posted
The first thing we have to do in looking at something like this is clear the table. The economic and military power we have seen in western civilization over the last two or three hundred years was created through a series of historical events that culminated with the industrial revolution. The industrial revolution was a creation of the Europeans which ALLOWED them the power to dominate the rest of the world. Because of the wealth created by the industrial revolution Euro/America was able to bulid great educational systems. The firestorm created by this movement literally swept up the rest of the world and carried it into the technological era that we now find ourselves in. That this historical process happened cannot be denied. That it was mostly the creation of white males also cannot be denied. What can be said is that much racism was involved, a large amout of explotation during colonial times and later, and an enviorment that often lacked fundamental fairness. The major events of our time were all caused by the Industrial revolution...the american Civil War, the French revolution, the Russian Revolution etc. The impact of western civilization on the modern world is still being felt. Global capitalism, the economic engine that currently runs the world is a western creation. Today in the middle east you have western armies in several contries and talk of 'culture change' another erffort at westernization. Even China and Japan have adopted western economic systems in an effort to compete and have greatly westernized their cultures.
There were many issues raised by the article mansa posted on Eurocentrism. The most important is where do the third world and most especially people who have difficulty feeling a part of the dominant culture fit into the equation? What constitutes justice? Does the dominance of Euro/American western culture imply superiority? If it does in which way, if it does not make that implication what role is avilable for others?
Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
Acquisition is the central theme in present western economic culture and it has excellent benefits. The moral authority of the men who run it is what makes that system works.
Very few people want to drop their own culture to adopt western culture but many can learn from its western economic legacy. Advertisements, in themselves, as a kind of hypnosis, does foster certain habitual buying patterns so if one lacks the infrastructure, this is impossible. If the society has the structure but the governments in place prevents this, then sooner or later a revolution ('catharsis') will occur to create a division and the most powerful will win!
Asian culture is usally insulated by various buffer levels so it is not that they have accepted certain Western values but they have attempted to integrate what is useful while slowly losing the soul of that culture. What is happenning is a urban vs rural or agricultural dichotomy and people will be worse off but who really cares! The money wheel has cretaed a new market economy.
Paternalism is here to stay, whatever the costs! short version only.
Posts: 1290 | From: usa | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
yazid, They certanily have to accept a degree of western culture to find a secure place in the global economic system. Failure to do that leads to the kind of problems we see now in the middle east. Arab culture will have to westernize or it will not survive. The devil must be given his due before we can address some of these deep seated black issues that are expressed here so often.
-------------------- God Bless President Bush Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Civilization as it exists today is the culmination of the historical development of mankind, layer upon layer from ancient times to modern, each group contributing its share to the whole. Through human interaction, whether by trade or warfare, ideas, reform, and invention are assimilated, adapted, and again dispersed. It's the nature of history regardless of ethnicity. - Larry Orcutt
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: There were many issues raised by the article mansa posted on Eurocentrism. The most important is where do the third world and most especially people who have difficulty feeling a part of the dominant culture fit into the equation? What constitutes justice? Does the dominance of Euro/American western culture imply superiority? If it does in which way, if it does not make that implication what role is avilable for others?
The link had nothing to do with the "role" others play in Western society and how "comfortable" they feel being a part of this dominant culture.
It is about cultural arrogance in Western society and its propensity to distort the histories of the non-European cultures of the world, a type of arrogance you and others espouse on this board nearly everyday.
The subject of Ancient Egypt, its cultural relationships to other Africans, its biological affinity to other Africans and the legacy it left on modern civilization only becomes a matter of racial politics when skeptics ignore facts and construct race related agendas (whether they exist in some capacity among certain individuals or not) for their opponents.
It's time to teach honest history Professor.
Posts: 1203 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
mansa, The other aspects are important because we must establish the climate all of this is set in. You are again sounding the call for a white conspiracy. you guys say this all the time and then deny that you are saying it. Lets look at it from a logical point of view. If western scholars want to distort the history of a supposedly black Egypt why stop there? In other words, scholars distorted the history of a black Egypt, but not that of a black Mali? They distorted the history of a black Egypt but not that of a black Songhai? If in fact Egyptians were obviously black, as you contend why not the others....they are obviously black as well.
The other thing you would have us believe is that caucasians lived in Syria to the east, Libya to the west but not in Egypt in the middle.
In my view what we have here is an extention of victimization. When I read the article you left it was full of anger and bitterness. It was more of the evil white man mistreating the poor abused black man. In doing that you make white superiority an 'absolute fact.' How can it be otherwise if they have done all this to you.
As a black man mansa what have you got to prove? nothing in my view...if every person in Egypt , Greece and China were solid black it would not change a thing in 2006.
Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good point but there are no black issues therefore white issues but issues of morality, implying right or wrong.
One cannot kick a dog when it is defenseless then decide one day to stop then expect the dog to let bygones be bygones. If it is a small dog, then no problem. But when the dog has been trained from young to be like its master and the beating stops (for the big dog?) the dog will do its duty. That is training. (Iraq right now)
Cultures that respect the earth as mother attempt to live in peace, if not America would have been Iraq 250 years ago where an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth until everyone is blind and toothless!
God Bless America
Posts: 1290 | From: usa | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You just made my point that all of this afrocentric, anti Europe, anti white stuff is driven by resentment and hatred, and not much more. look, I am sorry that history has worked out like it has but life is not fair and never will be. One day 500 years from not it might be reversed if we don't all blow ourselves up before then. The entire story of history is one of humans abusing each other over and over again. As advanced as we are it has not stopped to this day.
-------------------- God Bless President Bush Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:mansa, The other aspects are important because we must establish the climate all of this is set in. You are again sounding the call for a white conspiracy. you guys say this all the time and then deny that you are saying it. Lets look at it from a logical point of view. If western scholars want to distort the history of a supposedly black Egypt why stop there? In other words, scholars distorted the history of a black Egypt, but not that of a black Mali? They distorted the history of a black Egypt but not that of a black Songhai? If in fact Egyptians were obviously black, as you contend why not the others....they are obviously black as well
Actually,Horemheb, they did distort the history of other so-called ''black'' kingdoms and civilizations in African and tried to say many populations in Africa were products of the imaginary ''Hamitic Hypothesis''. I can quote you where early European anthropologist and historians tried to say the Kingdoms of Ghana,Mali,and Songhai had a earlier ''white'' compnent that gradually was infiltrated and mongrelized by ''negriod'' slaves. The whole history of Africa bas been distorted by early 19th century historians to the point of ridicule. Whenever the early colonial historians found any vestiages of civlization in Africa they always ascribed it to outside sources instead of internal sources.
Early anatomist like Sir Grafton Smith believed the ancient Egyptians started off as ''white'' but gradually infiltrated by so-called ''negroes'' that brought about the complexion of modern Egyptians. Don't believe me then read Sir Grafton Smith's very own publications he did in Eugenic journals. Then again he did also say the ancient Egyptians looked like the modern Beja in Sudan but considered the Beja to be ''caucasoid'' Hamites as opposed to the imaginary ''true negroe''.
Constanly many of these scholars will simply play with words or move the goal posts to support their own hypothesis.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Correct. There were even theories that these West African kingdoms were founded by peoples from Phoenicians, to Arabs, to even Jews!!!
Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: mansa, The other aspects are important because we must establish the climate all of this is set in. You are again sounding the call for a white conspiracy. you guys say this all the time and then deny that you are saying it. Lets look at it from a logical point of view. If western scholars want to distort the history of a supposedly black Egypt why stop there?
Who says all Western scholars think the same?
Perhaps you should read the writings of French historian Constantin-François de Volney and his opinions of the architects of Ancient Egyptian civilization.
quote:In other words, scholars distorted the history of a black Egypt, but not that of a black Mali? They distorted the history of a black Egypt but not that of a black Songhai? If in fact Egyptians were obviously black, as you contend why not the others....they are obviously black as well.
See Ausar's statements.
quote:The other thing you would have us believe is that caucasians lived in Syria to the east, Libya to the west but not in Egypt in the middle.
The bio-history of North-West Africa has been explained to you thousands of times, remember the Tehennu and Tamahou?
quote:In my view what we have here is an extention of victimization. When I read the article you left it was full of anger and bitterness. It was more of the evil white man mistreating the poor abused black man. In doing that you make white superiority an 'absolute fact.' How can it be otherwise if they have done all this to you.
That's funny because as I recall the author spoke of a plethora of cultures not just African ones and is herself not a person of African descent.
It seems as though this black radicalism issue as it relates to anything critisizing institutionalized Western scholarship is something that came out of your own mind Professor.
quote:As a black man mansa what have you got to prove?
Why does it have to be as a Black man?
Why not as a young man interested in history and culture?
I tell you the truth when I was in grade school I did not give a damn about what race corresponded to what civilization.
I had read books as a child about African civilizations including Egypt and identified Africa with my cultural heritage, it did not make me feel like any less of an American and I was still interested in the history of other regions from Europe to Asia without attaching anything racial to them. It was a non-issue.
I did not grow up watching Charlton Heston play Moses and see Egyptians portrayed as White in the 10 Commandments. My first viewing of Egyptians on screen was probably Michal Jackson's Remember the Time video.
It was only when I came to the internet on a chance encounter looking over race related topics that I came across all this obsessive rubbish about North African Caucasoids, proto-Meds and "Dark Whites" being the founders of Egyptian Civilization and everything of value in Africa coming from a foreign source.
It's good that boards like Egyptsearch exist that promote real scholarship so that anyone who finds an interest in this subject can know the truth and not read all of the B.S. put out all over the internet.
quote:nothing in my view...if every person in Egypt , Greece and China were solid black it would not change a thing in 2006.
So I guess it's fine if we start teaching that the Ancient Romans looked like Nigerians and that it was a non-European civilization.
Let's start teaching that for the next 500 years, would you be ok with that Hore?
We all know that you'd be the first person to cry Afrocentrism and demand the lies and distortions be dispensed with.
Let's try something else.
Let's dispense with the race baiting and teach real history.
It's time to stop evading the subjects by hypothesizing racialist agendas and inferiority complexes Professor.
Posts: 1203 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
It seems it can't be repeated enough about the peoples of 'Libya'. The earliest depictions of Libyans were a people who looked very similar to the Egyptians--BLACK. It's true there were 'caucasian'/white Libyans but these came much later during the New Kingdom. I don't understand what's so hard to believe that blacks are indigenous to ALL of Africa including North Africa, yet the professor professes the notion of North African "caucasians" as being the true natives!
Also, I did forget to mention that the author of Suppressed Histories is white and she talks about world cultures and world history in general, not just those of Africa. It's only natural for Hore to think that anyone who criticizes Western history has to be an "Afrocentric". Now that he knows she is white, I am willing to bet that Hore will now accuse the author of being a left-wing, male-hating feminist, white self-hating radical!
Yes, it's time Hore throws out all the false premises based on HIS modern politics when it comes to history and accept the FACTS.
Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ausar: Constanly many of these scholars will simply play with words or move the goal posts to support their own hypothesis.
*Nods head*
Pseudoscientists invent their own vocabulary in which many terms lack precise or unambiguous definitions, and some have no definition at all. - Rory Coker, Ph.D.Posts: 1203 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
These are all good points an many of them have validity I'm sure. That said, we should be cautious before we jump too far out on historical limbs. Afrocentrics who try to establish a substantial black influence in greece end up losing credibility on any other point they might make. We have to ask then, what is reasonable. You can establish some black African influence in Ancient Egypt, you cannot ever sell AE as a purly black african society. The degreee of that influence can be debated by thinking people but to say that Egypt did not have a substantial North African caucasian componet simply is unrealistic. Egypt is at a place where two regoins come together, much as Texas is, and to say that both of these regions are not represented in substantial numbers is not realistic. As for greece, I would not touch that with a ten foot pole if I wanted to be taken seriously on the other issues.
-------------------- God Bless President Bush Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: These are all good points an many of them have validity I'm sure. That said, we should be cautious before we jump too far out on historical limbs. Afrocentrics who try to establish a substantial black influence in greece end up losing credibility on any other point they might make.
Well contrary to what you might think, there are non-blacks and non-Afrocentrics who make similar claims so what are we to make of them? What about the Natufians who helped create the Neolithic revolution and thus civilizations? What do you make of their influence here??
quote:We have to ask then, what is reasonable. You can establish some black African influence in Ancient Egypt,..
There was no African "influence" on Egypt because Egypt WAS itself African!! Why is it so hard for you to accept this?
quote:you cannot ever sell AE as a purly black african society. The degreee of that influence can be debated by thinking people but to say that Egypt did not have a substantial North African caucasian componet simply is unrealistic.
Your hypocrisy betrays your bias Hore.
Why do you try to 'sell' Greece as a purely white society without any influence from Africa at all, let alone populations from Africa, yet you are incessant about the presence of "caucasians" in North Africa!!!
Can you describe to us these "North African caucasians"?? Can you specify their culture??
quote:Egypt is at a place where two regoins come together, much as Texas is, and to say that both of these regions are not represented in substantial numbers is not realistic.
If you are implying the Near-East as the source of these "caucasians", why do you call them North African then?
Also, again you bring up the Texas/Mexican analogy when neither Texas nor Mexico existed before the arrival of Europeans and BOTH lands were inhabited by Native Americans!
Also, it's funny that you bring up the Near-East as the source of "caucasians" when Hawass and all other scholars know for a fact that no such immigration from the Near East created Egypt but that the Egyptian peoples were indigenous.
Also is the fact that long before any migrations from the Near-East took place, Africans emmigrated FROM Egypt/Africa INTO the Levant/ Near-East again, as shown by the evidence of the Natufians here
quote:As for greece, I would not touch that with a ten foot pole if I wanted to be taken seriously on the other issues.
Well in that case, why should we take YOU seriously since you keep "touching" Egypt with your "North African caucasians"?? Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You cannot establish anything with the natufians. They lived 300 centuries ago and nobody here can even define their culture. This is a classic example of taking a small amout of information, some of it not conclusive and trying to write a history around it.
Egypt was not all African, to make that claim puts you on the fringes of any acceptable scholarship. This is another example of what I mantioned above, careless scholarship that somply wants to go too far.
Texas and Mexico are NOW the union of two existing cultures, just as Egypt and its neighboring regions were back then. That was the point I was trying to make. It very much does apply.
As for Greece, i don't have to sell it as a purly white culture, it simply was and only the most radical political scholar would think otherwise. When I read these kind of responses it remainds me of a lawyer writing a law brief trying to make a point. No historian would attempt to take this kind of information and make these huge leaps with so little to go on.
You say you have made your points but that is not the case. Until you moderate your position and get within the bounds of scholarship that can be substantiated you will always be frustrated. I am not against any position you have taken just to be arbitrary. In fact I have moved my position to some degree based on arguments on this very board. That said, a purly black Egypt will not be accepted ever by mainstream scholarship and when you guys go out on these limbs it discredits your entire position. The idea of a black influenced Europe is just nutty talk.
-------------------- God Bless President Bush Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: You cannot establish anything with the natufians. They lived 300 centuries ago and nobody here can even define their culture. This is a classic example of taking a small amout of information, some of it not conclusive and trying to write a history around it.
No. The Natufians lived during the Mesolithic period about 10,000 years ago and NOT 300 centuries ago which is 30,000 years ago! The Mesolithic preceeded the Neolithic which is characterized by the domestication of plants and animals and which led to the development of settled communities and complex civilizations!
This is what has already been established about the Natufians by white Western scholars:
Bar-Yosef (1998b: 159), the most documented sequence from foraging to farming is in the Near East and the Natufian, with its evidence of cereal harvesting, is the “threshold for this major evolutionary change.” “The Natufian,” wrote Caton-Thompson (1969: 346) “is the turning point between the desert and the sown, between food gatherers and food producers, between wild animal and the domestic.” Garrod did not seem to recognise the importance of the Natufian finds at first; she was surprised that there was no pottery nor domesticated animals as would be expected in Europe (Garrod 1932a). Although Dorothea Bate later found that the then Middle Natufian, or Shukbah Natufian, had domesticated dogs, Garrod’s 1928 report concentrated on the Mousterian with its implications for the origins of the Upper Palaeolithic in Europe rather than the origins of agriculture or the Neolithic revolution in the Near East.
C.L. Brace: The surprise is that the Neolithic peoples of Europe and their Bronze Age successors are not closely related to the modern inhabitants, although the prehistoric/modern ties are somewhat more apparent in southern Europe. It is a further surprise that the Epipalaeolithic Natufian of Israel from whom the Neolithic realm was assumed to arise has a clear link to Sub-Saharan Africa...
When canonical variates are plotted, neither sample ties in with Cro-Magnon as was once suggested. The data treated here support the idea that the Neolithic moved out of the Near East into the circum-Mediterranean areas and Europe by a process of demic diffusion but that subsequently the in situ residents of those areas, derived from the Late Pleistocene inhabitants, absorbed both the agricultural life way and the people who had brought it.
Journal of Human Evolution (1972): "...one can identify Negroid (Ethiopic or Bushmanoid?) traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers (Angel, 1972), probably from Nubia (Anderson, 1969) via the unknown predecessors of Badarians..."
First Farmers The Origins of Agricultural Socities Peter Bellwood 2005:
"A more recent multivariate analysis of cranial data from Turkey and the Levant, plus southeastern and Mediterranean Europe, suggests three conclusions (Pinhasi and Pluciennik in press):
1) PPNB populations in the Levant AND Anatolia were very VARIED.
2) Southeastern European Neolithic peoples were probably drawn from a central Anatolian Neolithic population represented by the burials from Catalhoyuk.
3) Mediterranean populations originated from a greater degree of Mesolithic-Neolithic admixture than those in southeastern Europe.
....there is an obvious cline from Anatolia, through Greece and the Balkans, into central Europe and then Mediterranean and Western Europe....
All of these mainstream white Western scholars agree with the FACTS, so why can't you?
quote:Egypt was not all African, to make that claim puts you on the fringes of any acceptable scholarship. This is another example of what I mantioned above, careless scholarship that somply wants to go too far.
Funny, considering that these studies of the Natufians and the spread of the Neolithic occurred as an outpouring of "negroid"/black Africans from Egypt and into the Near East.
If Egypt is not "all black" as you put it, then what fraction or percent was black? What was the ethnicity of the other non-black fraction??
quote:Texas and Mexico are NOW the union of two existing cultures, just as Egypt and its neighboring regions were back then. That was the point I was trying to make. It very much does apply.
No. Illegal immigrants are trying to unite the cultures of Texas and Mexico but these are two different political entities that regardless didn't exist BACK THEN-- ancient times. There were no borders back then and the peoples on both sides of the now existing borders were indigenous Americans who were related to each other.
There were no borders back in prehistoric Egypt and the Levant which is why we have evidence of African incursions into the Levant, with little evidence however of Levantine incursions into Egypt until dynastic times.
I'm surprised that as long as you've been lurking around this board and reading all the scholarly material on the civilizations and cultures of the Nile Valley, you still insist that Egypt was somehow not entirely African!
Again I ask, can you give examples of non African elements??
quote:As for Greece, i don't have to sell it as a purly white culture, it simply was and only the most radical political scholar would think otherwise.
Yet by the same token you say Egypt which is a country in Africa was not purely black!
Again, can you prove otherwise? I doubt you can.
quote:When I read these kind of responses it remainds me of a lawyer writing a law brief trying to make a point. No historian would attempt to take this kind of information and make these huge leaps with so little to go on.
Correction, we have a lot really. Archaeology, linguistics, and genetics. Considering all 3 of these significant disciplines, what more could you ask?
quote:You say you have made your points but that is not the case. Until you moderate your position and get within the bounds of scholarship that can be substantiated you will always be frustrated. I am not against any position you have taken just to be arbitrary. In fact I have moved my position to some degree based on arguments on this very board. That said, a purly black Egypt will not be accepted ever by mainstream scholarship and when you guys go out on these limbs it discredits your entire position. The idea of a black influenced Europe is just nutty talk.
LOL My dear professor, this IS scholarship! The fact that you deny all this as such is not our problem but yours.
Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: These are all good points an many of them have validity I'm sure. That said, we should be cautious before we jump too far out on historical limbs. Afrocentrics who try to establish a substantial black influence in greece end up losing credibility on any other point they might make. We have to ask then, what is reasonable. You can establish some black African influence in Ancient Egypt, you cannot ever sell AE as a purly black african society. The degreee of that influence can be debated by thinking people but to say that Egypt did not have a substantial North African caucasian componet simply is unrealistic. Egypt is at a place where two regoins come together, much as Texas is, and to say that both of these regions are not represented in substantial numbers is not realistic. As for greece, I would not touch that with a ten foot pole if I wanted to be taken seriously on the other issues.
Yeah we understand, give them an inch and they want a mile, right Horemheb?
Horemheb, you simply contradict yourself on so many levels when you insist that Ancient Egypt cannot be a purely African culture but that Ancient Greece must be purely European in its construction.
When you set out to label people as Afrocentric and tell them what they can and cannot discuss if they wish to be taken seriously by modern academics it is you who are politicizing scholarship.
Scholarship depends on supporting a testable hypothesis with empirical evidence.
If someone makes one claim for which they have empirical evidence to support but less evidence for another claim that does not discredit both claims.
2 - 1 does not = 0
The spread of agriculture by the Natufians has been proven with empirical evidence published in peer-reviewed journals.
Your insistence on the existence of North African Caucasians on the other hand holds no merit.
The Caucasus region is in Central Asia, North of Iran and east of Turkey.
People indegenious to that region are not indegenious to North Africa.
The anthropological term Caucasoid has been discredited by modern anthropology.
Your insistence that Egypt straddles two regions has no relevance on the biological affinities of the architects of Nile Valley Civilization.
If the regions you are referring to are Africa and the Middle East, the fact is that one of them is a land mass and one of them is a cultural concept based on Islamic influence that has no relevance to Nile Valley civilization.
It is evident that Ancient Egypt and the civilizations of Mesopatamia had a mutual influence on each other through trade. There is no evidence that a large body of one group was present in the other prior to the historical era.
It is also evident that as Nile Valley and Mesopatamian/Near Eastern civilization influenced each other they both also influenced Greek Civlization.
This is not denied even by scholars such as Mary Lefkowitz.
What is at issue is to what extent this influence had on the classical period.
I have read Richard Poe's book Black Spark, White Fire which aims to synthesize various research into a summary of the nature of this influence.
The evidence is rather substantial it is clear that at the very least there was extensive trade going on between Egypt and other regions during the Bronze Age at the very least, at most colonization.
It is perfectly understandable for someone to demand more evidence for this claim, it is unreasonable to consider any and all other claims made by scholars who support this to be discredited.
Carthage being a Phonecian colony is an accepted historical fact.
Muslim trade with West Africa influencing the rise of Mali is an accepted historical fact.
Yet when it is even hinted that a European Civilization was influenced in any way by Africans such a claim is considered to be ideological blasphemy, an idea that is to be ostracized by academia like the theories of Galileo and regarded as the ranting and raving of lunatics.
You cannot discourage people from scholarship with the defense that it is incompatible with your conservative political views, Professor.
Scholarship must be championed or refuted in an academic arena, not swept under the rug because it insults someone's sensibilities.
This page shows the results of scholar vs. scholar discussion on this subject.
It is my understanding that Lefkowtiz's side came out like the group that did not prove their contentions as well.
Posts: 1203 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mansa, No serious nscholar has ever claimed that Greece has a black African foundation. This is a point of view created by Afrocentrics out of whole cloth. The bernal book certanily was not scholarly. For one thing bernal was neither a greek nor an Egyptian scholar but a political scientist. In my view it was an opportunity to make some money and attack the west at the same time. Note he did not write about Greece before this book and he has not afterwards. This is a looney tunes position nobody is paying attention to. You never see it mentioned in journals, you never see it in the news and among scholars the idea always just brings a snicker. It involves some of the most 'careless' scholarship I have ever see.
-------------------- God Bless President Bush Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I disagree with sloppy scholarship as well Hore. But that is no excuse to NOT answer the question I posted. You seem to feel, along with MANY in the Eurocentric camp, that by discrediting "Afrocentric" writers, many of whom DESERVE discrediting, on many fronts, that this gives you CARTE BLANCHE to keep on DISTORTING the facts. THAT is why I am against sloppy "Afrocentric" scholars who do nothing to further the cause of the TRUTH about ancient Egypt because of their sloppy writing and poor research abilities. But that DOES NOT change the fact that Europeans have been DISTORTING Egyptian history and pushing boatloads of B.S. about how the Egyptians looked.
So what about those photos I posted?
Posts: 8891 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: Mansa, No serious nscholar has ever claimed that Greece has a black African foundation. This is a point of view created by Afrocentrics out of whole cloth. The bernal book certanily was not scholarly. For one thing bernal was neither a greek nor an Egyptian scholar but a political scientist. In my view it was an opportunity to make some money and attack the west at the same time. Note he did not write about Greece before this book and he has not afterwards. This is a looney tunes position nobody is paying attention to. You never see it mentioned in journals, you never see it in the news and among scholars the idea always just brings a snicker. It involves some of the most 'careless' scholarship I have ever see.
Lefkowitz and her cohorts sure did go through alot of trouble to squash this so-called "looney tunes position".
People do not spend years of their time and energy trying to debunk scholarship they do not feel is a threat to their world view.
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: The bernal book certanily was not scholarly. For one thing bernal was neither a greek nor an Egyptian scholar but a political scientist. In my view it was an opportunity to make some money and attack the west at the same time.
I am new to this forum, but from what I have read thus far from all of your posts is anything but scholarly. You make sweeping judgements about Afrocentrics, and now Dr. Bernal(who is a white scholar).
Martin Bernal comes from a family of scholars. His grandfather was none other than renowned Egyptologist Sir Alan Gardiner.
If you are to judge Mr. Bernal; then why not also judge Mary Lefkowitz by the same token? She is not an Egyptian scholar either, but one of Greek classics. Her own critique of Black Athena is known to be full of faulty scholarship.
Posts: 72 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mansa Musa: Yeah we understand, give them an inch and they want a mile, right Horemheb?
Horemheb, you simply contradict yourself on so many levels when you insist that Ancient Egypt cannot be a purely African culture but that Ancient Greece must be purely European in its construction.
When you set out to label people as Afrocentric and tell them what they can and cannot discuss if they wish to be taken seriously by modern academics it is you who are politicizing scholarship.
Unfortunately Musa, that's what pro hore does all the time! He would interject his modern pessimistic, 'machiavellian', Euro-centered views on everything historical.
His bias is so blatant and obvious when he insists on a "pure white" Greece on account of the long taken for granted fact that Greece is indeed in Europe, yet claims Egypt which is in Africa to have a significant population of African "caucasians"!!
I have asked him exactly where do these North African caucasians come from, and what is the nature of their culture, and as usual he remains silent and would not answer.
If the ancient Greeks who are Europeans were "pure white" (and modern genetics has proven this not be the case) then why can't you accept that the ancient Egyptians who were Africans were "pure black"??
Notice that like all Eurocentrics, Hore has issues with the ethnic make-up of Egypt being African but not other ancient civilizations. I'm sure the professor has no objections to China being "pure Asian" or the Maya being "pure Native American" (although professor Winters woud disagree)!
Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: Mansa, No serious nscholar has ever claimed that Greece has a black African foundation. This is a point of view created by Afrocentrics out of whole cloth. The bernal book certanily was not scholarly. For one thing bernal was neither a greek nor an Egyptian scholar but a political scientist. In my view it was an opportunity to make some money and attack the west at the same time. Note he did not write about Greece before this book and he has not afterwards. This is a looney tunes position nobody is paying attention to. You never see it mentioned in journals, you never see it in the news and among scholars the idea always just brings a snicker. It involves some of the most 'careless' scholarship I have ever see.
Hore that depends on what you mean by 'African foundation'! The Greeks and their predecessors did not speak African languages and you are right that their cultures were not African...
EXCEPT, evidence shows that perhaps the most significant cultural aspect of all-- agriculture and animal domestication is ultimately of African influence/origin.
And that is all that we are saying. The Neolithic was spread by peoples of African descent both in the Near East and in the Aegean area into Greece.
You ask that if the Greeks and peoples in the Levant had African ancestry, then why do they not look African or speak African languages??
Here is what C.L. Brace says:
When canonical variates are plotted, neither sample ties in with Cro-Magnon as was once suggested. The data treated here support the idea that the Neolithic moved out of the Near East into the circum-Mediterranean areas and Europe by a process of demic diffusion but that subsequently the in situ residents of those areas, derived from the Late Pleistocene inhabitants, absorbed both the agricultural life way and the people who had brought it.
Although the Natufians' Neolithic technology became dominant, they themselves were a minority in Eurasia and were eventually absorbed or assimilated by the indigenous peoples, but their innovations lived on. Some scholars like professor Ehret suggest that the Semitic languages spoken in the Near-East are directly descended from them but other than that, all we have are their genes in the form of E3b.
Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way, Pro hore's not likely a Professor for anyone reading this.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Unfortunately, I believe he really is a professor! Comes to show what many of us are against in academia. Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Good one Musa.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Your hypocrisy betrays your bias Hore. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic