of the Believers. The caliph was believed to have authority over the entire Muslim community. Particularly critical to the political legitimacy of the early caliphs was their association with the house of the Prophet, their claim to uphold the practices of the true faith, and their successful expansion and defense of Islamic realms through military might. So strong was the sanctity of this office that Muslim potentates continued to give lip service allegiance to the Abbasid caliphs, long after the latter had lost all true political authority.
After the Mongol conquest of Baghdad in 1258 destroyed the Abbasid caliphate, the Mamluk dynasty of Egypt co-opted an Abbasid descendent and moved him to Cairo as a puppet caliph in order to substantiate their claims to supremacy in the Islamic world. However, no serious attempts to revive this institution along its original lines were made until the sixteenth century. At the same time that the Ottoman dynasty was considering how they might effectively apply the title of caliph to legitimize their primary position in the Islamic world, Ahmad al-Mansur began to openly assert that his caliphal claims better fit the historic qualifications for the position of Prince of the Believers.
It was in his role as the rightful caliph over the Islamic world that al-Mansur made his approach to the Islamic rulers of the kingdoms bordering the Sahara on the south. In letters written to the rulers of Bornu, Kebbi, and Songhay, al-Mansur asserted his caliphal supremacy and maintained that he was only attempting to restore Islamic unity as God intended it, under the rightful leadership of the family of the Prophet.
The sultan's letters to the sub-Saharan monarchs emphasized that he needed their support in order to stem the progress of the unbelieving Europeans, and to fulfill his role as leader of holy war to advance the expansion of Islam. Nowhere in his letters did al-Mansur ever indicate that he viewed the sub-Saharan lands as a different region from his own territory. Instead, the clear implication of his message was that, as members of Dar al-Islam (the House of Islam), the sub-Saharan Africans should willingly submit to al-Mansur as the rightful caliph over all Muslims. Submission would bring blessing and prosperity, while resistance would bring destruction. The Sadi sultan seems to have been envisioning the reestablishment of the caliphate in the western lands of Islam; a caliphate that would span the Sahara on both sides, and would serve as a challenge to Ottoman supremacy...
During the time of al-Mansur, the Ottoman empire also brought together many different regions under one head, while, superficially at least, applying the title of caliph to their sultan. Al-Mansur had no reason to think that he couldn't do the same, especially given that his claims for leadership were better than those of the Ottomans. In addition, the long-standing economic and religious connections between North and West Africa only encouraged the sultan to conceive of these two areas as being part of one community, which ought to be linked politically as well. He argued that, as a sharif, he was uniquely qualified to lead this community, and that the rulers of the sub-Saharan Islamic states ought to recognize and submit to his authority.
Forced Unity? Al-Mansur's Invasion of West Africa
As is often the case, the practice of implementing al-Mansur's ideas of a western caliphate was more difficult than its theoretical conception. The sultan spent several years in negotiation with the sub-Saharan Borno and Songhay states, and in preparing his army for an invasion to the south. Although he obtained a written oath of allegiance from the sultan of the Bornu,12 al-Mansur's attempts to exert his authority over the Songhay met with outright refusal from their leader, Askia Ishaq II. As a result, the Sadi sultan launched his invasion of Songhay in 1591.13
Due to their enormous advantage in firearms and military organization, al-Mansur's troops were initially quite successful in conquering the region and annexing it to the Moroccan empire. Efforts were made to persuade the most influential members of West African society to willingly give their allegiance to al-Mansur, and to stabilize the area under new leadership.14 Following this victory, the Sadi scribe al-Fishtali would proclaim triumphantly, "The command of al-Mansur was effective from Nuba to the ocean on the western side . . . (and he gained) marvelous authority that had never existed for anyone before him."15 However, it would turn out that al-Mansur's authority south of the Sahara was ephemeral at best. After a short period of time, a Songhay resistance movement arose, resulting in many years of armed struggle between the Moroccan conquerors and the Songhay resistance, and dooming al-Mansur's project to eventual failure.
If, as I have argued, the regions north and south of the Sahara have long enjoyed many and varied connections, and if al-Mansur's justification for his annexation of West Africa fit in with traditional Islamic ideology, at least two questions are raised by this failure:
What were the reasons for the short duration of effective Moroccan authority in West Africa?
Why did the West Africans fail to buy into al-Mansur's explanation for the invasion?
Regarding the first question, many historians explain this failure as being due to several factors. First of all, they believe that al-Mansur was simply interested in milking profits from the West African gold mines, and that he made no effort to develop the infrastructure for a more permanent annexation of Songhay lands. Secondly, they argue that Morocco lacked the capacity to effectively incorporate the large Songhay territory, separated from southern Morocco by miles of desert wasteland, into the Moroccan empire. Although their superiority in weaponry gave the Moroccans an initial advantage in their battle with the Songhay, the permanent annexation of this territory to Morocco was a different story.
[Moroccan historian Abd al-Krim Kurayyim on the other hand]...argues that the Moroccans attempted to establish a stable administration for governing the country, and even made efforts to improve agricultural methods in the region. Kurayyim maintains that not all of the Songhay resented the arrival of the Moroccans, and lists a number of cases in which the invaders received a warm response.
He places most of the blame for the disorder that befell West Africa after the Moroccan invasion upon the Songhay leaders who continued to resist Moroccan authority, leading to a protracted guerilla war throughout the Songhay regions.17 In addition, misfortunes that occurred within Morocco itself, including an extended plague after 1596, could be adduced to help explain the Moroccan failure to capitalize upon their military victory through effectively annexing the Songhay territory.
Another scholar, Lansine Kaba, disagrees with Kurayyim's favorable interpretation of Moroccan efforts to integrate the Songhay lands into their empire.Kaba argues that, while al-Mansur had developed a highly sophisticated army (by sixteenth-century standards), the Moroccan governmental, societal, and economic infrastructure lacked the same degree of sophistication. Indeed, in order to develop such an army, al-Mansur had been forced to rely upon mercenary troops mostly recruited from Andalusian refugees, European renegades, and Turkish mercenaries. Since these troops lacked any long-term identification with Morocco itself, they were untrustworthy, and tended to be overly harsh in their administration, and unreliable in their commitment to the sultan's goals. Finally, Kaba argues that al-Mansur's invasion of the Songhay was carried on mostly with Europe in view. Desirous of keeping pace with the European powers, al-Mansur sought to unite West Africa under his authority, in order that he might be able to utilize its resources to strengthen his position vis-a-vis the other Mediterranean states.
However, instead of achieving this goal, Kaba believes that the invasion turned out to be a complete disaster, which finally swallowed up both the conqueror and the conquered.18 Not only was the effect of continued warfare devastating to the economy and society of West Africa, but the cost of supporting a long-distance foreign war placed undue strain upon the Moroccan economy. It drained away resources that could have been better used elsewhere in developing an infrastructure that would be able to compete economically with the Europeans.
Regarding my second question (as to why the West Africans did not buy into al-Mansur's justification for his invasion), I again refer to the works of Kurayyim and Kaba. As Kurayyim points out, the sources indicate that a number of the Songhay leaders did initially welcome the Moroccans, and seemed prepared to cooperate with their authority. However, the documented abuses undertaken against the local population by Moroccan troops seem to have turned the populace against the invaders. This hearkens back to Kaba's point that the mercenary nature of al-Mansur's troops may not have been the most advantageous for establishing a long-term connection with the Songhay lands.
Indeed, it seems that most West Africans believed that al-Mansur's claims to unify the Islamic community were made for self-serving reasons, and not for the purpose of advancing the cause of Islam. Their experience of this unification project was violence, turmoil, the loss of their possessions, and general anarchy.19 Whether the rebellious Songhay are blamed for this chaos (per Kurayyim), the mercenary soldiers (per Kaba), or the disingenuous aims of al-Mansur himself (per many other historians, including Dahiru Yahya,)20 the end result was not conducive to garnering West African support for a greater Western Caliphate under the headship of al-Mansur. Kaba makes one other observation that is relevant to our discussion. Regarding the Songhay resistance, he writes that the retreat of the Askia and his entourage into the historic Songhay heartland galvanized the resistance and gave a national character to it. In a footnote, Kaba explains that resistance to the abuses inflicted upon the populace by the Moroccan army assumed a national character in that it entailed broad trans-ethnic feelings hostile to alien rule and based on some type of common historical traditions.22 Thus, Kaba alludes to the beginnings of proto-nationalist feelings in West Africa, some of the earliest forebodings of a mindset that was to become predominant in Africa and the rest of the world during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
The Divisive Impact of Nationalism
...Because of the economic and political power of the West, and also because nationalist ideologies have proven to be an effective means by which local elites in developing nations can legitimize their authority, the nationalist ideal became almost exclusively dominant throughout the world during the twentieth century. This was true even in states that presumed to adhere to more universalizing doctrines such as Muslim nations and communist countries.
Certainly the concept of the modern nation state, which includes such ideas as the right of self-determination, common citizenship available to all inhabitants of a country, and other related notions, promises many advantages to developing states. And yet, what it has frequently delivered is increased inequality and ethnic conflicts, border wars over proper boundaries between lands, and the subdivision of regions that once functioned effectively as a unit into smaller entities that have trouble competing on their own. Many of the modern nation-states are clearly colonial constructs arising from Western political decisions during the colonial period.
These include the rather spurious distinction between the nations of Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan, states that had **no separate identity prior to the intervention of the colonizers.**Another example is the linking of the Christian southern Sudan with the Islamic northern Sudan (a decision that has resulted in a long and bloody civil war that continues to this day).It is also interesting how often a nationalist conception seems to develop in contradistinction to an opposing other, such as we saw earlier in this paper when we observed the beginnings of a Songhay nationalism coming into being only in response to the oppression of the Moroccan invaders. In the same way, it can be argued that Palestinian nationalism has developed only in response to the imposition of the Israeli nationalist vision, or that Bosnian nationalism arose in response to Serbian aggressiveness. The Armenians coexisted relatively peacefully with the Ottoman Turks for hundreds of years prior to the late nineteenth century, when the simultaneous development of Turkish and Armenian nationalism led to the infamous Armenian massacres. In the same way, similar examples could be multiplied with regard to Africa and other parts of the developing world.
Regionalism is a by-product of the West, arising from the nineteenth-century drive to understand and categorize the world, particularly in a way that made it clear that the West was the most advanced civilization on earth. Regionalism tends to essentialize certain areas according to characteristics that are felt to typify them. Sometimes the process of regionalism is spurred on by the inhabitants of those regions themselves. In the case of North Africa, the dominant culture has been a self-identified Arab culture. Believing Arab cultural values to be superior to Berber or sub-Saharan cultural values, the Maghrib has chosen to identify itself with the Arab world, even during periods of dominance by Berber dynasties such as the Almoravid or Merinid dynasties. By focusing solely upon this self-chosen identification, however, scholars run the risk of missing very important cultural contributions by subordinate groups within the society.
Towards a New Conception of Africa
Through this study, I have sought to demonstrate the long-lasting connections between North Africa and sub-Saharan Africa. Although these connections existed centuries before the coming of Islam, they grew stronger throughout the Islamic period. During the sixteenth century, the Sadi sultan Ahmad al-Mansur observed the economic, cultural, and religious connections between the two regions, and argued that there ought to be political unification between them as well. And yet, it was at this point that things broke down, as al-Mansur was unable to achieve his dream of a caliphate that spanned both sides of the Sahara. The unification project for such a broad expanse of territory was too difficult for a moderately-powerful state, lacking in sophisticated infrastructure, such as Morocco, to achieve. Despite the existence of these many inter-connections, they were insufficient to support political unification.
In fact, if Kaba's argument is correct, al-Mansur's attempt at integrating West Africa into his state had long-lasting disastrous consequences for both North and West Africa. By destroying the strongest centralized state in sub-Saharan Africa, al-Mansur's invasion did irreparable damage to the trans-Saharan trade routes that had enriched both Morocco and West Africa. Instead, this trade increasingly began to be diverted to the south, where it was accessed by European merchants along the Gold and Slave Coasts. And the process of devoting all of the state's efforts towards the invasion exhausted the Sadi dynasty, making it extremely vulnerable to outside interference and collapse, once misfortune hit in the form of the plague and various famines. In attempting to establish a form of African political unity, al-Mansur hastened division and decline, leaving West Africa unprotected before the European onslaught that was to come in the following centuries.25
Perhaps we make the same mistake as did al-Mansur, albeit with less disastrous results. We assume that where there are economic, religious, and cultural connections, political connection ought to exist as well. Or, conversely, we conclude that if there is not a dominant political or ethnic connection between different areas, then the two areas ought to be considered as separate and distinct. One of our primary modern conceptions for viewing the world, nationalism, develops unity among people by emphasizing their distinctions from others. This naturally leads to division and conflict. Thus the Maghrib, which has been unified under different dynasties several times in the past, cannot get past the nationalist barrier to achieve any degree of Maghribi unity today. This is true even though attempts have been made towards this end, and it is clear that there would be benefits for all the countries of the Maghrib through the achievement of some higher degree of cooperation between them.
Certainly I am not recommending a return to the Islamic caliphal ideal, nor could such a thing be brought about even if it were attempted. The modern world is different from the medieval world in substantial ways, and there is no way to turn back the clock. Still, I think it is time to recognize some of the weaknesses of the modern concepts of nationalism and regionalism, and to work to move beyond the limitations that they place upon us.
How can scholars overcome the pitfalls of the blinders that are set up by these modern concepts? If I were to propose another model for viewing the continent of Africa, I would be falling into the same regionalist trap that I am criticizing. Instead, we, as teachers and scholars, must make a concerted effort in our instruction and research to point out the unifying connections between regions that often go over-looked in today's world. If we can teach our students to think in the same way, perhaps tomorrow's leaders can emerge as somewhat more broad-minded than our generation has proven to be, and less limited by constructs that are viewed as being hard and fast. At any rate, it would be worth our best efforts to attempt to achieve such results.
Some notes:
While the author admits that his use of Western Africa examples can be attributed to his expertise in mainly Western Africa studies, he points out that, similar connections can be made between the northern and sub-Saharan regions of East Africa:
Since my expertise is in western Africa, most of my examples are derived from that region. However, many of the same points can be made about East Africa as well. For more information on the Islamic connections between the regions north and south of the Sahara in East Africa, see Nehemia Levtzion and Randall L. Pouwels, editors, The History of Islam in Africa (Athens: Ohio University Press, 2000). In particular, the following articles in that volume deal with the spread of Islam in East Africa: The East African Coast, c. 780 to 1900 CE by Randall Pouwels, pp. 251-272; East Central Africa by Edward A. Alpers, pp. 303-326.
Nationalism has existed in times contemporaneous to dynastic Egypt, in that Kemetians saw themselves as Kemetians, and this was defined by shared values and customs, shared land (marked by defined boundaries) and the coming together under a central governance. As the author pointed out, nationalism in terms of continental-wide nationalism mainly took off in the 19th and 20th centuries, but modern artificial colonial boundaries that define many nation states, ensure the persistence of the contradictions within continental-wide nationalisms, culminating in border conflicts and ethnic wars. The contradictions are expressed in the need for some groups to distance themselves from others, even when continental-wide nationalism is acknowledged. This is where regionalism (another modern construct) comes into play, whereby some talk of East Africans as though they are a homogenous entity, which is different from another supposedly homogenous entity, namely west Africans, or North Africans vs. sub-Saharan Africans, or a piece of North Africa labeled as "middle East", excluding the remaining portions of North Africa. Even then, after all the talk of regionalism or continental-wide nationalism, conflicts continue within these "regions" themselves, or even within individual nation states around the world.
[This message has been edited by Super car (edited 08 May 2005).]
posted
Just another racist thread from Super car. A man obcessed by race as a drunk craves whiskey. Its interesting that what we get is a group of pictures of people living in the wilderness carrying sticks around.
Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: Just another racist thread from Super car. A man obcessed by race as a drunk craves whiskey.
Show us what is racist about highlighting the diversity of Africans? Give us the specifics on what was said, that implies racism!
quote:Horemheb: Its interesting that what we get is a group of pictures of people living in the wilderness carrying sticks around.
The gist of what has been presented here, is far too sophisticated for your processing. Evolution has evaded a few, who have not progressed at all intellectually from where primitive-thinking 19th century racists left off. It is safe to say, you fit well into that reactionary bunch.
[This message has been edited by Super car (edited 08 May 2005).]
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: Just another racist thread from Super car. A man obcessed by race as a drunk craves whiskey. Its interesting that what we get is a group of pictures of people living in the wilderness carrying sticks around.
This coming from a person that stated..any African nation/people that have achieved anything
quote:must have had some white blood mixed with them in the first place
, which would explain there achievement..
I guess you would know what is indeed racist.
Posts: 142 | From: University Height, NJ, USA | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Exactly what is so "racist" about this thread, Horemheb? Unlike YOU, Supercar does not write anything that degrades racial groups like YOU, all he is showing is the diversity of African people. Maybe it bothers you because it bursts your bubble of a fantasy?
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
The Omo Valley is virtually free of human habitation but is rich in palaeo-anthro-pological remains. According to scientific research done in 1982 by the University of California at Berkeley, hominid remains from the Omo Valley probably date back more than four million years. - Selamta; an Ethiopian magazine. BTW, Selam basically means greetings.
Lower Valley of the Omo
A prehistoric site near Lake Turkana, the lower valley of the Omo is renowned the world over. The discovery of many fossils there, especially Homo gracilis, has been of fundamental importance in the study of human evolution. - UNESCO World Heritage Center
Despite much of the Omo Valley being sparsely populated, nonetheless, even small remote East African regions like the Lower Omo Valley has such a high degree of diversity, which tourists/explorers cant fail to take notice.
Visiting the peoples of the South Omo is an enriching and educational experience. Up to two dozen tribes inhabit the area and we visit villages and local markets in the hope of meeting maybe a third of them. The most famous are the Mursi, renowned for their clay lip plates, but there are many other vivid encounters. - Exodus; UK
In Ethiopia alone, there are more than 80 different ethnic groups, with the Oromo being the largest group in that country, if not in Africa. Yet, there seem to be talk of the Oromo struggling for independence, from a political power, which is perceived to be mainly of Trigrayna :
The Oromo constitute the largest Cushitic group in all of Africa. Their population is estimated at some 30 million, a good half of the total population of the Ethiopian state. Despite policies persistently followed by successive autocratic governments of Ethiopia in the past to change the demographic composition of regions through resettlement schemes and forced assimilation, each national group has maintained a distinct cultural identity of its own with its own language and its own separate and well-defined territory throughout the millennia. - Oromia Online
So what then is this talk of East Africans, as described earlier, if idea behind it, isnt to promote some sort of pseudo-regionalism ( a point was made on regionalism in the aforementioned Stephen Cory article ?
[This message has been edited by Super car (edited 08 May 2005).]
posted
Despite much of the Omo Valley being sparsely populated, nonetheless, even small remote East African regions like the Lower Omo Valley has such a high degree of diversity, which tourists/explorers cant fail to take notice.
Visiting the peoples of the South Omo is an enriching and educational experience. Up to two dozen tribes inhabit the area and we visit villages and local markets in the hope of meeting maybe a third of them. The most famous are the Mursi, renowned for their clay lip plates, but there are many other vivid encounters. - Exodus; UK
In Ethiopia alone, there are more than 80 different ethnic groups, with the Oromo being the largest group in that country, if not in Africa. Yet, there seem to be talk of the Oromo struggling for independence, from a political power, which is perceived to be mainly of Trigrayna :
The Oromo constitute the largest Cushitic group in all of Africa. Their population is estimated at some 30 million, a good half of the total population of the Ethiopian state. Despite policies persistently followed by successive autocratic governments of Ethiopia in the past to change the demographic composition of regions through resettlement schemes and forced assimilation, each national group has maintained a distinct cultural identity of its own with its own language and its own separate and well-defined territory throughout the millennia. - Oromia Online
So what then is this talk of East Africans, as described earlier, if idea behind it, isnt to promote some sort of pseudo-regionalism ( a point was made on regionalism in the aforementioned Stephen Cory article ?
quote:Originally posted by jluis: Yes, again another thread on race.
You do have a choice of opening up another thread.
quote:jluis: Anyway, there is an improvement...
It is shown the DIVERSITY of African people.
Finally, if Africans are the original people, they should be the most diverse.
So, what's da problem?
You tell me; didn't you read the beginning of the thread?
In case, you haven't noticed, the idea is to illustrate the degree of physical variation, which goes without saying, along with cultural diversity in 'every corner' of the African continent, so as to reflect the absurdity of references to constructs like East Africans, North Africans, or West Africans, etc, as though they are some sort of homogenous "racial" groups that are distinct from one another.
At any rate, some of us have gotten the gist, as exemplified by the postings of Ausar and Rasol:
quote: Rasol: There is no single 'true' African phenotype. Africa has always had a great deal of native physical variety. And there is neither a geographical boundary nor climate-divide between East and West Africa to provide rationale for contrived stereotypes.
On the other hand, it may take a 'few' quite some time, before they can catch on.
posted
well, North African are not black ...check the United Nations demographic studies on Africa. Secondly, you are still talking about race, not history.
Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: well, North African are not black ...check the United Nations demographic studies on Africa. Secondly, you are still talking about race, not history.
On the other hand, it may take a 'few' quite some time, before they can catch on.
quote:Originally posted by Super car: On the other hand, it may take a 'few' quite some time, before they can catch on.
Oh,well. Let me start again...
There are boundaries of physical variation in Africa. But they are not the same as cultural variations. "East Africans", "North Africans" and "West Africans" are nothing but the consequences of trade and discovery. These categories do not reflect the diversity of Africa.
The main boundaries of physical variation in Africa reflect the main ecologycal variations in Africa: the Sahra divide, which cuts the continent into two. The forest belt, which cut out the chances of people to spread thru the continent and maintain cultural homogeneity. And the coast/inland divide, which is always important...
These are the main sources of African fenotypes variations. And no others...
Posts: 71 | From: Uppsala, Sweden | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Julis, Be patient with super car. In our 10th grade world history classes we teach our students the role Greece played in the development of western civilization. Its is the most basic stuff you'll find in world history....Super car hasn't even figured that out yet. We keep working to eduate our kids, we won't give up on SC.
Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by jluis: Oh,well. Let me start again...
There are boundaries of physical variation in Africa.
What are those physical boundaries?
quote:jlus: But they are not the same as cultural variations.
Who said anything about physical variation being the same thing as cultural variation?
You might be taking my comment in the wrong context. The point I was trying to make, was that just as there are physical variations, so is the case with cultural variations.
quote:jluis:
"East Africans", "North Africans" and "West Africans" are nothing but the consequences of trade and discovery. These categories do not reflect the diversity of Africa.
Bingo! I thought you were about to be on the right track, until I came across this:
quote:jluis: The main boundaries of physical variation in Africa reflect the main ecologycal variations in Africa: the Sahra divide, which cuts the continent into two.
How does the Sahara divide the continent into two? Are you suggesting that Africans south of the Sahara, aren't able to get to the north via land travel or that there are no Africans on the Sahara belt?
quote:jluis: The forest belt, which cut out the chances of people to spread thru the continent and maintain cultural homogeneity. And the coast/inland divide, which is always important...
What forest belt would this be, and how are the coasts divided from the inlands?
[This message has been edited by Super car (edited 08 May 2005).]
quote:well, North African are not black ...check the United Nations demographic studies on Africa.
LOL Some of the pictures that Supercar posted are North Africans, which comes to show how accurated these demographic studies are!!
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The subject is simple...north africans and Sub Saharan Africans are two different groups of people
Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
LOL Some of the pictures that Supercar posted are North Africans, which comes to show how accurated these demographic studies are!!
Horemheb, doesn't know the difference between peer-reviewed bio-anthropology and amateur stuff like government or geo-political stats or constructs. That is one of the major differences between him and the informed.
[This message has been edited by Super car (edited 08 May 2005).]
posted
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Super car: What are those physical boundaries?
jluis: "East Africans", "North Africans" and "West Africans" are nothing but the consequences of trade and discovery. These categories do not reflect the diversity of Africa.
Bingo! I thought you were about to be on the right track, until I came across this:
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- jluis: The main boundaries of physical variation in Africa reflect the main ecologycal variations in Africa: the Sahra divide, which cuts the continent into two. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How does the Sahara divide the continent into two? Are you suggesting that Africans south of the Sahara, aren't able to get to the north via land travel or that there are no Africans on the Sahara belt?
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- jluis: The forest belt, which cut out the chances of people to spread thru the continent and maintain cultural homogeneity. And the coast/inland divide, which is always important... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What forest belt would this be, and how are the coasts divided from the inlands?
_________________________________
The Sahara is a desert, a very dry zone where people cannot cross when they want. So, it is a physical barrier. It means that people must invent and prepare well ways to cross it (because it is not an easy cross). There may be "Africans" (I take black people) in the Sahel belt. But there are not continous connections between North and South. Y'know, it takes some effort to cross Sahra...
The forest belt.
Well, it is another kind of barrier for human beings. African forest, south of the Sahel, it is a tough way to travel. Any people trying to cross it needs a completedly different ecology to do it. From dry environment to lush, wet environment. From pasture to deep forest. I think it took some time to Africans to adapt to forest. Maybe the difference between Nilotic pastoralist and Bantu farmers are not so far from this need to change peoples' ecology.
I take the ecological difference between Sahel and the tropical forest is evident in its own.
About coast/inland.
Well, here we pass from the ecological to the cultural. In the coast it was far more easy to get and trade with other peoples, coming from the sea (the Shirazi and the Swahili, and the Red Sea traders and the Somali, for instance). So, people in the coast, whatever its origing, have much more chances to get on trade opportunyties and to deal with foreign influence, a chance and a threat, at the same time.
The divide is self-evident. If you don't follow it, please think on what happened when the West African peoples met the sea-faring Europeans (Portuguese) in the early times of colonies.
[This message has been edited by jluis (edited 08 May 2005).]
Posts: 71 | From: Uppsala, Sweden | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Super car...you would not know peer revied research if it flew in your face. You lost all credibility with ignorant wild claims about Greece that only the most extreme radicals buy into . Until you educate yourself further nothing you say will have any weight.
Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Sahara is a desert, a very dry zone where people cannot cross when they want. So, it is a physical barrier. It means that people must invent and prepare well ways to cross it (because it is not an easy cross). There may be "Africans" (I take black people) in the Sahel belt. But there are not continous connections between North and South. Y'know, it takes some effort to cross Sahra...
However the sahara unlike a mountain range is not permanent barrier.
posted
well, they know full well that the populations north of the desert were , for the most part, different from the negroid populations to the south. This is not rocket science guys, you can get it.
Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
[QUOTE]Originally posted by rasol: [B] However the sahara unlike a mountain range is not permanent barrier.
Rasol, man, don't compare. The Sahra is much more worst that a mountain range.
No one of them is a fully permanent barrier, but I do think that a desert as wide as Sahara is much more difficult to pass that a simple mountain range.
[This message has been edited by jluis (edited 08 May 2005).]
Posts: 71 | From: Uppsala, Sweden | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:jluis: Physical boundaries, the only ones that have REAL antropological revelance, are ecologycal divides. This is an statement.
The Sahara is a desert, a very dry zone where people cannot cross when they want. So, it is a physical barrier.
What evidence do you have that Africans were never able to pass through the Sahara desert, when in fact they are Africans living in that zone as we speak?
quote:jluis: It means that people must invent and prepare well ways to cross it (because it is not an easy cross).
What ways have been artificially built in order to make Africans move through the Sahara desert, when in historic times, they didn't need one to move through?
quote:jluis: There may be "Africans" (I take black people) in the Sahel belt.
You can say that again; hence, making your earlier statement about the Sahara being a barrier to the movement of people, a very questionable one.
quote:jluis: But there are not continous connections between North and South. Y'know, it takes some effort to cross Sahra...
I take it that you aren't aware of the historic trade routes between sub-Saharan and the Muslim world of North Africa, and those in West Asia. As a matter of fact, not too long ago, I posted an article in this very thread, that mentions something about these north and sub-Saharan connections. (see the earlier Stephen Corey article)
However, where is your evidence, inspite of what I just said, that suggests there were no continuous connections between the north and the south?
quote:jluis: The forest belt. Well, it is another kind of barrier for human beings. African forest, south of the Sahel, it is a tough way to travel.
Again, I ask, which forest belt are you talking about?
quote:Any people trying to cross it needs a completedly different ecology to do it. From dry environment to lush, wet environment. From pasture to deep forest. I think it took some time to Africans to adapt to forest.
LOL. Are you suggesting that some Africans adapted to a forest environment, while others couldn't?
quote:jluis: I take the ecological difference between Sahel and the tropical forest is evident in its own.
The only problem is that the logic of your explanation thus far, isn't so evident.
quote:jluis:
About coast/inland.
Well, here we pass from the ecological to the cultural. In the coast it was far more easy to get and trade with other peoples, coming from the sea (the Shirazi and the Swahili, and the Red Sea traders and the Somali, for instance.
Well of course, the coast made it possible for people to trade; I don't think anybody here suggested otherwise. But how does that act as a barrier between, let's say inland Somalis and coastal Somalis?
Land-locked people have always had connections with coastal people, in order to benefit from trade. Do you have a specific example(s), in which people living "inland" weren't able to interact with people living in or have access to the coastal areas?
posted
Julis, he is an idiot. Almost everything he has ever said on this board has been wrong. Naturally a desert is a barrier but not to these black radicals. If you decide that you need not rely on sound scholarship you can say anything, that is what these guys try to do.
Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
[QUOTE]Originally posted by rasol: [B] Hasn't always been.
Yeah, I know. But I was trying to explain Super Car that crossing a place like Sahra is not so easy. You need organization, a really good organization, and the fact that there were trade entrepeneurs that cross it DOES support my point. They need slaves to do it (and camels, by the way).
Why they want to cross the Sahra? Because there were goods to trade: Gold and salt. Both very valuable. More than slaves. That's why they use slaves to trade gold and no the other way round.
Anyway, I reckon that in old times (before 3000 aC) things could have been different.
Posts: 71 | From: Uppsala, Sweden | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Yeah, I know. But I was trying to explain Super Car that crossing a place like Sahra is not so easy. You need organization, a really good organization, and the fact that there were trade entrepeneurs that cross it DOES support my point. They need slaves to do it (and camels, by the way).
Of course, moving through the Sahara desert isn't easy, and again, nobody is stating otherwise. But you talk about it as the kind of barrier, which stopped people of the North from getting to the south of Sahara regions and visa versa, and as result, no interactions between the people of these regions. History proves you wrong on that account, because there has been continuous connections between these Africans, even before trade with Muslim traders. Needless to say, for those connections to have occurred, people must have moved through the sahara desert.
quote:Originally posted by Super car: Well of course, the coast made it possible for people to trade; I don't think anybody here suggested otherwise. But how does that act as a barrier between, let's say inland Somalis and coastal Somalis?
Land-locked people have always had connections with coastal people, in order to benefit from trade. Do you have a specific example(s), in which people living "inland" weren't able to interact with people living in or have access to the coastal areas?
"What evidence do you have that Africans were never able to pass through the Sahara desert"
Who says that no one passed the Sahra? It is well known that people did. What I am saying is that they do not have a continuous population thru the Sahra, for obvious reasons.
"What ways have been artificially built in order to make Africans move through the Sahara desert?"
No one, the Sahra is a NATURAL barrier.
"I take it that you aren't aware of the historic trade routes between sub-Saharan and the Muslim world of North Africa"
Ai, man, again? You don't get the difference between trade (trade routes, crossing the desert) and continous population (living in the land, all time)
"Again, I ask, which forest belt are you talking about?"
I am speechless.. don't you know there are forest (aka jungle) south of Sahel?
"LOL. Are you suggesting that some Africans adapted to a forest environment, while others couldn't?"
YES. Exactly.
"Land-locked people have always had connections with coastal people, in order to benefit from trade. Do you have a specific example(s), in which people living "inland" weren't able to interact with people living in or have access to the coastal areas?"
All coast of Africa ( and Europe -Mediterranean- and all the continents in this Earth) are examples of that. And please, understand that it is not about having/not having contacts. It is about the kind of contacts they had. Some traded some goods and some others traded others. This is why some get some money and some not.
Coast and inland relationship is one of the main ways to explain the differential evolution of African people, as it is from other peoples, non African (as , for example: Asian, European and American)
Posts: 71 | From: Uppsala, Sweden | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:jluis: Who says that no one passed the Sahra?
Remember what that question you are now responding to, with yet another question, was questioning? It was this:
quote:jluis: The Sahara is a desert, a very dry zone where people cannot cross when they want. So, it is a physical barrier.
Well, apparently people did cross, when they needed to.
quote:jluis: It is well known that people did. What I am saying is that they do not have a continuous population thru the Sahra, for obvious reasons.
What do you mean by continuous population; is this your way of saying, settled communities?
quote:jluis: No one, the Sahra is a NATURAL barrier.
Barrier to what? To the movement of people, so as to justify physical variations?
quote:jluis: "I take it that you aren't aware of the historic trade routes between sub-Saharan and the Muslim world of North Africa" Ai, man, again? You don't get the difference between trade (trade routes, crossing the desert) and continous population (living in the land, all time)
I take it, though not certain from the way you are phrasing it, that you are referring to settlements. See my earlier question, related to this.
quote: Supercar:
"Again, I ask, which forest belt are you talking about?"
Jluis reply:
quote:I am speechless.. don't you know there are forest (aka jungle) south of Sahel?
You are speechless, and where does that leave me; I guess clueless about what you are trying to say!
quote:Supercar: "LOL. Are you suggesting that some Africans adapted to a forest environment, while others couldn't?"
Jluis:
quote:YES. Exactly.
Well then, given that we are talking about physical variations, how does the forests factor into that? What physical characteristics are supposed to be in response the forest environment, that supposedly distinguishes the inhabitants from other non-forest regions?
quote:Super car: "Land-locked people have always had connections with coastal people, in order to benefit from trade. Do you have a specific example(s), in which people living "inland" weren't able to interact with people living in or have access to the coastal areas?"
Jluis response:
quote:All coast of Africa ( and Europe -Mediterranean- and all the continents in this Earth) are examples of that. And please, understand that it is not about having/not having contacts. It is about the kind of contacts they had. Some traded some goods and some others traded others. This is why some get some money and some not. Coast and inland relationship is one of the main ways to explain the differential evolution of African people, as it is from other peoples, non African (as , for example: Asian, European and American)
What has this to do with the indigenous physical variations within the continent? Are you suggesting that, without admixture with foreign groups, all Africans would have looked the same? Please clarify!
[This message has been edited by Super car (edited 08 May 2005).]
It seems to me that you do not much disagree with each other.[/B]
Yeah, maybe. I don't think we much disagree.
But, ..."you talk about it as the kind of barrier, which stopped people of the North from getting to the south of Sahara regions and visa versa, and as result, no interactions between the people of these regions."
I disagree with the "viceversa". I do really think that the trade between North and South was no equal trade. And, as a result, the interactions between the people of these regions changed. As they are today's.
Posts: 71 | From: Uppsala, Sweden | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I disagree with the "viceversa". I do really think that the trade between North and South was no equal trade.
Equal trade? Certainly not politically and not recently. But Ghana Mali and Songhai did trade with North Africa so even here Supercar is not wrong.
In terms of where the peoples originally are from, the sahel region was in fact a common source for East and West African populations who spread East and West, North and South from a common source.
quote:The subject is simple...north africans and Sub Saharan Africans are two different groups of people
Yes maybe culturally, with North Africans being more Arabized.
quote:The Sahara is a desert, a very dry zone where people cannot cross when they want. So, it is a physical barrier. It means that people must invent and prepare well ways to cross it (because it is not an easy cross). There may be "Africans" (I take black people) in the Sahel belt. But there are not continous connections between North and South. Y'know, it takes some effort to cross Sahra...
Yes this is true, but you are forgetting about the oases that are scattered about and the aquafers(underground water reservoirs) all throughout the Sahara. Plus you are forgetting that the Sahara was not always desert. Millenia ago the Sahara was abundant grassland with lakes and rivers much like the Sarengetti or Masaimara, so there was no such division as 'Sub-Saharan' back then!
quote:well, they know full well that the populations north of the desert were , for the most part, different from the negroid populations to the south. This is not rocket science guys, you can get it.
No it's not "rocket science" it's anthropology and you are wrong! What exactly do you call these peoples then?
[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 08 May 2005).]
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Equal trade? Certainly not politically and not recently. But Ghana Mali and Songhai did trade with North Africa so even here Supercar is not wrong.
In terms of where the peoples originally are from, the sahel region was in fact a common source for East and West African populations who spread East and West, North and South from a common source.
Thanks for trying to clarify, which is apparently needed. I am not sure, but it seems that the problem here, is one having to do with language; I used "visa versa", within the context of movement of people, not the 'equality' or 'inequality' of trade.
posted
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Super car: [B] What has this to do with the indigenous physical variations within the continent? Are you suggesting that, without admixture with foreign groups, all Africans would have looked the same? Please clarify!
Yes, that was the original question.
I state that the physical variantions of African people is directly related with the different ecosystems in Africa: Mediterranean (North) coast; Sahra desert; Sahel; Tropical/Equatorian forest and the like -we have not mention anything South of the Equator-.
This is the main source of variation. Or maybe I should say the original source. After that it cames the cultural (historical) one. There is when the coast/inland divide comes. I don't say that there were NO exchanges between one and another, but that these exchanges were not equal. This is why people choose to exchange trade in the first time. And this asymmetry of trade and relationships, summed to the ecological variations of Africa, makes the diversity of human people we see today in Africa.
Notice that
(a) This features are functional both in Africa and in any other place on Earth.
(b) They radically downplay the relevance of cultural, civilitational and any other contingent explanations for human diversity.
(c) None of this contradicts the fact that Africa is the origin of Humanity
I hope you will agree on some of this.
Posts: 71 | From: Uppsala, Sweden | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic