quote:Arwa: How do you define Western civilization?
In my opinion as has been quite for long time, is that western civilizations foundation is a little bit flawed and corrupt since it bases itself as the strict inherent of the greco-roman history. Even though greece is today located at the european continent and so is Rome but the reality is that the romans and certainly greeks were more a near-eastern/levant oriented people. Everything points at them being more of a people in the mental leval of ancient syrians, jordanians, palestinians and even egyptians than anything near to British, German and other contemporary statea that were at that time only Roman sattelite states. The Greeks themselves didn't even bother looking north,and were more interested in afghanistan than france, if we follow alexanders trail.
This is further testified by how romans buildt their greatest monuments in whole of north africa coasts and levant regions, but almost none in northern, eastern ond western europe. And also how romans early adopted christianity and latter was spread through out their empire in the south and east, but quite late on the northern and western part of its empire, even at the late medevil time the Byzantine empire was at the south eastern end of the roman territory. But today we are supposed to believe that the european foundation is unique and not connected outside of europe.
Europeans have taken upon the ancient knowledge and exeled on taking it to a whole new level, and thus should get all the credit and applauds, which they absolutly deserve. But this whole "we were always the best" attitude which is reflected through how they try to make themselves the originators of all great things can sometimes become a bit to much. [/q]
I don't know that White people try to say they created all great things, I mean...many admit to the creations of the Chinese and Muslims. But yes, Western Civilization has firm roots in the Levant and Egypt. Which is why there's such a debate over Eastern and Southern influences on the Meditarranean (places like Crete, Greece, etc). Because the whole idea of Western Civilization has roots in superiority theories...mainly the idea that "Western Culture" sprout up out of nowhere. [/Q]
This is also why Europeans beginning with Hume, declared that Blacks had no history, and people began to make the Sumerians and Elamites whites.
They had to make them white so Indo-Europeans would have a history.
Marc has presented the art and iconography of the Asian Empire builders of Anatolia: Hattians, Elamites and etc. Clearly they were Blacks.
Eurocentric recognized quickly that if the fact be known that Blacks--who were from Africa founded the first civilizations, whites might begin to ask the question: "Where did whites originate and what ancient culture did we found". To solve this problem they "whited" Blacks out of History. They began the myth perpetuated by ignorant minds that you can be Black--but not African. They continue this myth so Blacks in Africa and the Americas remain docile and believe that their heritage is one of slavery or the Islamic city states of West Africa.
quote:Originally posted by Marc Washington: [II ] MODERN LANGUAGE DISPERSED FROM ANATOLIA – BUT IT WAS AN AFRICAN POPULATION IN ANATOLIA
“The physical types appear to be depicted which may reflect the two dolicocephalic races recognized by the late Professor M. Senyurek in the skeletons from Hacilar; the robust Eurafrican race and the more gracile Proto-Mediterranean race. These naturalistic statues serve as a link between those of Catal Huyuk and the later, larger and more conventional group from Hacilar V-II.”
James Mellaart, Earliest civilizations of the Near East, (Thames and Hudson, London, 1965), p. 8.
[ MARC CONTINUES]
To see more images on [ I ] from the post preceding this, look at section [ A ] at the link below. To see more images on the African population spoken on in [ II ] see [C ] in the link below.
quote:Originally posted by Marc Washington: [CONTINUED FROM TWO PREVIOUS POSTS]
Valery Pavlovich Alexeev, the Russian anthropologist speaking of skeletal remains found in Sungir and other Paleolithic sites near Moscow, in his Harvard lectures, wrote of the remains found from 25,000 years ago: “The nose is very broad, similar to African or Australian. This strong development around the nose is not typical for Europoid but is similar to East African populations.”
IN: Geraldine Reinhart-Waller, The Alekseev 1990 Harvard Manuscript: Peoples and Cultures of the Soviet Union and Archaeology of the USSR)
MARC’S CLOSING COMMENT: Both human remains and figurine from Upper Paleolithic Northern Europe are unequivocally African. Scientists claim that today’s languages can be traced to Upper Paleolithic Europe that the proto-Nostratic language, the Mother Tongue, was dispersed from Anatolia. But, Anatolia was African. There is no proto-language identified with the Caucasian. They did enter Anatolia, however, as descendents of the Andronovo people and soon after, the indigenous population vanished. However, its agro-pastoralism and language passed entered history as Indo-European. Consider:
posted
I wrote that becuase it's a KNOWN "FACT" whites for a LOOOOONG period of time didn't "wash their a.sses" so-to-speak.
Posts: 290 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yonis: This is what the iraqi traveler Ibn fadlan wrote about northern europeans in the year 921.
"They are the filthiest creatures of Allah. In the morning a servant girl brings a basin full of water to the master of the household; he rinses his face and hair in it, spits and blows his nose into the basin, which the girl then hands on to the next person, who does likewise, until all who are in the house have used that basin to blow their noses, spit and wash their face and hair in it. They do not wash themselves after defecating or urinating, nor do they bathe after seminal pollution or on other occasions. They refuse to have anything to do with water, particularly in winter..their underclothes are fraying apart from dirt, for it is their custom never to take off the garment they wear close to their bodies until it disintegrates. They shave their beards and eat their lice. They search the folds of their undergarments and crack the lice with their teeth.
blrvrgohrhif BLeHh blElh...{barf, no that was a BARGH!}
Damn, if bathing with a bar of soap is what western civilization equates to to you, I don't think it's a fair assesment to assert it started in Europe, as most do.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Arwa: How do you define Western civilization?
In my opinion as has been quite for long time, is that western civilizations foundation is a little bit flawed and corrupt since it bases itself as the strict inherent of the greco-roman history. Even though greece is today located at the european continent and so is Rome but the reality is that the romans and certainly greeks were more a near-eastern/levant oriented people. Everything points at them being more of a people in the mental leval of ancient syrians, jordanians, palestinians and even egyptians than anything near to British, German and other contemporary statea that were at that time only Roman sattelite states. The Greeks themselves didn't even bother looking north,and were more interested in afghanistan than france, if we follow alexanders trail.
This is further testified by how romans buildt their greatest monuments in whole of north africa coasts and levant regions, but almost none in northern, eastern ond western europe. And also how romans early adopted christianity and latter was spread through out their empire in the south and east, but quite late on the northern and western part of its empire, even at the late medevil time the Byzantine empire was at the south eastern end of the roman territory. But today we are supposed to believe that the european foundation is unique and not connected outside of europe.
Europeans have taken upon the ancient knowledge and exeled on taking it to a whole new level, and thus should get all the credit and applauds, which they absolutly deserve. But this whole "we were always the best" attitude which is reflected through how they try to make themselves the originators of all great things can sometimes become a bit to much. [/q]
I don't know that White people try to say they created all great things, I mean...many admit to the creations of the Chinese and Muslims. But yes, Western Civilization has firm roots in the Levant and Egypt. Which is why there's such a debate over Eastern and Southern influences on the Meditarranean (places like Crete, Greece, etc). Because the whole idea of Western Civilization has roots in superiority theories...mainly the idea that "Western Culture" sprout up out of nowhere. [/Q]
This is also why Europeans beginning with Hume, declared that Blacks had no history, and people began to make the Sumerians and Elamites whites.
They had to make them white so Indo-Europeans would have a history.
Marc has presented the art and iconography of the Asian Empire builders of Anatolia: Hattians, Elamites and etc. Clearly they were Blacks.
See, here in lies the problem. I don't consider the Sumerians to be Black (as in from Africa). Maybe the Elamites had firm roots in Africa, or at least some of them...but can you really call them Black African? I don't think the old white supremists wanted ANY Near Eastern and definently not African influences on Western Civilization period. I don't think it was a matter of them all being Black, but a matter of them not being white.
Posts: 1219 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hello K.S. Those from Mesopotamia itself had the following appearance. And while Sumerians are not in their number, remember that Andronovo people (Caucasians) did not come down from the Steppes until the 3rd millennium at the earliest. Before then, there were only people from African overflow, Metropolitan Africa as it were. Here is a look at that population. It's like black Harlem today. Whites did come but came to societies established for thousands of years before their arrival. They came, adopted the culture and gradually took over. Today, none of those people you see in the poster have descendents in those lands of their appearance. But this page shows much the look of the indigenous people, the founding population:
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:King Scorpian: See, here in lies the problem. I don't consider the Sumerians to be Black (as in from Africa). Maybe the Elamites had firm roots in Africa, or at least some of them...but can you really call them Black African? I don't think the old white supremists wanted ANY Near Eastern and definently not African influences on Western Civilization period. I don't think it was a matter of them all being Black, but a matter of them not being white.
*Elamites, in my opinion were black. I don't think they were related to africans though. I think they were indigenous to the region.
*I'm not completely sure, but I currently think Sumer was a mixed society. With predominantly people with like a caramel skin tone. I used to think they might have been black. I don't know.
However, King, don't bring African up in response to a post that never mentioned anything about africans.
He merely said they were black. With the Sumerians, he might have ment this in a "O.D. Rule" kind of sense.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic