posted
I just started reading a book by Moustafa Gadalla where he claims that "neter" does not mean "god," but rather different attributes or aspects of the One God. I have read this before, and wonder whether translating the word as "god" is meant to suggest that Judaism is the first monotheistic religion.
In the Yoruba religion, "orisha" is often translated as "god" but I heard from someone more knowledgeable than I about it that the orishas are different elemental forces or aspects of nature and hence of the One God. I am not suggesting hyper-diffusionism, just simply that monotheism is not such a unique concept as Europeans would have one think. Also, I am more familiar with Yoruba religion as it is practiced in the Diaspora. I also read Chinua Achebe's "Things Fall Apart" recently and towards the end when one of the Igbo characters is speaking to the European missionary, he says that the Igbo also believe in the One God, but they pray to different aspects of Him/Her. It is really similar to how Catholics pray to different saints.
Posts: 140 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess the answer to the subject question hinges on one's definition of the word or concept "god."
I don't think any system of spirituality defines god as exclusively applicable to the "Creator of all there is" or to the "Supreme Being."
If that be true, numerous lesser beings of great relative power are gods; expert warriors (or even guitarists nowadays), judges in the courtroom, business magnates, kings (unhampered by parliaments), ancestrally personalized forces of nature, spiritual entities ("angels"), celestials (planets, stars, black holes). All these gods of whatever magnitude and worship.
The Hebrew word el is usually translated god. Yet HaShem is not the only one titled elohiym:
quote: אֱלֹהִים, נִצָּב בַּעֲדַת-אֵל; בְּקֶרֶב אֱלֹהִים יִשְׁפֹּט God standeth in the congregation of God; in the midst of the judges He judgeth
Psalm 82:1
A more literal translation would be
"Elohiym, He stands in the El community; amidst elohiym He judges."
Furthermore this psalm continues on to say:
quote: אֲנִי-אָמַרְתִּי, אֱלֹהִים אַתֶּם; וּבְנֵי עֶלְיוֹן כֻּלְּכֶם I said: Ye are godlike beings, and all of you sons of the Most High
Psalm 82:6
"I say to you, elohiym are you; and children of the Most High are you all."Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Neter does mean gods, but there are people today who are trying to interpret Egyptian religion in a more pantheistic or monistic view-- that all of these deities represent one supreme being like in modern Hinduism. I don't think we have any direct proof of this from the Egyptian texts. The only thing people cite is how some priests refer to "god" singular or "the god", however this could mean a single god that he has plead allegiance to as the Egyptian religion like many Afrasian religions are henotheistic that is one god is considered supreme over others and who that deity is depends on the group, community, or tribe.
Unfortunately no one practices the Egyptian religion anymore and we don't have a primary text in the form of some explanatory manual so I don't think we'll ever know for certain.
Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course each neter was probably considered as one part or aspect of a same concept since unlike common other things, they were associated with the "divine" in AEgyptian writings but I believe that some texts mentioning different deities in a same place with human-like attitudes (cf. judgement of Seth & Heru) makes it clear that they were considered by some as being different "beings".
However I honestly don't think that one can label 4000+ years of ancient religious history of a civilization resulting from the merger of several different cultures, and with different dynastic approaches of religion (peasant's religion vs commoner's religion vs Noble's religion, etc.) with a narrow designation such as Henotheistic, Monotheistic, Polytheistic, etc...
Maybe it would be more relevant to question the nature of the religion of Egyptian state/Upper class over the ages because it would be the easiest to explain from direct remaining evidence.
Posts: 307 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The 'gods' of the Ancient Egyptians are the same 'gods' of the Yoruba of Nigeria today. If you want to understand this concept, then you are lucky; you simply have to engage a Yoruba and simply have him explain the concepts to you; Ancient Egyptian religious concepts are very much alive in modern day Africa.
Don't make things harder than they should be. Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^No they are not the same. Yoruban Gods are Yoruban and Egyptian Gods are Egyptians stop defamating both systems. Both are totally independant stop trying to make Egypt the white Africa that "civilized" all of Africa. That is very self hating and DISRESPECTFUL!!
Posts: 336 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*: ^^^No they are not the same. Yoruban Gods are Yoruban and Egyptian Gods are Egyptians stop defamating both systems. Both are totally independant stop trying to make Egypt the white Africa that "civilized" all of Africa. That is very self hating and DISRESPECTFUL!!
Egypt was not, and is not, and never was a "white" country...Jeez, anyone with ANY knowledge knows that the Yoruba pantheon and the Egyptian pantheon are the same!
quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*: ^^^No they are not the same. Yoruban Gods are Yoruban and Egyptian Gods are Egyptians stop defamating both systems. Both are totally independant stop trying to make Egypt the white Africa that "civilized" all of Africa. That is very self hating and DISRESPECTFUL!!
Egypt was not, and is not, and never was a "white" country...Jeez, anyone with ANY knowledge knows that the Yoruba pantheon and the Egyptian pantheon are the same!
Yoruban pantheon has absolutely nothing to do with Egyptian dude that is something you are contriving and you are disrespecting my people and all the accomplishments of non-Nile Valley civilizations in Africa by trying to make Egypt the MOTHER of the whole freakin' continent of Africa
The "white Africa" comment was not to be taken literally but that is what you are making Egypt some "white ruler" of Africa.
posted
^^ Beninese Egyptologist Jean Charles C.Gomez pointed out resemblances between Olodumare/Atum, the creator emerging from an ocean on a mound to then give rise to their respective pantheons.
Posts: 307 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Olodumare and Atum have absolutely nothing in common. Olodumare is the Heavens. So Altakruri is correct. Stop degrading other African civilizations!!!!!! By making everything Egypt. Egyptians are not the only people that did anything in Africa and by the fact you are trying to connect yourself to them just shows that you are implying as such.
Posts: 336 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*: Olodumare and Atum have absolutely nothing in common. Olodumare is the Heavens. So Altakruri is correct. Stop degrading other African civilizations!!!!!! By making everything Egypt. Egyptians are not the only people that did anything in Africa and by the fact you are trying to connect yourself to them just shows that you are implying as such. [/QB]
posted
^I agree that as African cultures, Egypt and Yoruba have many strikingly similar concepts and aspects in common. However, we should not allow these similarities overshadow the just as great or greater differences and uniqueness of the said cultures. As an Afrasian speaking people, the Egyptians' religion and culture likely had more in common with the Hausa than to the Niger-Congo speaking Yoruba.
Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
For those who would really rather know; research and ignore those who are merely talking off the top of their heads:
1) The Religion of the Yorubas by J. Olumide Lucas ($28.45 from Amazon.com)
The sub-caption beneath the title reads:
quote: Being an account of the religious beliefs and practices of the Yoruba peoples of southern Nigeria. Especially in relation to the religion of ancient Egypt.
2) It was due to this growing awareness (of Yoruba origins) that Fela Kuti, the late, great (as they always say) Yoruba musician changed the name of his band from Africa 70 to Egypt 80. There's plenty on the internet relating to his life and career...
3) Both Diop and Budge have written on the cultural unity of Black Africa. Their books are available today!
Human history is a process; the ancient Egyptians even passed some of their wisdom and knowledge to the Greeks, which began a process of development in Europe; It is parochial, narrowmindness to think of the ancient Egyptians as a 'tribe', nor did they spontaneously begin civilization, independantly and isolated, but was part of a process which had began much earlier in the African interior and the once fertile Sahara. Some people just don't seem to grasp this pattern of human development and it is pointless in wasting one's time...
Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Obviously, Vida's and my point went over your head.
Nobody denied that Egyptian religion as an African religion shares many things in common with say Yoruba religion, however one should not ignore the differences which are just as significant. Yoruba are a Niger-Congo speaking people from West Africa while Egyptians were an Afrasian speaking people from Northeast Africa. Both are African peoples so obviously they share things in common, but one should not obscure the obvious regional and cultural differences. It would be like me using Burmese traditional relgion to explain Korean religion when I could find an even better example closer to Korean.
Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Nobody denied that Egyptian religion as an African religion shares many things in common with say Yoruba religion, however one should not ignore the differences which are just as significant. Yoruba are a Niger-Congo speaking people from West Africa while Egyptians were an Afrasian speaking people from Northeast Africa. Both are African peoples so obviously they share things in common, but one should not obscure the obvious regional and cultural differences.
Djehuti can you tell me what group located in present day West Africa has more things in common with Yoruba versus Yoruba and Egypt?
Djehuti can you explain why a culture located to the extreme west of the African continent have so many similarities with a Ancient culture that existed to the extreme east of the African Continent?
Egyptians are said to speak Afro-Asiatic language while the Yorubas speak a Niger-Congo language, then why do they share so many similarities in culture despite the language difference?
Djehuti Africa is not Korea so don't make the mistake of using Korean history as a example to explain African History, because those areas are not the same. The forces and events that shaped Korean history were not the same that shaped African history.
posted
Could anyone who contributed to this thread detail on here what is the empirical evidence that make them believe that A.Egyptian pantheon is "the same as Yoruba's", or "closer to that of Afrasian speakers than that of other African speakers", etc.? I have a feeling that many of you are basing their opinions on personal feelings or political considerations, not on facts.
Posts: 307 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Please call me MIDOGBE: Could anyone who contributed to this thread detail on here what is the empirical evidence that make them believe that A.Egyptian pantheon is "the same as Yoruba's", or "closer to that of Afrasian speakers than that of other African speakers", etc.? I have a feeling that many of you are basing their opinions on personal feelings or political considerations, not on facts.
...sigh... The often misapplication of 'Language groupings' which are socially biased/fabricated is only a camouflage for historical realities; "Afrasian is a euphemism for "Hamito-Semitic" and Niger-Congo is a euphemism for "Negro" - essentially a form of linguistic neo-colonialism: Here's a purview of historical realities...
quote:Originally posted by Wally: EW Budge: Killing the messenger
quote:Originally posted by Wally: There exists today modern propaganda designed to destroy the reputation of a once staunch European chauvinist, E.A.WALLIS BUDGE (1857-1934), Late Keeper of the Egyptian and Assyrian Antiquities in the British Museum. The mantra or propaganda usually goes like, "Budge is hopelessly outdated" without bothering to mention "outdated" in what regards. But the statement is not meant to draw such a response; and then there's the chagrin that Budge's books are found in all the public libraries and book stores!
Most of those here on this forum know the game and what time it is.
EW Budge, much like Basil Davidson, after a time began to see the contradictions in his approach to ancient African history. If one reads Budge's earlier works, he also parroted the European master-race coming into Africa to civilize the blacks! But since nothing is permanent but change, and although never abandoning his chauvinism, he did become more truthful. The following statements give an indication why good old boy Budge has fallen out of favor with the European chauvinists...
Egyptian an African Language Fundamentally
quote: ...after deducting all the triliteral roots, there still remains a very large number of words that are not Semitic, and were never invented by a Semitic people. These words are monosyllabic, and were invented by one of the oldest African (or Hamitic, if that word be preferred) peoples in the Valley of the Nile of whose written language we have remains. These words used to express fundamental relationships and feelings, and beliefs which are peculiarly African and are foreign in every particular to Semitic peoples. The primitive home of the people who invented these words lay far to the south of Egypt, and all that we know of the Predynastic Egyptians suggest that it was in the neighborhood of the Great Lakes, probably to the east of them...the Ancient Egyptians were Africans, and they spoke an African language... --EW Budge, Hieroglyphic Dictionary, pp lxvii-lxix
Osiris, as the Great father ancestor of the Kemetian race:
quote: The Egyptians, like so many modern African peoples, worshiped the spirits of their ancestors, and that early in the Dynastic Period, Osiris became the great ancestor of all Egypt, and was worshiped as such. The cult of the ancestor spirit is common all over Africa and its existence seems not to be incompatible with a belief in God, the Creator of the World and all in it. ...The figure of Osiris brought with it the help, protection, and support of the father-god, and it was to the Egyptian exactly what the ancestral-spirit figure is to the African today. -- p300
(The Kemetians referred to their ancestors as Ikhu (Akhjw; Akhou) which literally means "The Shining Ones" (IE, "spirits"). Budge informs us also that the Coptic name for Osiris is Usiri. Other Dialect variations: Asar; Ausar; Ausyr; Wosiri; Osiri Title: KemOsiri "Black Osiri")
Isis as the Great mother ancestress of the Kemetian race:
quote: She was the wife of Osiris, and if Osiris was the great father ancestor, she was, of necessity, the great mother ancestress. The legends which exist in Egyptian texts tell us how the goddess, after she had conceived Horus, retired to the swamps of the Delta, and how being quite alone there, she brought him forth. In this, as in many other respects, tradition regarded Isis as an African woman, and preferably a woman from the Sudan, for she brought forth her son as Sudani women bring forth their children. -- p301
(Budge informs us also that the Coptic name for Isis is Ese. Other Dialect variations: Ase(t); Ause(t); Isi Titles: KemIsi (Black Isi; Sa(t) Keme(t)"Lady of the Black Nation" Budge also appears to confirm the thesis of J. Olumide Lucas on the Kemetian origin of the Yoruba of Nigeria. Here's a sampling...)
quote: The Yoruba, like the Egyptians, believed the sky to be a solid body, which curved over the earth so as to cover it like a vaulted roof... -- p372 In Yoruba and Egypt the office of priest was hereditary. The temple is called "Ile Orisha," i.e., "house of the god"; in Egypt also the temple was called "house of the god" (illus; hieroglyph 'ntr ht') ... -- p374
Quotes from "Osiris & The Egyptian Resurrection" by E.A. Wallis Budge, Dover books, Vol. I
Osiris and Dancing
quote: Diodorus...describes the love of Osiris for music, and singing, and dancing...throws light on one of the most important features of the African religion and the character of the African. All Nilotic peoples are greatly addicted to dancing, and they never seem able to perform any ceremony without dancing; they dance at weddings and they dance at funerals, and dancing among many tribes constitutes an act of worship of the highest and most solemn importance...(the Ancient Egyptians) considered certain dances to be acts of worship. --Osiris, EW Budge, p.231
Osiris and Human Sacrifice
quote: Among the Africans of all periods the belief in immortality has always been implicit and absolute, and there can be no question that human sacrifices and "funeral murders"(1) are the logical outcome of this belief in immortality, and of the fear and honour in which they have always held the gods and the dead...In Ashanti, the king, as in ancient Egypt, slew prisoners with his own hand. --Osiris, EW Budge, p.225/229 (1) ritual murder
Origin of the Ht hieroglyph ("the god's house)
quote: The first of these (early temple images) is clearly an African hut, the sides of which are made of plaited reeds; the roof is made of some vegetable material which has been tied together, and consisted probably of a thick mat made of solatik similar to that which covered my tukul (hut) at Marawi (Abu Dom) and other places in the Sudan...the three curved lines in front represent the palings which are fixed before the tombs of great men all over the Sudan. --Osiris, EW Budge, p.247-8
Osiris, Tattooing, & the Color White
quote: We next notice that the whole body of Osiris, from the neck to the soles of his feet, is covered with something which is commonly called "scale-work."...I believe that this "scale-work" is intended to represent the design with which the whole body of Osiris was thought to be tattued...That the body of Osiris is often painted white in vignettes does not affect the identification of the scale-work with tattuing, for many tribes smear themselves with white earth or clay. The white color may be symbolic of death ( http://www.geocities.com/wally_mo/coco_hues.html ), for among the Nilotic Negroes the women wear a black tail fringed with white strings for a month as a sign of mourning, and others smear themselves with white earth. --Osiris, EW Budge, p.324
The Cult of Osiris
quote: (The cult of Osiris)...is as old as dynastic civilization in Egypt, and that it grew and developed, and spread with ever-increasing power until it became the dominating religious influence throughout the country. Osiris was the symbol of the African conception of resurrection and immortality, and from first to last his worship was characterized by customs, and rites, and ceremonies which was purely African. --Osiris, EW Budge, p.347
Egyptian Monotheism
quote: Champollion le Jeune believed "the Egyptian religion to be a pure monotheism, which manifested itself externally by a symbolic polytheism." --Osiris, EW Budge, p.358
Ancestor Worship
quote: Up to the time when the cult of Osiris spread throughout Egypt, the Egyptians, I believe, worshiped their ancestors, according to the custom of the African in most parts of the Sudan, then and now. The following examples will show how widespread is the cult of ancestors in the Sudan, and will illustrate the similarity between the figures of ancestral gods and the figure of Osiris. The Barotse worship chiefly the souls of their ancestors..."the essence of true Negro religion is ancestor-worship, a belief in the 'ghosts of the departed'." --Osiris, EW Budge, p.290
quote: The Resurrection [quote] Osiris suffered death because he was righteous, and because he had done good to all men. Osiris, being the son of a god, knew well the wickedness which was in Set, and the hatred which the personification of evil and his fiends bore to him, yet he did not seek to evade his murderous attack, but willingly met his death...the resurrection of Osiris is the great and distinguishing feature of the Egyptian religion, for Osiris was the first fruits of the dead, and every worshiper of Osiris based his hope of resurrection and immortality upon the fundamental fact of the resurrection of Osiris. --Osiris, EW Budge, p.312-3
Africa Adorned
quote: The tombs of Egypt have yielded untold thousands of beads of all kinds, which prove that the love of the Egyptians for beads, shells, teeth of animals and men, pendants, etc., which could be worn as necklaces, was as great as is that of modern nations of Africa. --Osiris, EW Budge, p.323
Egyptian Voodoo
quote: It was well known in Egypt and the Sudan at a very early period that if a magician obtained some portion of a person's body, e.g., a hair, a paring of a nail, a fragment of skin, or a portion of some efflux from the body, spells could be used upon them which would have the effect of causing grievous harm to that person. --Legends of the Egyptian Gods, EW Budge, p.xxxiv
The Creation of Mankind
quote: (God)..."Now after these things I gathered together my members, and I wept (rime) over them, and men and women (rome)(2) sprang into being from the tears (rime_ty) which came forth from my eye." --Legends of the Egyptian Gods, EW Budge, p.5 (2) lome in Bantu
quote:Wally: ...sigh... The often misapplication of 'Language groupings' which are socially biased/fabricated is only a camouflage for historical realities; "Afrasian is a euphemism for "Hamito-Semitic" and Niger-Congo is a euphemism for "Negro" - essentially a form of linguistic neo-colonialism:
But you can still notice the similarities between these languages, an Igbo when he speaks sounds very closely to a kikuyu than to afaan-oromo, the characteristics of the sound is quite similar. Same with the Afrasian languages, Beja sounds much closer to berber than it does to lingala or Zulu you can here it from the guttaral sound and the way its spoken. So i don't think these language categories are fabrication or camouflage as you claim, they make sense if you've heard how these different languages sound.
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Actually, the problem is that Wally carries these racial euphamisms in his mind for these valid linguistic classifications.
Niger-Congo is a classification based on languages spoken from Niger to Congo etc and is NOT based on any racial typology like "negroid". Afrasian or Afro-Asiatic is also based on languages spoken from Africa to Asia and NOT on racial typology like "Hamitic caucasoids". Greenberg, the linguist who came up with these classifications did so solely on language and he was one of the first to actually do away with all the racial/racist typology that plagued African studies! He even used the same methods used to classify European languages!! I don't know how many times I have to keep repeating this!
quote:Originally posted by Hotep2u: Djehuti can you tell me what group located in present day West Africa has more things in common with Yoruba versus Yoruba and Egypt?
Quite simple-- the Igbo! The Igbo are the closest relatives of the Yoruba, both groups having diverged relatively recently. So it is not surprising that both groups have the closest affinities in religous beliefs as well as in languages and cultures.
quote:Djehuti can you explain why a culture located to the extreme west of the African continent have so many similarities with a Ancient culture that existed to the extreme east of the African Continent?
The only explanation can be common origin. Both cultures are African and developed by peoples on the African continent. The problem however is that some people (especially in this forum) tend to emphasize these similarities too much where they overshadow differences which are just as great or greater!
quote:Egyptians are said to speak Afro-Asiatic language while the Yorubas speak a Niger-Congo language, then why do they share so many similarities in culture despite the language difference?
Same answer to the above question. I can list many similarities between Malaysians and Koreans on opposite ends of East Asia.
I can also list similarities between the cultures and traditional beliefs of various Eurasians in general from East Asia, to South Asia, to even Europe! Again, this does not imply an extremely close relation between the said groups, let alone that one group descended from the other but that such similarities are based on common origin.
quote:Djehuti Africa is not Korea so don't make the mistake of using Korean history as a example to explain African History, because those areas are not the same. The forces and events that shaped Korean history were not the same that shaped African history.
I never compared Africa to Korea!! My analogy was between two distant African cultures-- Yoruba and Egypt with two distant Asian cultures-- Burmese and Koreans! You obviously did not comprehend what I said.
Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
The revolutional point of GREENBERG's classification of African languages was that he only focused on genetic linguistic facts, rejecting racial , cultural and typological (like the similarity of sounds found among languages ) facts to class languages in different languages into phylae, unlike his predecessors like MEINHOF.
Genetic linguistics are used to relate languages, not races or cultures.
There is no "Afrasian" or "Niger-Congo" modern culture, there are languages that are descending from an ancestral language and that may spoken by people with cultures as different as their phenotypes.
There is no more legitimacy to compare Kabyle culture with Logone (Northern Cameroon), than there is to compare Logone's culture with a culture of some neighbouring Bantu-speaking people.
I find it completely ridiculous to forbid someone to claim that a culture is very close to another relying on linguistic non-affiliation and this without any actual evidence of the contrary.
You guys remind me of some early pseudo-scientists who didn't want to link Fulani language to other Niger-Congo languages because the first were nomads unlike the latter, or were reluctant to include Hausa and other Chadic languages in the "Hamito-Semitic" family because their speakers were too "negroid" .
With things like that, one starts to find "scholars" 's references to "Afrasian" accomplishments, Afrasian civilization which is no different of MARTINET's claim that ""Indo-European people" were born to rule", or some **** like that.
What scares me is that we are not far away from a concept of an Afrasian, Niger-Congo "race".
Genetic classification of languages is no dogma, this is theory that may evolve over the years.
Even more friable is the distinction of African people into distinct cultures relying on languages family classification.
We Africans already have broad-featured Blacks slaughtering elongated featured Blacks, in the name of the Hamitic THEORY.
What's next? Afrasian speaking people killing Niger-Congo speakers in the name of in the name of the superiority and the accomplishments of Afrasian civilization?
Posts: 307 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
LOL that's redicoulas it will never happen, i can assure you that 99 percent of niger-congo and afrasian speaking people don't even know or care about what category their language is placed on. An Afar finds an Amhara equally distinct linguistically as to a kikuyu speaker. And i'm sure a kikuyu speaker finds a Zulu speaker equally distinct linguistically as to a Somali. This is mostly a scientific issue, and has no merit on real life.
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^ Well I'm pretty sure that Hutu & Tutsi didn't care much about their "race" before Western "science" put an emphasis on it. I'm not saying it will happen, but we just have to be careful about it.
Posts: 307 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hutus were/are savages, don't compare them to anyone else, has nothing to do with how tutsis looked or sounded like, they just needed to struck their machetas on some defensless women and children, so they attacked the tutsis because they were the closest ones. they would have done the same if it was congolese or kenyan. This whole charade of tutsis looking different or acted different is all bs.
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
What do you think of systems other than Greenberg's, such as Obenga's or Dalby's?
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: Djehuti wrote: ^Actually, the problem is that Wally carries these racial euphamisms in his mind for these valid linguistic classifications.
These racial euphemisms are not in any way connected to "valid linguistic classifications" anymore than the separate creations of nation states such as Ghana, Tanzania, Nigeria, etc. are valid territorial units. All of this, linguistics, ethnic strife, falsely created nation-states are symptons of a virile neo-colonialism of the African continent!
quote: Niger-Congo is a classification based on languages spoken from Niger to Congo etc and is NOT based on any racial typology like "negroid". Afrasian or Afro-Asiatic is also based on languages spoken from Africa to Asia and NOT on racial typology like "Hamitic caucasoids". Greenberg, the linguist who came up with these classifications did so solely on language and he was one of the first to actually do away with all the racial/racist typology that plagued African studies! He even used the same methods used to classify European languages!! I don't know how many times I have to keep repeating this!
Absolute nonsense! And you will continue to repeat this nonsense as long as you keep buying this 'fiction of objectivity' and refusing to accept the hard lessons of European/Western neo-colonialism's impact upon Africa's history and culture...And I would ask you, even if you are in denial regarding neo-colonialism, what AlTakruri asked Midogbe:
quote: AlTakruri wrote: Midogbe
What do you think of systems other than Greenberg's, such as Obenga's or Dalby's?
Please, start with Obenga, please...
Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Neith-Athena: I just started reading a book by Moustafa Gadalla where he claims that "neter" does not mean "god," but rather different attributes or aspects of the One God. I have read this before, and wonder whether translating the word as "god" is meant to suggest that Judaism is the first monotheistic religion.
In the Yoruba religion, "orisha" is often translated as "god" but I heard from someone more knowledgeable than I about it that the orishas are different elemental forces or aspects of nature and hence of the One God. I am not suggesting hyper-diffusionism, just simply that monotheism is not such a unique concept as Europeans would have one think. Also, I am more familiar with Yoruba religion as it is practiced in the Diaspora. I also read Chinua Achebe's "Things Fall Apart" recently and towards the end when one of the Igbo characters is speaking to the European missionary, he says that the Igbo also believe in the One God, but they pray to different aspects of Him/Her. It is really similar to how Catholics pray to different saints.
I always have to jump on topics that mention "Yoruba" because I am a Yoruba and I'm passionate about anything relating to my people.
Yes, you're accurate in saying that we believe in the One Supreme God and the orishas are deities. If you went into a Yoruba rural area (where 'modernisation' has not reared its ugly head), and you asked any of the locals about God, they would find it funny that ANYONE does not BELIEVE that there is only One Supreme Being. From as far back as any Yoruba knows there has always being a Supreme Being known as Olorun (some refer to God as Olodumare). However, it is important to know that the deities are just aspects of God and none exists in a vacuum.
Posts: 3423 | From: the jungle - when y'all stop playing games, call me. | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
If anyone is familiar with the Yoruba religion here, can you tell me if the function of "Eshu" correlates with that of "Seth" or "Djehuti"?
The thing is; among modern Yoruba people today, Eshu (pronouced as A-shoo) is seen as the evil deity. Modern Yoruba "Christians" (ie. the Bible has been translated to Yoruba) translate "Satan" as "Eshu" (though I wonder how accurate this is). I can't say for certain if that's what the traditional Yoruba people think since I grew up in a Yoruba city (Eko/Lagos) which is fairly westernised. I've also heard traditional Yoruba people from my mother's sub-ethnic group of Egba refer to Eshu as "the messenger".
It's all quite confusing. Wondering if anyone can shed some light, Wally perhaps?
Posts: 3423 | From: the jungle - when y'all stop playing games, call me. | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am Afro-Cuban and the Yoruba religion is strong on the island. Eshu is really more like Mercury/Hermes if you use Greco-Roman parallels. European missionaries associated him with Satan because in a way Eshu is amoral, beyond good and evil. He is the gatekeeper, and whenever one performs a ceremony he has to be attended to first. These are quotes from a book called "Black Gods: Orisha Studies in the New World," by Gary Edwards and John Mason:
"Elegba (owner of vital force) is the orisha that offers choices. He is the orisha that sits ath the threshold of every decision and offers the options that decide our future. Elegba is the gatekeeper who owns all the options or roads."
"Elegba and Eshu (gatherer of a great multitude) are names given to the same orihsa, the distinction being that, in Cuba and the United States, Eshu represents the wild, uncontrollable aspect of this orisha, whose shrine must be kept outside of the house. Elega, on the other hand, is that part of Eshu which has been calmed down by the cool, reasoned, ethical actions of the chief of orisha, Obatala, so that it could be brought into the house without the threat of havoc."
"Elegba was present at the creation of the universe and safeguards the principle of free will, providing, within a limited scope, a chance for a person to decide on his own destiny."
"Elegba is the guardian of the crossroads, the thresholds of houses, the marketplace, and the curb of the roads. . . . He offers possibility which lures man's emotions, and goads him into making mistakes which complicate life, making it interesting."
"He is the ultimaate possibility and he offers the options which force man to attempt to change and disprove the laws of nature, which help to ensnare man in an altogether new set of rules."
"He is called the divine trickster, the enfant terrible, and the prankster, because he allows man to have many options, deceives him into making unfortunate mistakes, and then sits back as an unofficial observer, as man stumbles onto the right or wrong path. It should be noted that Elegba is responsible for offering paths that can lead to death, which accounts for the erroneous opinion that Elegba is evil. Western missionaires went so far as to call him the devil. Elegba is not the devil. There is . . no concept of a devil, an absolutely evil force, in Yoruba philosophical thought. Elegba is, on the other hand, responsible for the mistakes that bring men success.
Posts: 140 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^The problem is when people try to relate the Yoruba religion moreso to Egyptian rather than Yoruba's cloe relatives right 'next-door' so to speak, like the Igbo.
Some people here are just too desperate to connect themselves with Egypt. Speaking of which, Wally my man you are very much misguided and have fallen to Diop worship not unlike Clyde Winters who has taken it to a whole nother level (African Ainu and what not)!
Greenberg was not a European imperialist, he was a scholar who studied languages. Midogbe is correct that he was the one who actually rebelled against the imperial racist garbage plaguing language studies!! Greenberg's language phylums were created employing the exact same techniques to classify European languages. Unless you want to argue that the Indo-European language phylum, the Uralic language phylum, and the Basque language isolate of Europe is inaccurate and is the result of some social imperialistic bias?!!
Note that using the same methodology, East Asian languages are divided into even more phyla than Africans! There is Altai-Siberian, Sino-Tibetan, Koreic, Japonic, and in the southeast there is Austrasian, Tai-Kadai, and Austronesian (which includes Filippino). These are much more than the 4 main phylums of Africa. Perhaps this was a European imperialist attempt to divide Asians since there are just too many of us(?) LOL
Wally, I suggest you research linguistics and genetic language classification instead of just ignoring facts and giving the excuse that it is all Eurocentric bias!
Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Neith-Athena: I am Afro-Cuban and the Yoruba religion is strong on the island. Eshu is really more like Mercury/Hermes if you use Greco-Roman parallels. European missionaries associated him with Satan because in a way Eshu is amoral, beyond good and evil. He is the gatekeeper, and whenever one performs a ceremony he has to be attended to first. These are quotes from a book called "Black Gods: Orisha Studies in the New World," by Gary Edwards and John Mason:
"Elegba (owner of vital force) is the orisha that offers choices. He is the orisha that sits ath the threshold of every decision and offers the options that decide our future. Elegba is the gatekeeper who owns all the options or roads."
"Elegba and Eshu (gatherer of a great multitude) are names given to the same orihsa, the distinction being that, in Cuba and the United States, Eshu represents the wild, uncontrollable aspect of this orisha, whose shrine must be kept outside of the house. Elega, on the other hand, is that part of Eshu which has been calmed down by the cool, reasoned, ethical actions of the chief of orisha, Obatala, so that it could be brought into the house without the threat of havoc."
"Elegba was present at the creation of the universe and safeguards the principle of free will, providing, within a limited scope, a chance for a person to decide on his own destiny."
"Elegba is the guardian of the crossroads, the thresholds of houses, the marketplace, and the curb of the roads. . . . He offers possibility which lures man's emotions, and goads him into making mistakes which complicate life, making it interesting."
"He is the ultimaate possibility and he offers the options which force man to attempt to change and disprove the laws of nature, which help to ensnare man in an altogether new set of rules."
"He is called the divine trickster, the enfant terrible, and the prankster, because he allows man to have many options, deceives him into making unfortunate mistakes, and then sits back as an unofficial observer, as man stumbles onto the right or wrong path. It should be noted that Elegba is responsible for offering paths that can lead to death, which accounts for the erroneous opinion that Elegba is evil. Western missionaires went so far as to call him the devil. Elegba is not the devil. There is . . no concept of a devil, an absolutely evil force, in Yoruba philosophical thought. Elegba is, on the other hand, responsible for the mistakes that bring men success.
Hello Neith-Athena, it is a pleasure to meet a Yoruba from across the Atlantic (assuming you're actually Yoruba as opposed to an adopter of the Religion). I am curious as to how your communities are set up there, could you give me some insights? What is your music like? Do you have fuji or juju music?
Also, do you know if the language was ever written? the common view among us Yoruba in Yorubaland is that it wasn't. But then again, I've heard the opposite.
Posts: 3423 | From: the jungle - when y'all stop playing games, call me. | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^ My family have been practicing the religion for a few generations. The Yoruba were brought to Cuba as slaves later in the era of the slave trade, so I probably have ancestors from the Congo and such places going back before whatever Yoruba ancestors I may have (which I hope I do). Yoruba is stronger in Havana while Congo religions are stronger in Oriente (the eastern part of the island - it's called Palo there). What is called Santeria is really Lucumi/La Regla de Ocha, or Yoruba religion adopted to the American context in which the slaves found themselves, with the orishas hidden behind the facade of different Catholic saints. For example, Shango is associated with Saint Barbara. This is called syncretism but is really dissimulation, because those who are most deeply into the religion know that the Catholic saints are just a meaningless facade, and the religion is truly African.
I don't know much about the music except that each orisha has his/her particular dance. I don't know much about the communities in Cuba either, because I came to the U.S. at a young age, but I do know that there is an elder priest or priestess who initiates others (initiates must wear all white for a given period of time, so you can tell who they are on the street - I have seen quite a few in NYC). In Brazil the religion is even stronger, in that there are these compounds called candombles where each orisha/saint has his/her own particular temple, and initiates live separated from the outside world inside the candomble for a long period of time. Candomble is also the name of the religion, and in Brazil women hold the most power within the religion.
This is what I know from taking a class and reading a few books, plus from listening to what my mother tells me and going to a bembe (which is where music is played for the orishas).
The language is written down in the Latin alphabet here. Priests and priestesses have to know it in order to perform ceremonies, but I don't know how much they really know in terms of the grammar as opposed to rote repetition for said ceremonies.
I hope this helps. How is the religion practiced in Yorubaland? Have many people converted to other religions? (I hope not many. Sigh. I am sick of seeing how many Blacks abandon African religions for Christianity and other "world" religions, and then you see the Christian ones preaching against idolatry and other things that are merely distortions of what African religions are.)
Posts: 140 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
I am not trying to link myself or my ancestors with Egypt in anyway. As the descendant of slaves in the Americas I know that my ancestors probably came from West and Central Africa. I am proud of my heritage and do not need to link myself with a people whom Europeans consider civilized because I reject the European definition of civilization - if slavery, colonization, and exploitation of "native" peoples around the world is not "savagery," then I don't know what is. Europeans think that might equals right, that history is about conquest and kingdoms and empires. I reject Eurocentrism.
When I mentioned the Yoruba in my first post, I was trying to understand Egyptian religion through the lens of something that is more familiar to me. I was not impying that the Yoruba come from Egypt. You yourself said that there is a common African base that explains similarities and correlations without claiming hyper-diffusionism.
Claiming that said African group is descended from the Egyptians is similar to the old Eurocentric ruse of saying that whatever civilization was found in Africa could be explained by the presence of non-Africans who had mixed with the "Negroes" and thus degenerated. Giving the Egyptians this special standing, as if they were indeed superior to other Africans, means not making a complete break with Eurocentrics, which I think is what we need to do. I am indifferent to whether it is true or not true that whatever African people is descended from the Egyptians. I think the Blacks who created Egyptian "civilization" were no better than other peoples, including other Blacks. I do not subscribe to the theory that one group or "race" is better or smarter than another, and thus inherently more capable of creating "civilization," but believe that environment and circumstances have much to do with it. Nor do I believe that Blacks are "musical" or especially good at sports, that Jews are greedier and smarter than other peoples, or whatever other nonsensical essentialism people believe in.
I hope you do not take this as an effrontery, but I just wanted to elucidate my position.
Posts: 140 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Actually , my point was more directed towards you and Yonis than towards Wally, because you seem to identify with GREENBERG's unbiased method of classification (which consisted on focusing on genetic linguistic facts only, and ignoring culture, "race" or typological linguistic features) and yet still have the nerves to claim that a culture cannot be very close to another if the languages of the people who practice it are not "closely related".
There is absolutely no legitimacy in claiming that a culture cannot be close to another because the people who practice it speak supposedly unrelated languages unless you have substantial evidence of the contrary, which you still have to provide.
So I'm asking you again: What substantial evidence do you have to claim that the religions of "Afrasian" speaking people are much closely related to AE's than that of any other "non-Afrasian" speaking Africans?
alTakruri: I'll start a thread about African languages/Egyptian classification later.
Posts: 307 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
I am not trying to link myself or my ancestors with Egypt in anyway. As the descendant of slaves in the Americas I know that my ancestors probably came from West and Central Africa. I am proud of my heritage and do not need to link myself with a people whom Europeans consider civilized because I reject the European definition of civilization - if slavery, colonization, and exploitation of "native" peoples around the world is not "savagery," then I don't know what is. Europeans think that might equals right, that history is about conquest and kingdoms and empires. I reject Eurocentrism.
When I mentioned the Yoruba in my first post, I was trying to understand Egyptian religion through the lens of something that is more familiar to me. I was not impying that the Yoruba come from Egypt. You yourself said that there is a common African base that explains similarities and correlations without claiming hyper-diffusionism.
Claiming that said African group is descended from the Egyptians is similar to the old Eurocentric ruse of saying that whatever civilization was found in Africa could be explained by the presence of non-Africans who had mixed with the "Negroes" and thus degenerated. Giving the Egyptians this special standing, as if they were indeed superior to other Africans, means not making a complete break with Eurocentrics, which I think is what we need to do. I am indifferent to whether it is true or not true that whatever African people is descended from the Egyptians. I think the Blacks who created Egyptian "civilization" were no better than other peoples, including other Blacks. I do not subscribe to the theory that one group or "race" is better or smarter than another, and thus inherently more capable of creating "civilization," but believe that environment and circumstances have much to do with it. Nor do I believe that Blacks are "musical" or especially good at sports, that Jews are greedier and smarter than other peoples, or whatever other nonsensical essentialism people believe in.
I hope you do not take this as an effrontery, but I just wanted to elucidate my position.
posted
Also, preventing someone to test an hypothesis without knowing about the evidence which is about to be found on this issue, because it is "disrespectful to other people, or to his own people", as I read here & there is far from a scholarly approach. Kinda reminds me the good old French Africanist Eurocentric method.
Posts: 307 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
I am not trying to link myself or my ancestors with Egypt in anyway. As the descendant of slaves in the Americas I know that my ancestors probably came from West and Central Africa. I am proud of my heritage and do not need to link myself with a people whom Europeans consider civilized because I reject the European definition of civilization - if slavery, colonization, and exploitation of "native" peoples around the world is not "savagery," then I don't know what is. Europeans think that might equals right, that history is about conquest and kingdoms and empires. I reject Eurocentrism.
When I mentioned the Yoruba in my first post, I was trying to understand Egyptian religion through the lens of something that is more familiar to me. I was not impying that the Yoruba come from Egypt. You yourself said that there is a common African base that explains similarities and correlations without claiming hyper-diffusionism.
Claiming that said African group is descended from the Egyptians is similar to the old Eurocentric ruse of saying that whatever civilization was found in Africa could be explained by the presence of non-Africans who had mixed with the "Negroes" and thus degenerated. Giving the Egyptians this special standing, as if they were indeed superior to other Africans, means not making a complete break with Eurocentrics, which I think is what we need to do. I am indifferent to whether it is true or not true that whatever African people is descended from the Egyptians. I think the Blacks who created Egyptian "civilization" were no better than other peoples, including other Blacks. I do not subscribe to the theory that one group or "race" is better or smarter than another, and thus inherently more capable of creating "civilization," but believe that environment and circumstances have much to do with it. Nor do I believe that Blacks are "musical" or especially good at sports, that Jews are greedier and smarter than other peoples, or whatever other nonsensical essentialism people believe in.
I hope you do not take this as an effrontery, but I just wanted to elucidate my position.
Well said, Neith-Athena! By the way, if you are interested in history and culture or the way they are wrote in the West, I suggest you look here.
Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Please call me MIDOGBE: Djehuti:
Actually , my point was more directed towards you and Yonis than towards Wally, because you seem to identify with GREENBERG's unbiased method of classification (which consisted on focusing on genetic linguistic facts only, and ignoring culture, "race" or typological linguistic features) and yet still have the nerves to claim that a culture cannot be very close to another if the languages of the people who practice it are not "closely related".
I never stated that cultures have to share related languages for them to be closely related. How did I "ignore" culture?? Language is just one aspect of culture, however it a highly significant aspect. Of course there are many other aspects of culture involved also, but all cultures in the world are related to each other in some way. One must view the relation between cultures logically. Is Yoruba culture as closely related to Egyptian culture as it is Igbo culture? Is Egyptian culture more closely related to Yoruba culture than it is to Beja culture? As far as "race" is concerned, what about it? You should know by now that "race" is a subjective category with no scientifically valid basis. If by 'race' you mean phenotype, what exactly is your point? Of course both peoples are 'black' that's a no-brainer, but are you saying that Egyptians have more in common phenotypically with Yoruba than with other northeast Africans and vice versa with with Yoruba? And as for typological linguistics, well look at Clyde Winters' use of language typology where he attributes Mande roots to Dravidian, Chinese, Ainu (aboriginal Japanese), and Olmec!!
quote:There is absolutely no legitimacy in claiming that a culture cannot be close to another because the people who practice it speak supposedly unrelated languages unless you have substantial evidence of the contrary, which you still have to provide.
Indeed you are correct. Chinese speak languages unrelated to Vietnamese, yet no one denies that both cultures are related despite the Chinese influence in both cultures. But do you not agree that Japanese is closer related to Korean than Vietnamese?
quote:So I'm asking you again: What substantial evidence do you have to claim that the religions of "Afrasian" speaking people are much closely related to AE's than that of any other "non-Afrasian" speaking Africans?
Quite simply that language is highly significant aspect of culture that reflects many beliefs and thought-patterns of that culture. If it were just about words and pronunciations then it would be meaningless, but words have meanings and words' meanings or values are dictated by peoples and their beliefs.
It's already been proven by Westerners that the various Indo-European speakers share not only languages in common but many other cultural traits as well including religion.
Scholars have recently found the same to be true with speakers of other language phylums including Afrasian
quote:alTakruri: I'll start a thread about African languages/Egyptian classification later.
Go ahead. Things will prove interesting.
quote: Also, preventing someone to test an hypothesis without knowing about the evidence which is about to be found on this issue, because it is "disrespectful to other people, or to his own people", as I read here & there is far from a scholarly approach. Kinda reminds me the good old French Africanist Eurocentric method.
And how is anyone "preventing" a hypothesis from being tested?? What evidence is about to be found?? So far there hasn't been any evidence of any mass migration from Egypt to West Africa yet that I know of.
Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
From browsing through your previous posts I am aware of what your bigoted agenda is. Do not think that my comments in any way affect my commitment to the truth about the ancient African past, including Kemet. I do not need your acknowledgement that my statements agree with you, because I am sure that we differ in most things.
Posts: 140 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think this forum is great and am really glad to have found it. I have been a member less than a month, so what I shall say may sound presumptuous, but I shall venture to say it nevertheless. Going over the racial makeup of the Egyptians over and over again, inserting the race question into every topic, is really tiresome. Can we just accept objective truth and reality and admit that they were Black Africans? And even if some with Eurocentric biases disagree, could we focus on aspects of their culture other than their race?
Could we stop drawing these distinctions between East and West Africans? It seems that the former are priviliged in some discussions because they seem to approach the "European" ideal, so some wonder whether they were really "black," or how "black" are they now or were they in the past. The Egyptians were Black Africans, plain and simple. East Africans are Black Africans, also plain and simple. They are no better and no worse than other peoples across the world, nor are they less Black or less African than other Black African peoples.
Trying to link every trace of "civilization" in Africa to East Africans or Afrasan speakers or Egyptian ancestors is tantamount to admitting an inferiority complex and trying to associate oneself with a people whom Europeans consider "civilized." We should not accept the European definition of anything, especially civilization, because their actions for the past 500 years in areas outside Europe and even within European have been anything but civilized.
There is this really good essay by Aime Cesaire, the poet from Martinique, called "Discourse on Colonialism." It is about how "humanism" is just an ideology to justify European colonization, and how ultimately colonialism is fascism.
Posts: 140 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
I got "Osiris and the Egyptian Resurrection" and after reading just the preface can see what you mean about Budge being Eurocentric. He states that the cult of Osiris "weaned the primitive Egyptians from cannibalism and from cruel and barbarous customs." He writes:
"The early religious texts of Egypt prove beyond all doubt that the Egyptians in common with many peoples in other parts of the world, when in a primitive state of civilization, were cannibals in the Predynastic Period . . . Before the coming of the cult of Osiris theyt must have eaten their own dead, as many modern tribes do, and there is reason to think that even after they had learned to know Osiris, the natural liking for human flesh, which is common to most African peoples, asserted itself in times when food was scarce and during famines."
He makes other references to cannibalism, and while the allegation that most Africans like to eat human flesh is obviously false, I wonder whether the Egyptians in predynastic times were cannibals. Or am I being gullible?
"Osiris was white and the personification of good, Set was black (or red) and was the personification of evil." From what I have read on this forum black had positive connotations, so I am wondering whether Budge let European color symbolism taint his point of view. What did the Egyptians think of the color white?
He also states that "it is wrong to class the Religion of Ancient Egypt with the elaborate theological systems of peoples of Asiatic or European origin, and worse than useless to attempt to find in it systems of theological thought which resemble the Religions of peoples who live on a higher level of civilization than the primitive Egyptians." It is so aggravating that when some Eurocentrist is in raptures about the greatness of ancient Egypt, he makes every possible attempt to trace it to some Asiatic or even European race; but when he finally admits that they were Black Africans, he does everything in his power to put it down.
He also writes that most Egyptians did not worship Ra, and that "many African peoples, especially those who live in the great forests and on the Nile, Congo, Niger, and other great rivers, not only regard the sun with indifference, but with positive dislike; on the other hand, the Moon and its spirit are venerated devoutly. . . . It is tolerably clear that the cult of the Sun-god was introduced into Egypt by the priests of Heliopolis, under the Vth dynasty, when they assumed the rule of the country . . ."
Is there any truth to this?
Posts: 140 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
I got "Osiris and the Egyptian Resurrection" and after reading just the preface can see what you mean about Budge being Eurocentric. He states that the cult of Osiris "weaned the primitive Egyptians from cannibalism and from cruel and barbarous customs...
He indeed was chauvinistically Eurocentric, which is all the more reason it is interesting to hear people proclaim him to be Afrocentric, simply because he relayed translations about the Kemetou usage of "Kmt", meaning "Blacks", in application to themselves. This chauvinism is seen even in his work, Egyptian Religion; The Belief in God Almighty.
I presented links earlier, presumably for the benefit of those who wanted to broaden their knowledge base on the matters at hand, and not too lazy to click on the said links, but anyway here goes, from the top link in my last post:
quote: Budge:
"Negative Confession" in the 125th chapter of the Book of the Dead. Here, in the oldest copies of the passages known, the deceased says "I have not cursed God" (1.38), and a few lines after (1.42) he adds, "I have not thought scorn of the god living in my city."
It seems that here we have indicated two different layers of belief, and that the older is represented by the allusion to the "god of the city," in which case it would go back to the time when the Egyptian lived in a primitive fashion.
If we assume that God (who is mention in line 38) is Osiris, it doesn't do away with the fact that he was regarded as a being entirely different from the "god of the city" and that he was of sufficient importance to have one line of the "Confession" devoted to him.
I no longer have this book handy, but the piece above just provides a glimps of occasions of chauvinistic expression on Budge's part in the said work.
quote:Neith-Athena:
He also writes that most Egyptians did not worship Ra, and that "many African peoples, especially those who live in the great forests and on the Nile, Congo, Niger, and other great rivers, not only regard the sun with indifference, but with positive dislike; on the other hand, the Moon and its spirit are venerated devoutly. . . . It is tolerably clear that the cult of the Sun-god was introduced into Egypt by the priests of Heliopolis, under the Vth dynasty, when they assumed the rule of the country . . ."
Is there any truth to this?
I don't know specifics about "most" Egyptians, or how he came to that conclusion, but as far as Ra is concerned, here is what he had to say about this deity:
quote: ...neteru, i.e., the beings or existences which in some way partake of the nature or character of God, and are usually called "gods". [notice the emphasis on capital letter used for the one being, and that the lower case letter for incarnations]
The early nations that came in contact with the Egyptians usually misundertood the nature of these beings, and several modern Western writers have done the same.
When we examine these "gods" closely, they are found to be nothing more nor less than forms, or manifestations, or phases, or attributes, of one god, the god being Ra the Sun-god, who, it must be remembered, was the type and *symbol* of *God*.
Nevertheless, the worship of the neteru by Egyptians has been made the base of the charge of "gross idolatry" which has been brought against them, and have been represented by some as being on the low intellectual level of savage tribes.
It is certain that from the earliest time one of the greatest tendencies of the Egyptian religion was towards monotheism, and this tendency may be observed in all important texts down to the last period; it is also certain that a kind of polytheism existed in Egypt side by side with monotheism from very early times.
Whether monotheism or polytheism be the older, it is useless in our present state of knowledge to attempt to enquire. According to Tiele, the religion of Egypt was at the beginning polytheistic, but developed in two opposite directions:
in the one direction gods were multiplied by the addition of local gods, and...
in the other the Egyptians drew nearer and nearer to monotheism.
Dr. Wiedemann takes the view that three main elements may be recognized in the Egyptian religion:
<OL TYPE=1>
[*]A solar monotheism, that is to say one god, the creator of the universe, who manifests his power especially in the sun and its operations;
[*]A cult of the regenerating power of nature, which expresses itself in the adoration of ithyphallic gods, of fertile goddesses, and of a series of animals and of various dieties of vegetation;
[*]A perception of an anthropomorphic divinity, the life of whom in this world and in the world beyond this was typical of the ideal life of man -this last divinity being, of course, Osiris. </OL>
But here again, as Dr. Wiedemann says, it is an unfortunate fact that all the texts which we possess are, in respect of the period of the origin of the Egyptian religion, comparatively late, and therefore in them we find these three elements mixed together, along with a number of foreign matters, in such a way as to make it impossible to dicover which of them is the oldest....
...The epithets which the Egyptians applied to their gods also bear valuable testimony concerning the ideas which they held about God.
*We have already said that the "gods" are only forms, manifestations, and phases of Ra, the Sun-god, who was himself the type and symbol of God, and it is evident from the nature of these epithets that they were only applied to the "gods" because they represented some quality or attribute which they would have applied to God had it been their custom to address Him.
Source: Title: Egyptian Religion; chapter 1>The Belief in God Almighty; E.A Wallis Budge.
...and from that same book:
According to Budge:
quote: The late Dr. H. Brugsch collected a number of the epithets [published in “Religion” pages 99-101] which are applied to the gods, from texts of all periods; and from these we may see that the ideas and beliefs of the Egyptians concerning God were almost identical with those of the Hebrew and Muhammadans at later periods. When classified these epithets read thus [Budge provides more examples, I’ll just stick to a few] :-
“ God is One and alone, and none other existeth with Him; God is the One, the One Who hath made all things.”
“God is a spirit, a hidden spirit, the spirit of spirits, the great spirit of the Egyptians, the divine spirit.”
“God is from the beginning, and He hath been from the beginning; He hath existed from of old and was when nothing else had being. He existed when nothing else existed, and what existeth He created after He hand come into being. He is the father of beginnings.”
“God is the eternal One, He is eternal and infinite; and endureth for ever and aye; He hath endured for countless ages, and He shall endure to all eternity.”
“ God is the hidden Being, and no man hath known His form. No man hath been able to see out His likeness; He is hidden from gods and men, and He is a mystery unto His creatures”
“God is merciful unto those who reverence Him, and He heareth him that calleth upon Him. He protected the weak against the strong, and He heareth the cry of him that is bound in fetters; He judgeth between the mighty and the weak. God knoweth him that knoweth Him, and He protected him that followed Him.”
We have now to consider the visible emblem, and the type and symbol of God, namely the Sun-god Ra, who was worshipped in Egypt in prehistoric times. According to the writings of the Egyptians, there was a time when neither heaven nor earth existed, and when nothing had being except the boundless primeval water, which was, however, shrouded with thick darkness. In this condition the primeval water remained for a considerable time, notwithstanding that it contained within it the germs of the things which afterwards came into existence in this world itself.
At length the spirit of the primeval water felt the desire for creative activity, and having uttered the word, the world sprang straightway into being in the form which had already been depicted in the mind of the spirit before he spake the word which resulted in its creation. The next act of creation was the form of a germ, or egg, from which sprang Ra, the Sun-god, within whose shining form was embodied the almighty power of the divine spirit.
Such was the outline of creation as described by the late Dr. H. Brugsch, and it is curious to see how closely his views coincide with a chapter in the Papyrus of Nesi Amsu preserved in the British Museum. In the third section of this papyrus we find a work which was written with the sole object of overthrowing Apep, the great enemy of Ra, and in the composition itself we find two versions of the chapter which describes the creation of the earth and all things therein.
I did indeed click on the link earlier because I am not too lazy to do anything, least of all that. I got "Osiris and the Egyptian Resurrection" from the library because it was quoted in the topic to which you provided the link. So I have done some of my reading. I just had specific questions, most of which you have not addressed.
Posts: 140 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^Actually, the problem is that Wally carries these racial euphamisms in his mind for these valid linguistic classifications.
Niger-Congo is a classification based on languages spoken from Niger to Congo etc and is NOT based on any racial typology like "negroid". Afrasian or Afro-Asiatic is also based on languages spoken from Africa to Asia and NOT on racial typology like "Hamitic caucasoids". Greenberg, the linguist who came up with these classifications did so solely on language and he was one of the first to actually do away with all the racial/racist typology that plagued African studies! He even used the same methods used to classify European languages!! I don't know how many times I have to keep repeating this!
quote:Originally posted by Hotep2u: Djehuti can you tell me what group located in present day West Africa has more things in common with Yoruba versus Yoruba and Egypt?
Quite simple-- the Igbo! The Igbo are the closest relatives of the Yoruba, both groups having diverged relatively recently. So it is not surprising that both groups have the closest affinities in religous beliefs as well as in languages and cultures.
quote:Djehuti can you explain why a culture located to the extreme west of the African continent have so many similarities with a Ancient culture that existed to the extreme east of the African Continent?
The only explanation can be common origin. Both cultures are African and developed by peoples on the African continent. The problem however is that some people (especially in this forum) tend to emphasize these similarities too much where they overshadow differences which are just as great or greater!
quote:Egyptians are said to speak Afro-Asiatic language while the Yorubas speak a Niger-Congo language, then why do they share so many similarities in culture despite the language difference?
Same answer to the above question. I can list many similarities between Malaysians and Koreans on opposite ends of East Asia.
I can also list similarities between the cultures and traditional beliefs of various Eurasians in general from East Asia, to South Asia, to even Europe! Again, this does not imply an extremely close relation between the said groups, let alone that one group descended from the other but that such similarities are based on common origin.
quote:Djehuti Africa is not Korea so don't make the mistake of using Korean history as a example to explain African History, because those areas are not the same. The forces and events that shaped Korean history were not the same that shaped African history.
I never compared Africa to Korea!! My analogy was between two distant African cultures-- Yoruba and Egypt with two distant Asian cultures-- Burmese and Koreans! You obviously did not comprehend what I said.
posted
Neith-Athena; you are clearly on the right path to understanding history in general, and the history of Africa in particular - doing your own research and not being dependent upon the vacuous 'opinions' of others! Trust your own intelligence...
You state that Budge said that Osiris was white; you should read his book "Osiris" more carefully, for Budge has stated and I have already quoted:
Osiris, Tattooing, & the Color White
quote: We next notice that the whole body of Osiris, from the neck to the soles of his feet, is covered with something which is commonly called "scale-work."...I believe that this "scale-work" is intended to represent the design with which the whole body of Osiris was thought to be tattued...That the body of Osiris is often painted white in vignettes does not affect the identification of the scale-work with tattuing, for many tribes smear themselves with white earth or clay. The white color may be symbolic of death ( http://www.geocities.com/wally_mo/coco_hues.html ), for among the Nilotic Negroes the women wear a black tail fringed with white strings for a month as a sign of mourning, and others smear themselves with white earth. --Osiris, EW Budge, p.324
posted
^ Right Wally, but note - Budge does make that claim about Osirus being white and Set being black or red, even though it contradicts what you correctly quoted, and what Budge therefore knew to be true. {Osirus, the Great Black, He of the Black face, most often shown as jet black, brownish black, or greenish black}
Budge's work is useful, but he was still blinded on occasion by the limitations of his racist culture and upbringing.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Neith-Athena: I think this forum is great and am really glad to have found it. I have been a member less than a month, so what I shall say may sound presumptuous, but I shall venture to say it nevertheless. Going over the racial makeup of the Egyptians over and over again, inserting the race question into every topic, is really tiresome. Can we just accept objective truth and reality and admit that they were Black Africans? And even if some with Eurocentric biases disagree, could we focus on aspects of their culture other than their race?
I have been asking the same questions for years now, especially the latter question!
quote:Could we stop drawing these distinctions between East and West Africans? It seems that the former are priviliged in some discussions because they seem to approach the "European" ideal, so some wonder whether they were really "black," or how "black" are they now or were they in the past. The Egyptians were Black Africans, plain and simple. East Africans are Black Africans, also plain and simple. They are no better and no worse than other peoples across the world, nor are they less Black or less African than other Black African peoples.
Indeed. What is this "European ideal" anyway? The 'features' of some of them? Even peoples of European descent are no longer foolish enough to deny that East Africans are no less black than West Africans. The Hamitic hypothesis of "black-skinned whites" [sic] is a ridiculously foolish embarassment of academia that was silently buried a long time ago. Although I warn that there are a few East Africans who think this way.
quote:Trying to link every trace of "civilization" in Africa to East Africans or Afrasan speakers or Egyptian ancestors is tantamount to admitting an inferiority complex and trying to associate oneself with a people whom Europeans consider "civilized." We should not accept the European definition of anything, especially civilization, because their actions for the past 500 years in areas outside Europe and even within European have been anything but civilized.
Unfortunately thatis exactly what some African Americans are doing when they try to attribute the presence of advanced culture in West Africa to "Egyptian ancestors". They only end up insulting their own heritages.
quote:There is this really good essay by Aime Cesaire, the poet from Martinique, called "Discourse on Colonialism." It is about how "humanism" is just an ideology to justify European colonization, and how ultimately colonialism is fascism.
But unfortunately Africa still suffers from the effects of this colonialism. It is only through education that Africans can break the cycle and reclaim their past rightful place in the world taken from them by Europeans. Indians have done it. Chinese are doing it. Why not Africans.
Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Obviously, Vida's and my point went over your head. 
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic