posted
To understand the origins of any African people, it is first necessary to understand the patterns of African migrations throughout history:
Peopling of Africa from the Nile Valley (note: this is based upon the fact of an original peopling of the Nile Valley from the south and the west (ancient Sahara regions))
quote: ...For peoples living south of the Nile, tradition suggest that they came from the north; this is true of the Batutsi of Rwanda-Urundi...the Pygmies were probably the first to occupy the interior of the continent, at least at a certain period. They settled there prior to the arrival of larger Blacks. It can be assumed that the latter formed a kind of cluster around the Nile Valley. In the course of time they spread out in all directions, as a result of the population growth and the upheavals that occur during the history of a people. --- The African Origin of Civilization, C.A. Diop, p179-182
points agreeing with Diop's observation...
quote: Tutsi, «TOOT see», are an African people who live mainly in the central African nations of Burundi and Rwanda. They are sometimes called Batutsi or Watusi. The Tutsi population is about 2 million. The Tutsi are by tradition a cattle-keeping people. They began to arrive in their present lands in the A.D. 1300's or 1400's, coming from northeastern Africa, probably in search of grazing land for their herds. Hutu people (also called Bahutu) were already living in the area when the Tutsi arrived. The Hutu were an agricultural people and were not as skilled in warfare as the Tutsi. The Tutsi gradually established themselves as the dominant group in the region politically and economically. Over the centuries, the two groups developed a common language and culture. Most Tutsi are Christians, but many also follow traditional African beliefs.--- World Book Online Reference Center
quote: In all these kingdoms a population of Bantu-speaking peasants had been conquered in the 14th or 15th century by a cattle herding people, believed to have been of Nilotic language, perhaps from the Ethiopian area or Sudan. The result was a feudal aristocracy descended from the cattle herders, the Tutsi, and a peasantry descended from the original Bantu speakers, the Hutu. All the aristocrats now speak the language of the peasants. (This has some similarities with the experience of the English, invaded by French speaking Normans in 1066.) The kingdoms had a system of officials and ceremonies similar to those of the Sidama kingdoms of modern Ethiopia. That is, the original cultural influences seem to have come partly from that area. It is also possible that some ceremonies have been passed on from ancient Egypt of the Pharaohs. -- http://www.angelfire.com/mac/egmatthews/worldinfo/africa/rwanda.html
Today, the Tutsi, Twa, and the Hutu all speak Kinyarwanda
Amon - God of Africa
quote: Rwandans traditionally believe in a supreme being called Imana. While Imana's actions influence the whole world, Rwanda is his home where he comes to spend the night. -- Rwanda, the Bradt travelguide, p26
Compare this example with that of Amma of the Dogon, Amon of the Yoruba, Amon of the Kemetou...
Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Wally: To understand the origins of any African people, it is first necessary to understand the patterns of African migrations throughout history:
This is a good start. To understand the patterns of migrations we must understand the history of climate, of archeology and anthropology.
Many who create myths about population origins are completely illiterate in these diciplines.
Case in point is another thread where the topic author wants to understand European origins, but does not even comprehend the history of the Ice-Ages which effectively dictate much of it's people history.
So, I want to begin with a warning - talking about myths and legends while failing to grasp hard facts of climate, anthropology and archeology, won't cut it.
Refusing to process hard data and apply critical thinking to it - will result in another embarrassing debacle thread.
quote: Peopling of Africa from the Nile Valley (note: this is based upon the fact of an original peopling of the Nile Valley from the south and the west (ancient Sahara regions))
This is vague in terms of time and specifics, and borders on fluff.
This in turn, allows you to fudge facts later on.
Here are the specifics....
The Nile Valley was 1st continuously populated during the Paleolithic. The oldest skeletal ramains are from 30 thousand years ago during the interglacial period.... 35,000-30,000 years ago: “Oldest human skeleton found in Egypt”. Nazlet Khater man was the earliest modern human skeleton found near Luxor, in 1980. The remains was dated from between 35,000 and 30,000 years ago. The report regarding the racial affinity of this skeleton concludes: “Strong alveolar prognathism combined with fossa praenasalis in an African skull is suggestive of Negroid morphology [form & structure]. The radio-humeral index of Nazlet Khater is practically the same as the mean of Taforalt (76.6). According to Ferembach (1965) this value is near to the Negroid average.” The burial was of a young man of 17-20 years old, whose skeleton lay in a 160cm- long narrow ditch aligned from east to west. A flint tool, which was laid carefully on the bottom of the grave, dates the burial as contemporaneous with a nearby flint quarry. The morphological features of the Nazlet Khater skeleton were analysed by Thoma (1984). The 35,000 year old skeleton was examined using multivariate statistical procedures. In the first part, principal components analysis is performed on a dataset of mandible dimensions of 220 fossils, sub-fossils and modern specimens, ranging in time from the Late Pleistocene to recent and restricted in space to the African continent and Southern Levant. - Thoma A., Morphology and Affinities of the Nazlet Khater Man; Journal of Human Evolution, vol. 13, 1984.
Following this, there was a possible absense of population in the Nile area due to extreme drought, followed by repopulation during the Holocene wet phase...
Archeological data, or the absence of it, have been interpreted as sug-gesting a population hiatus in the settlement of the Nile Valley betweenthe epipaleolithic and the neolithic/predynastic, but this apparent lackcould be due to material now being covered over by the Nile (see Connorand Marks 1986, Midant-Reynes 2000, for a discussion). Analagous toevents in the Atacama Desert in Chile (Nuñez et al 2002), a moister moreinhabitable eastern Sahara gained more human population in the latepleistocene-early holocene (Wendorf and Schild 1980, Hassan 1988,Wendorf and Schild 2001). If the hiatus was real then perhaps many Nilepopulations became Saharan. - SOY Keita.
During the Holocene wet phase 10 thousand years ago, much of Egypt was a savana not unlike modern Kenya....
It is during the neolithic redrying of the sahara that many of these populations congregated back to the Nile Valley, effectively the worlds larges oasis in the worlds largest desert.
quote:For peoples living south of the Nile, tradition suggest that they came from the north; this is true of the Batutsi of Rwanda-Urundi...
^ Tutsi are Bantu. This much is true of all Bantu peoples.
HISTORY OF THE BANTU MIGRATIONS
Main article: Bantu expansion
The Bantu first originated around the Benue-Cross rivers area in southeastern Nigeria and spread over Africa to the Zambia area. Sometime in the second millennium BC, perhaps triggered by the drying of the Sahara and pressure from the migration of people from the Sahara into the region, they were forced to expand into the rainforests of central Africa (phase I). In the 1st millennium BC, they began a more rapid second phase of expansion beyond the forests into southern and eastern Africa, and again in the 1st millennium AD as new agricultural techniques and plants were developed in Zambia. By about AD 1000 it had reached modern day Zimbabwe and South Africa. In Zimbabwe a major southern hemisphere empire was established, with its capital at Great Zimbabwe.
Are you claiming that Bantu originates in Dynastic Egypt?
Please give the chronology and timeline for Tutsi migration relative to the Bantu expansion, that can place the Tutsi in Dynastic Egypt?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:In all these kingdoms a population of Bantu-speaking peasants had been conquered in the 14th or 15th century by a cattle herding people, believed to have been of Nilotic language,
^ This is the racist Hamite mythology, and rooted in Eurocentric ignorance, and quoted by misguided Africanists out of sheer laziness.
If the Tutsi are Nilo-saharan speakers who came into Rwanda in the 14th century, and conquered Bantu speakers -> what Nilo-saharan language did the Tutsi speak?
People who state the hamie myth don't even understand that the Tutsi and Hutu speak the same language with the same dialect.
The claim that the Tutsi conquered the Hutu, only to have their native conquering langauge vanish without a trace - is completely ridiculous.
When Eurocentrists created this myth, they didn't know *Tutsi langauge* was Bantu - they assumed the Tutsi *imposed* their Hamite language upon hapless Bantu.
Eurocentrists continue to foster this kind of myth because they think Africans will believe anything. I don't know why you want to encourage them in this regard.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ In essense you provide absolutely no data, and no facts, and rely once again on *outdated* racial myths and racist European re-citation.
Wally, sometimes you sound like someone who has been sleeping for the last several decades.
Here's a wide awake view - and the ultimate source of what *you believe*:
The Hutus and Tutsis of Rwanda
John Hannign Speke (1827-1864) was an colonial explorer and officer in the British army and the ingenious architect of the Hamitic myth: the idea that Rwanda's Tutsi minority is racially superior to its Hutu minority.
When Speke arrived in what was then the Kingdom of Rwanda, he came to the rather inane conclusion that the Tutsis must be a superior race and were not native to Rwanda.
The evidence? Tutsis, which he supposed to be descendants of the Biblical figure, Ham, had lighter skin and more "European" features than the Bantu-featured Hutu that they ruled.
Speke's hypothesis became widely held fact by the time the Belgians came to rule Rwanda, give Tutsis special privileges, and begin issuing identity cards, forever relegating the Hutu and the Tutsi to separate castes.
The Hamitic Myth would be central to the Hutu extremists' efforts to mobilize ordinary citizens to commit the mass murder of the Tutsi "invaders."
Read about the origins of the Rwandan genocide and why the world stood by and did nothing to stop it.
^ Wally in order to be more than passive willing victim of the Hamite myth, you have to stop reductively reciting just-so stories and start relating facts.
To this point you have not related a single relevant fact.
In your next reply, I want to see some facts.....
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Conventional views on precolonial Rwanda are frequently based on a 'coming together' where the three groups, Twa, Hutu and Tutsi, have populated ancient Rwanda in that order.
Your book is apparently defending an alternative stand.
JV: Indeed, in my opinion, the Twa, Hutu and Tutsi did not arrive in different waves to populate Rwanda and the differences between them developed essentially on site.
In addition, until some time after 1900, there was no general concept of 'Rwanda'. Rwanda as a word refers to 'a central place with a surrounding area'.
Thus, we may refer to the rwanda of Nyiginya, to the Rwanda of Burundi, to the Rwanda of other places.
Rwanda is therefore not an ethnonym; you have to add another word in order to transform it into an ethnonym. The self-awareness of all the inhabitants that they were Rwandan came only with the colonial period and was related to their shared experiences during that time. That is something that is never discussed in the light of the current problems of Rwanda: since when do all these people believe that they are Rwandans? Formerly, such group awareness was connected with the various kingdoms or, in some cases, with the family communities to which they belonged.
KA&HV: So it is in this context of state formation that you situate the origin of the concepts of Hutu and Tutsi?
JV: That is partly a separate process. The terms 'Hutu' and 'Tutsi' date back much earlier than Rwanda.
In fact, Burundi, Buha and other small areas in Northern Congo also have Hutu and Tutsi, but the origin of the concept of 'Hutu' there differs from that in Rwanda.
Hutu and Tutsi are ancient words with changing meanings.
First in Rwanda and subsequently in Burundi, 'Hutu' was opposed to 'Tutsi'; both terms began to exclude each other: if you were a Hutu you could not possibly be a Tutsi.
But be careful: these developments occurred only after 1800. We have found traces of that. We know about people who did not refer to themselves as Hutu and who used a place name to indicate their ethnic identity.
Then gradually the term 'Hutu' developed among the large peasant population to denote their common social position.
KA&HV: That is historiographic dynamite ! In historical literature about Rwanda the suspicion is still smouldering that indeed some ethnic 'essence' is being hidden behind the concepts of Hutu and Tutsi.
JV: Well, if we look back far enough we find that the word 'hutu' originally meant 'servant'.
Actually, this word is still used with that meaning in Rwanda. For instance, the person carrying the suitcase of a minister is called a 'hutu'.
He may actually be a high-ranking Tutsi but in this situation he is a hutu, namely the case-carrier of a dignitary.
In the course of the 19th century, the meaning of this word has changed, which is shown, for instance, in a story of around 1850 about a certain Mrs. Shongoka [cf. Le Rwanda ancien, p. 174-5], mother of a Tutsi (i.e. noble) cattle-breeding family. The household, however, went all astray because Shongoka did not have a servant and she refused to use her Tutsi relatives as servants (i.e. as 'Hutu'). And that is the difference: half a century earlier, this gap was by far not as deep.
KA&HV: Hence, in your account, there is no reference to any primordial (ethnic) content of the Hutu concept, but you are less radical where the ethnic term Tutsi is concerned.
JV: The content of the Tutsi concept has also changed thoroughly in this process. At the beginning of the kingdom, most of the cattle-breeders considered themselves to be Hima. Furthermore, there was a small group of people who called themselves Tutsi, and that was a genuine ethnic term. The first king, Ndori, originated from the North and was a Hima, not a Tutsi. But one generation or more later, the members of the royal lineages also referred to themselves as Tutsi. This proves that at that time, the term Tutsi had more prestige than Hima. Besides, the etymology of the word Tutsi cannot be traced either in Kinyarwanda or in Kirundi or Kiga. This is entirely different where Hutu is concerned; the term can be found in Angola and in Lower Congo for someone who is either poor or a servant.
KA&HV: This series of alternative views regarding the precolonial history of Rwanda is being formulated by you on the basis of new or rather previously unused source material.
JV: Yes, I draw on two sources that have remained mostly unused until now. First there are the records of Father Schumacher who worked as a full-time researcher during the period from 1928 to 1936. Schumacher co-operated with 4 major informants who were all attached to the royal court and he always accurately noted who had given him what piece of information. This early research was done just prior to the beginning of Abbé Kagame's investigations. There is, in fact, a perfect continuity: when Schumacher left, his most important informant (Sekarama) began to co-operate with Kagame and became Kagame's tutor.
^ Wally -> In order to understand the meaning of Hutu and Tutsi, you must first grasp that Africans have unique and original ways of defining their identities which are not always concordant to ws.t concepts of ethnicity.
Westerners attempted to impose their ethnic and racial notions on Native African people.
It is the disastrous legacy of this discourse, that you are reflecting.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
rasol, that was a very interesting post. I thought Hutu and Tutsi were ethnic groups, but your post shows the reality was more along the lines of a social division, such as castes in India.
And this is backed up by the genetic data. The 2004 study of East Africa tested Hutus and Tutsis of Rwanda and the results are pretty similar; not identical, but close, sort of like the y-dna similarity between 2 regions inside a European country.
But what about the claims that either group can be physically distinguished from each other? Even the Hutus and Tutsis themselves feel there are physical differences between the 2 groups, notably that the Tutsis are taller. My personal view is that they're closely related, so what to make of this supposed difference?
Posts: 39 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I don't know exactly what the factors were, but apparently micro-evolution must have happen to cause certain phenotypical differences.
This same phenomenon can be seen in Asia. For example, in Tibet there are pastoral groups who are tall with so-called "finer" features like narrow long narrow faces and narrow noses, whereas agricultural folks are shorter with the more 'typical' "mongoloid" features like broad faces and broad noses. Yet Genetic studies show they differ very little and both are more related to each other than to other Asian groups outside of Tibet.
I'd say the biggest difference between these Tibetans and Rwandans is that the Euros did not warp their minds with their racist b.s. Although the pastoralists features were indeed explained by Europeans as due to "caucasoid" influence.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But what about the claims that either group can be physically distinguished from each other? Even the Hutus and Tutsis themselves feel there are physical differences between the 2 groups, notably that the Tutsis are taller.
Yes difference in physical appearance is the basis for Speke's notion of separating them into races.
However tall slender cattle hearders range throughout the Sahelian region of Africa from East to West and include peoples such as the Fulbe and Kanuri, whose cattle most closely resembles that of the Tutsi.
It's likely that differentiation of cattle herder and pastoralist began before the Bantu migration into Rwanda, this is especially so because a pattern of physical differenation concording to sedentary vs. pastoral exists not only in Rawanda but in Burundi, Uganda, the Congo and Tanzania as well.
Moreover - there are certainly pre-Bantu expansion cattle raising among native Nilo-saharan speakers in the SouthEast AFrica.
Cattle raising possibly originates with pre Nilo saharans of horn-supra-saharan Africa.
The most famous of these are the Masai, who, unlike the Tutsi, have a distinct and Nilo-saharan language, and distinct lineages including E3b and A which links them to other ancient East Africans Nilo-saharan speakers of the Sudan and Ethiopia. [this in spite of being Surrounded by mostly Bantu speaking Kenyans]
Tutsi do not have a distinct 'non-bantu' language, or even a distinct dialect of Bantu.
There is simply no linguistic, or genetic, or archeological or anthroplogical evidence to link them to Ethiopia - much less Dynastic Egypt.
Tutsi do not even have a *native* oral tradition linking them to Ethiopia or Egypt, or native word for *Ethiopia or Egypt* [all such legends are post European hamite mythmakers].
For example, Tutsi can often recite the names of the grandparents 7 or more generations back - all the names are Bantu.
In all current scholarship there is no theory of Tutsi origin that can explain the above and still tie them to Ethiopia or EGypt.
The only [outdated] references to this hypothesis are those which operate in ignorance of the evidence, as opposed to explaining the evidence.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Origin mythos of the region's related kingdoms state all three groups 'Twa,' Hutu, and Tutsi are local indigenees given a gift from the Supreme Being which the Tutsi used the most wisely and hence their being the top ranking class. In other words there were just people and the labels became attached after the fact.
Fact is the rulership of the Rift kingdoms listened in rapt awe while Speke spouted stories of David and Solomon being their ancestors to them.
quote:... Wahuma chieftains of foreign blood, descended from the Abyssinian stock ...
They had fine oval faces, large eyes, and high noses, denoting the best blood of Abyssinia. Having shaken hands in true English style, which is the peculiar custom of the men of this country, the ever-smiling Rumanika begged us to be seated on the ground opposite to him, and at once wished to know what we thought ...
... I told him, if he would give me one or two of his children, I would have them instructed in England; for I admired his race, and believed them to have sprung from our old friends the Abyssinians ...
Then in came their children, all models of the Abyssinian type of beauty, and as polite in their manners as thorough-bred gentlemen.
...
Rumanika, on hearing that it was our custom to celebrate the birth of our Saviour with a good feast of beef, sent us an ox. I immediately paid him a visit to offer the compliments of the season, and at the same time regretted, much to his amusement, that he, as one of the old stock of Abyssinians ...
Ever proud of his history since I had traced his descent from Abyssinia and King David, whose hair was as straight as my own, Rumanika dwelt on my theological disclosures with the greatest delight, ...
This is the most southerly kingdom of the Wahuma, though not the farthest spread of its people, for we find the Watusi, who are emigrants from Karague of the same stock, overlooking the Tanganyika Lake from the hills of Uhha, and tending their cattle all over Unyamuezi under the protection of the native negro chiefs; and we also hear that the Wapoka of Fipa, south of the Rukwa Lake are the same. How or when their name became changed from Wahuma to Watusi no one is able to explain;
from chapters 6,8, & 9 of Discovery of the Source of the Nile John Hanning Speke
Well, there you have it from the originator of the Hamitic Hypothesis himself.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Tutsi do not have a distinct 'non-bantu' language, or even a distinct dialect of Bantu. ... Tutsi do not even have a *native* oral tradition linking them to Ethiopia or Egypt, ...
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
From Argiedude: ''But what about the claims that either group can be physically distinguished from each other? Even the Hutus and Tutsis themselves feel there are physical differences between the 2 groups, notably that the Tutsis are taller. My personal view is that they're closely related, so what to make of this supposed difference?''
...then Djehuti wrote: ''I don't know exactly what the factors were, but apparently micro-evolution must have happen to cause certain phenotypical differences.''
In the absence of definitive proof then we can call this explanation ''rope-a-dope''.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ And do YOU have a better explanation since I recall you also dismissed the evolution of 'white' skin from black skin as nonsense yet we have genetic and other biomolecular evidence of this. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Grumman f6f: From Argiedude: ''But what about the claims that either group can be physically distinguished from each other? Even the Hutus and Tutsis themselves feel there are physical differences between the 2 groups, notably that the Tutsis are taller. My personal view is that they're closely related, so what to make of this supposed difference?''
...then Djehuti wrote: ''I don't know exactly what the factors were, but apparently micro-evolution must have happen to cause certain phenotypical differences.''
In the absence of definitive proof then we can call this explanation ''rope-a-dope''.
Why? Do you know what micro evolution is?
I agree that there is not definitive proof to explain every phenotypical variation in Africa.
However a lack of definitive proof is neither and excuse nor justification for fostering hypothesis that contradict whatever evidence does exist.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: For peoples living south of the Nile, tradition suggest that they came from the north; this is true of the Batutsi of Rwanda-Urundi....
Yes! This is also true of many Bantu speaking people. The Bantu migration is also one of the largest, if not the largest in human history.
Bantu languages belong to the "Negro-Egyptian" language family, erroneously known as "Niger-Congo" to Western specialists. Naturally, the relationship of Bantu and Ancient Kemet should be explored further and connected together, disregarding the kicking and screaming of some disappointedly weary Westerners that Black Africans are taking charge of interpreting their own history.
Posts: 213 | From: New York City, USA | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes! This is also true of many Bantu speaking people. The Bantu migration is also one of the largest, if not the largest in human history.
You're saying the Bantu migration began in the Nile Valley?
Can you then correct the following by providing a proper chronology of the history of Bantu migration?
HISTORY OF THE BANTU MIGRATIONS
Main article: Bantu expansion
The Bantu first originated around the Benue-Cross rivers area in southeastern Nigeria and spread over Africa to the Zambia area. Sometime in the second millennium BC, perhaps triggered by the drying of the Sahara and pressure from the migration of people from the Sahara into the region, they were forced to expand into the rainforests of central Africa (phase I). In the 1st millennium BC, they began a more rapid second phase of expansion beyond the forests into southern and eastern Africa, and again in the 1st millennium AD as new agricultural techniques and plants were developed in Zambia. By about AD 1000 it had reached modern day Zimbabwe and South Africa. In Zimbabwe a major southern hemisphere empire was established, with its capital at Great Zimbabwe.
Are you claiming that Bantu originates in Dynastic Egypt?
Please give the chronology and timeline for Tutsi migration relative to the Bantu expansion, that can place the Tutsi in Dynastic Egypt? [/QB][/QUOTE]
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am afraid that you guys are repeating the linear thinking of Westerners;ie, each graph shows a single starting point as if this is the original home of certain African peoples... Tsk, tsk, tsk.
Non-Westerners, such as the Maya, saw the world in a different fashion and in a similar fashion that Africans and other Orientals saw it: Dialectically, in a non-linear, recurring manner:
The fact that the Nile Valley had been occupied at a much earlier period, of peoples moving northward and eventually out of Africa, does not preclude the fact of later migrations, specifically of the historical Africans, nor does it preclude that these same Africans would, at various periods, as Diop explained, move southwards as well as westwards; like the ebb and flow of the tides.
Diop was a "Marxist" and his method of analysis exhibited this way of non-linear thinking, a thinking that was also exemplified by the Maya, the Ancient Egyptians, etc...
Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Non linear thinking has nothing to do with it. Bantu did NOT originate in the Nile Valley, let alone Egypt. And not all African peoples let alone those of West Africa originated in the Nile Valley either.
Being a Marxist or Communist has nothing to do with that fact either.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Wally: I am afraid that you guys are repeating the linear thinking of Westerners;ie, each graph shows a single starting point as if this is the original home of certain African peoples... Tsk, tsk, tsk.
The opposite is true. The only one claiming *a certain people* [Tutsi], have a certain original home [Egypt], is you.
We are simply asking you for proof.
Of course you don't have any, so the thread is already dead.
But we'll play it out, as we usually do.
These threads, in which you can't produce the evidence, typically end with you quoting Stockey Carmichael or Alica Keys. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The fact that the Nile Valley had been occupied at a much earlier period, of peoples moving northward and eventually out of Africa, does not preclude the fact of later migrations.
No one suggested otherwise so you make no point in contention.
You were asked to specify your claims as to *when the Tutsi* would have lived in Egypt?
It is a plain-spoken and straightforward question to which you produce a non answer.
You claim Tutsi come from Egypt, but you have no evidence, and can't say when.... since, well, you have no evidence that would permit you say when.
It's a big problem isn't it?
I hope you've got something better in store for us Wally.
Your *argument* to this point is a joke.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Africans as Diop explained, move southwards as well as westwards;
...yes and northwards, and eastwards.
The 1st Human Being ever was and African, -Herto Man- was borne in Ethiopia 150 thousand years ago.
Since then - Africans have migrated North, East, West and South.
This does not prove the Tutsi originate in Dynastic Egypt.
I must say, your habit of producing a torrent of non-answers is rapidly traversing from amusing, to irritating to downright pathetic.
Have you in your myriad learnings ever encountered the concept of the -direct answer- to the -direct question?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
First Djehuti says this: "I don't know exactly what the factors were, but apparently micro-evolution must have happen to cause certain phenotypical differences.''
Then, in a hastily contrived response, blurted out to me:
''And do YOU have a better explanation since I recall you also dismissed the evolution of 'white' skin from black skin as nonsense yet we have genetic and other biomolecular evidence of this.''
..now read what Rasol says to me, unrelated to the above. And pay attention to it.
From Rasol: ''Why? Do you know what micro evolution is?''
(Yes, I know the explanation.)
''I agree that there is not definitive proof to explain every phenotypical variation in Africa.''
I'm just interested enough to know which phenotypical variations haven't been caused by the gene pool. Just give me a non-Djehuti explanation. Just give me a little something to calm me down.
''However a lack of definitive proof is neither and excuse nor justification for fostering hypothesis that contradict whatever evidence does exist.''
On Rasol's last paragraph: You want a definitive reason for my saying what I did? Read the opening remarks made by Djehuti in this very post.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
''The 1st Human Being ever was and African, -Herto Man- was borne in Ethiopia 150 thousand years ago.''
Born from whom?
Or did you intend to say primordial soup?
No, wait! That was the beginning of the first cell...
So then, you did intend to say ''born.''
So there were humans before these ''first humans''? Is this the common (evolutionary) ancestor no one talks about?
Here I was thinking you were on the verge of shutting me up then you come up with this information.
You want to know how to get out of this conversation? Turn me back over to Djehuti.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:From Rasol: ''Why? Do you know what micro evolution is?''
quote: (Yes, I know the explanation.)
I doubt it. If you understand it, explain it. If you disagree with it, explain why.
quote:Born from whom?
Hominids is 'from whom' 1st Homo-sapiens is borne.
quote:Or did you intend to say primordial soup?
No, but I mean now to say that you obviously have no idea what I'm talking about, and think to use sarcasm to cover your ignorance.
quote:So there were humans before these ''first humans''?
No.
quote:Is this the common (evolutionary) ancestor no one talks about?
We're talking about them now. Not my fault you haven't mastered public school biology.
quote:Here I was thinking you were on the verge of shutting me up
Seems like, as with Wally, you have nothing to say about the topic - so whether you shut-up or babble incessantly the result is the same - nothing intelligible is said.
quote:You want to know how to get out of this conversation?
Call you and idiot, and then ignore you?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ LOL Rasol, you are just low on patience today. Aren't we all.
By the way, perhaps it is a little presumptious to say Herto man is thee first human. He is the earliest one known from fossil evidence.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:He is the earliest one known from fossil evidence.
Correct. In anthropology the earliest = 1st until and unless earlier evidence is found.
It's always possible that earlier evidence will be found - whether dealing with 1st homo-sapien or anything else.
As for patience, I would simply like the topic [the Tutsi] to be addressed.
I have no patience for distractors who attempt to carry the topic of course, as a praticed strategy.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
^ Marx = appeal to authority fallacy, appeal to hero worship, and appeal to ideology.
Your topic is the Tutsi.
'shame that you have no facts to relate about them, hence, you are unable to *appeal to the facts*.
It is amazing that you state that I have not presented any facts. You must have a strange definition of the term "fact"; either it is this or you did not read the original post. I here provide excerts from it; please read it as a magazine article, rather than fast-scan it (I often do this fast-scan myself):
quote: The Tutsi... began to arrive in their present lands in the A.D. 1300's or 1400's, coming from northeastern Africa, probably in search of grazing land for their herds. Hutu people (also called Bahutu) were already living in the area when the Tutsi arrived...Over the centuries, the two groups developed a common language and culture...--- World Book Online Reference Center
quote: In all these kingdoms a population of Bantu-speaking peasants had been conquered in the 14th or 15th century by a cattle herding people, believed to have been of Nilotic language, perhaps from the Ethiopian area or Sudan. The result was a feudal aristocracy descended from the cattle herders, the Tutsi, and a peasantry descended from the original Bantu speakers, the Hutu. All the aristocrats now speak the language of the peasants. (This has some similarities with the experience of the English, invaded by French speaking Normans in 1066.) The kingdoms had a system of officials and ceremonies similar to those of the Sidama kingdoms of modern Ethiopia. That is, the original cultural influences seem to have come partly from that area. It is also possible that some ceremonies have been passed on from ancient Egypt of the Pharaohs.
Today, the Tutsi, Twa, and the Hutu all speak Kinyarwanda; the Bantu-language of the Hutu majority. The fact that these ethnic groups share the same language is assumed to be the result of the Bahutu outnumbering the latter two groups.
quote: (One theory about) The Origin of Batutsi...has it that the Batutsi are not indigenous to East Africa. And that their original homeland might have been either Somalis or Ethiopia or Egypt. This theory is based, among other things on the fact that the Batutsi tend to resemble the Somali and Galla. -- http://www.ugandatravelguide.com/banyarwanda.html
I have deliberately left out the reactionary notion which states that by citing Somali, Ethiopia, or Egypt as a point of origin means supporting the "Hamitic myth!" It's like, if an Oromo were to tell you that he's from Ethiopia, you're repeating the "Hamitic myth!" What nonsense, but if one wants to read the complete text, I have included the website in the above quote. ...
Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Wally: It is amazing that you state that I have not presented any facts.
I didn't. Here is exactly what I said.
To this point you have not related a single relevant fact.
Relevancy and factuality forming a logical 'and'.
Meaning you have presented no information that is both relevant, and factual, and that might so constitute evidence of Tutsi origins.
quote: You must have a strange definition of the term "fact".
Or perhaps you have and odd definition of the concept of relevancy, since I asked you about the Tutsi, and you respounded with off-point rhetorics involving Karl Marx and the Maya, which was so off-point as to be 'funny'. I am well within bounds for calling you out for distracting from your own topic for this.
But let's put the past irrelevancies aside and see if you can actually address your own topic, from this point....
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
The Tutsi... began to arrive in their present lands in the A.D. 1300's or 1400's, coming from northeastern Africa
^ This is a claim, not a fact. There is no evidence that the Tutsi lived in NorthEast Africa in the 1300's.
STRIKE 1.
quote:Hutu people (also called Bahutu) were already living in the area when the Tutsi arrived...Over the centuries, the two groups developed a common language and culture.
This is another claim and not a fact. In order for this to be fact - you *must* demonstrate the Tutsi in the 1300's spoke a non Bantu language, you should be able to show linguistic evidence of this prior language in the modern Bantu langauge of the Tutsi and Hutu.
You have not done so, so you have presented no fact here either.
STRIKE II.
quote:In all these kingdoms a population of Bantu-speaking peasants had been conquered in the 14th or 15th century by a cattle herding people, believed to have been of Nilotic language
^ Commonly believed = logical fallacy - ad nauseum, not a statment of fact.
Again to make this a fact - please demonstrate this *Nilotic language* supposedly spoken by the *original* Tutsi. Again, you have not done so, and therefore you present no fact.
If you can't show that this Nilotic-Tutsi langauge exists, then you cannot logically claim it.
STRIKE III
By all rights, I should dismiss the rest of your post, but out of respect I will address the rest of it anyway...
quote: perhaps from the Ethiopian area or Sudan. The result was a feudal aristocracy descended from the cattle herders, the Tutsi, and a peasantry descended from the original Bantu speakers, the Hutu. All the aristocrats now speak the language of the peasants.
Another claim presented with no supporting evidence.
There is no evidence that the Tutsi have spoken Kirundi - Bantu any less *long* than the Hutu.
There is no evidence of any other language, for the Tutsi at all.
quote:The kingdoms had a system of officials and ceremonies similar to those of the Sidama kingdoms of modern Ethiopia.
This is superfluous and irrelevant since many African cultures have similarities. This does not demonstrate Egyptian origin. In fact, you yourself claim that the Yoruba of Nigeria and other Native West Africans also have such cultural similarities - the more common such similarites are among different Africans, the more diffuse the possible origins are. This does not prove Egyptian or Ethiopian origin.
quote: That is, the original cultural influences seem to have come partly from that area.
Seem to? Partly? Why? Your claim is appropriately weakly worded because there are no facts to support it.
quote: It is also possible that some ceremonies have been passed on from ancient Egypt of the Pharaohs.
Or possibly not, this could also apply the Hutu, the Zulu, the San and every people in Africa... or possibly not. Weakly worded claims are not evidence.
quote:Today, the Tutsi, Twa, and the Hutu all speak Kinyarwanda; the Bantu-language of the Hutu majority. The fact that these ethnic groups share the same language is assumed to be the result of the Bahutu outnumbering the latter two groups.
Assumed? Assumption is not evidence.
quote: The Origin of Batutsi...has it that the Batutsi are not indigenous to East Africa. And that their original homeland might have been either Somalis or Ethiopia or Egypt.
This statement not only contains no facts, but it is also factually in error as Somalia, Ethiopia and Egypt *are* East African.
Now listen carefully Wally -> since you are apparently unable to distinguish fact from fallacy, I am going to actually relate some facts to you:
1) East African Somali, Ethiopian and Egyptians have predominently indigenous East African Y chromosome E3b.
2) Watutsi have and overwhelming frequency of West African E3a, and virtually no E3b.
3) Tutsi are therefore primarily West African in terms of geneology, and in terms of language.
4) There is actually no evidence from language, or genetics, or anthropology or archeology or native *oral* or written history in contradiction of the known facts.
You present *no facts* but rather irrelevancies and nonsenses, such as....
quote:This theory is based, among other things on the fact that the Batutsi tend to resemble the Somali and Galla.
^ Which is precisely the basis of Speke's Hamite myth and is utterly ridiculous since there are other Native West African who have similar appearance as the Tutsi, and morever, there are native East African whose appearance is similar to the Hutu.
quote:I have deliberately left out the reactionary notion which states that by citing Somali, Ethiopia, or Egypt as a point of origin means supporting the "Hamitic myth!"
^ Speke's Hamitic myth that Tutsi are a foreign race that came from Egypt to conquer the Bantu-negro, based on his envy of their physical appearance is *precisely* what you are parroting.
Note, parroting not supporting. To support it, you would have to bring something resembling evidence to the table.
But you have none...ALL YOU DO IS COPY HAMETIC HYPOTHESIS ad nauseum.
- no facts of relevancy.
- no critical thinking.
- just copying...like a parrot.
quote:It's like, if an Oromo were to tell you that he's from Ethiopia, you're repeating the "Hamitic myth!"
^ Logical fallacy - flawed analogy.
The Oromo are the largest ethnic group in Ethiopia, their language, their geneology, their oral and written history all testify to their Ethiopian origin.
There are no Tutsi in Ethiopia and there is no proof that there ever were any, their language, the *native* history, their geneology do not lend credence to Speke's Hamitic hypothesis which you parrot with no evidence.
quote:What nonsense
I agree. And I repeat, you have yet to relate a single relevant fact in support of your far fetched claims.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Well we all know just what Kemson is "reloaded" with.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Originally posted by Wally: I am afraid that you guys are repeating the linear thinking of Westerners;ie, each graph shows a single starting point as if this is the original home of certain African peoples... Tsk, tsk, tsk.
The opposite is true. The only one claiming *a certain people* [Tutsi], have a certain original home [Egypt], is you.
We are simply asking you for proof.
Of course you don't have any, so the thread is already dead.
But we'll play it out, as we usually do.
These threads, in which you can't produce the evidence, typically end with you quoting Stockey Carmichael or Alica Keys.
LOL
quote:Originally posted by Grumman f6f: First Djehuti says this: "I don't know exactly what the factors were, but apparently micro-evolution must have happen to cause certain phenotypical differences.''
Then, in a hastily contrived response, blurted out to me:
''And do YOU have a better explanation since I recall you also dismissed the evolution of 'white' skin from black skin as nonsense yet we have genetic and other biomolecular evidence of this.''
..now read what Rasol says to me, unrelated to the above. And pay attention to it.
From Rasol: ''Why? Do you know what micro evolution is?''
''However a lack of definitive proof is neither and excuse nor justification for fostering hypothesis that contradict whatever evidence does exist.''
On Rasol's last paragraph: You want a definitive reason for my saying what I did? Read the opening remarks made by Djehuti in this very post.
Rasol wrote:
''The 1st Human Being ever was and African, -Herto Man- was borne in Ethiopia 150 thousand years ago.''
Born from whom?
Or did you intend to say primordial soup?
No, wait! That was the beginning of the first cell... You want to know how to get out of this conversation? Turn me back over to Djehuti.
ROFL @ Grumman f6f's post! As usual with this guy.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:From Rasol: ''Why? Do you know what micro evolution is?''
quote: (Yes, I know the explanation.)
I doubt it. If you understand it, explain it. If you disagree with it, explain why.
quote:Born from whom?
Hominids is 'from whom' 1st Homo-sapiens is borne.
quote:Or did you intend to say primordial soup?
No, but I mean now to say that you obviously have no idea what I'm talking about, and think to use sarcasm to cover your ignorance.
quote:So there were humans before these ''first humans''?
No.
quote:Is this the common (evolutionary) ancestor no one talks about?
We're talking about them now. Not my fault you haven't mastered public school biology.
quote:Here I was thinking you were on the verge of shutting me up
Seems like, as with Wally, you have nothing to say about the topic - so whether you shut-up or babble incessantly the result is the same - nothing intelligible is said.
quote:You want to know how to get out of this conversation?
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Origin mythos of the region's related kingdoms state all three groups 'Twa,' Hutu, and Tutsi are local indigenees given a gift from the Supreme Being which the Tutsi used the most wisely and hence their being the top ranking class. In other words there were just people and the labels became attached after the fact.
Fact is the rulership of the Rift kingdoms listened in rapt awe while Speke spouted stories of David and Solomon being their ancestors to them.
It is worth noting that while royal myth claimed a sacred origin for the mwami [tutsi king], they *never* claimed a foreign origin.
- Colonialism, Nativism, and the Genocide in Rwanda By Mahmood Mamdani
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^The Chadian skull is not classified as being a member of Homo sapiens, although it is the first known Hominid. I believe Omo I, ca. 190 kya, is the oldest, pre-dating Herto man (Homo sapiens idaltu) by 30ky. There are some claims of older fossils, but their classification as Homo sapiens is disputed.
-------------------- "Oh the sons of Ethiopia; observe with care; the country called Ethiopia is, first, your mother; second, your throne; third, your wife; fourth, your child; fifth, your grave." - Ras Alula Aba Nega. Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Correct. Let's stay on the topic of the Tutsi. If someone wants to create a thread on 1st Homo Sapiens that would be a great topic too.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Speke is the source-origin of the Tutsi Hamitic hypothesis.
All who state Tutsi come from Egypt/Ethiopia ultimately channel Speke [not Marx, Diop, or ancient Maya]; not the Tutsi - who are simply ignored, and not the evidence, which contradicts the Hamitic myth.
Speke had no evidence born from scholarship but rather based his views on racism.
Since there is no evidence cited by way of repetition of Spekes discredited Hamitic Hypothesis, all such claims are ad nauseum fallacies.
This fallacies ignore the evidence - such as the Tutsi Bantu langauge, and ignore requests for supporting evidence - such as claimed for Tutsi Ethiopian or Egyptian language, and instead simply repeat Spekes racist claims, ad nauseum.
At the root of this claim is the nasty assumption that true Africans - ie - Bantu, are encapable of forming complex societies.
The nefarious anthropologist Carleton used this prejudice as a springboard for his pseudo-scientific and racist theories......
The Story of Man
Carleton Coon
In Arabia prehistoric archaeology has barely been started. Yet we can be reasonably confident, until other evidence upsets the theory, that these deserts were the home of the slender variety of Caucasoid man.
In East Africa this type has survived among the slender, narrow-faced Watusi and other cattle people.Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Coons statement has been descredited by osteology, linguistics and genetics:
^ Tutsi have no Arabian [J] paternity.
There genetic profile is much like other West Africans in fact.
It is also the case that their main genetic line, [E3a] is one of the few African lineages that are not found in Ethiopia.
This renders the fantasy that they come from Ethiopia, and from the 15th century no less [about the same time period as African Americans would descend from primarily West Africans], extremely implausible.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Which means Wally wastes his time and energy repeating the Eurocentric lies he claims to be crusading against! Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
The priority -> isn't to use the Tutsi to claim and African origin of Egypt, or *prove* thru logical jump-ropes some African American connection to Egypt.
The priority is to establish a factual basis for discussing the history and origins of African peoples.
In repeating myths about Tutsi origins you deny them their right to their own history identity and nationhood.
This was the 'pseudo'-intellectual basis for the genocide to begin with.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
^The Chadian skull is not classified as being a member of Homo sapiens, although it is the first known Hominid. I believe Omo I, ca. 190 kya, is the oldest, pre-dating Herto man (Homo sapiens idaltu) by 30ky. There are some claims of older fossils, but their classification as Homo sapiens is disputed.
People post links, so that anyone who so chooses to read it *carefully*, doesn't make misinformed comments like this.
Who said anything about the Chadian skull to have been classified as a definitive modern human?
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
rasol, djehuti, and some others here: You are so deeply ingrained in the Eurocentric mold that you, perhaps unconsciously, project these shortcomings upon even the most simplistic observations. You all seem to be imprisoned, for example, by the "Hamitic myth" and simply cannot escape its wrath. If I had made the statement that the Mossi were the descendants of the Yoruba or the Fang or whoever; we would have no problem. And no one would be asking for, not facts, but RELEVANT facts to substantiate this claim. And you all don't even seem to grasp the profound level of this shortcoming. I have presented concrete evidence to support my conclusion and the only response is a non-response by (hopefully) conscious evasion. and rasol, please spare me the DNA examples, which would suggest: Don't believe your eyes but believe what I tell you... the Tutsi, Wolof, Yoruba, Serer, etc., are all peoples who once formed the nation of Kemet, and subsequently migrated from this complex into the interior of Africa. This is an important aspect of African historical development.
Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Wally: rasol, djehuti, and some others here: You are so deeply ingrained in the Eurocentric mold that you, perhaps unconsciously, project these shortcomings upon even the most simplistic observations. You all seem to be imprisoned, for example, by the "Hamitic myth" and simply cannot escape its wrath. If I had made the statement that the Mossi were the descendants of the Yoruba or the Fang or whoever; we would have no problem. And no one would be asking for, not facts, but RELEVANT facts to substantiate this claim.
LOL Speak for yourself! You have not provided anything factual let alone relevant as it pertains to your claims and it is YOU who seems rather caught up in the Hamitic myth since you are the one repeating it!
quote:And you all don't even seem to grasp the profound level of this shortcoming. I have presented concrete evidence to support my conclusion and the only response is a non-response by (hopefully) conscious evasion. and rasol, please spare me the DNA examples, which would suggest: Don't believe your eyes but believe what I tell you...
Again superficial similarities in culture let alone similarities in facial features do NOT count as concrete evidence especially since the oral history of the Tutsis as well as archaeology and genetics contradicts such claims! You talk about belief of the eyes. But it is not a matter of vision so much as what one percieves from vision. Speke believed in his eyes "caucasian" ancestry due to the physical appearance of the Tutsi. Enough said.
quote: the Tutsi, Wolof, Yoruba, Serer, etc., are all peoples who once formed the nation of Kemet, and subsequently migrated from this complex into the interior of Africa. This is an important aspect of African historical development.
Again, neither archaeology nor the histories of all those West African groups you listed support in any way your claims of Nile Valley origins! You sound like some Eurocentrics in the past who claimed their Northwestern European ancestry whther it be Celtic or Germanic originated in the civilization of Greece! Nothing correct.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: You all seem to be imprisoned, for example, by the "Hamitic myth"
No, you are. Speke invented the Hametic myth for the Tutsi - you parrot Speke.
You have no ideas, facts research or evidences to present.... you can only quote Speke's Hametic myth, or quote others who quote Speke.
You are completely guilty of everything you accuse others of.
Your argument is a joke.
quote: If I had made the statement that the Mossi were the descendants of the Yoruba
^ We'd ask you for facts, and you wouldn't provide any, and then you'd start writing these worthless blowhard rhetoric posts, which attempt to hide the fact that you have no evidence for anything as usual.
quote:NO one would be asking for, not facts, but RELEVANT facts to substantiate this claim.
^ translation: You have no facts, and resent us for calling you out on it.
quote:You all don't even seem to grasp the profound level of this shortcoming.
You don't seem to grasp how obvious it is to us all that you've lost this argument because you have no facts.
Your posts reduce themselves to nothing but noisemaking meant to make yourself feel better.
quote:I have presented concrete evidence to support my conclusion
You have presented *NOTHING* but recitation of Hamite myth with absolutely no evidence or relevant facts and what's more - you know this - which is why you write a crybaby posts complaining about *US ALL* who ask you to produce facts which you don't have.
quote:rasol, please spare me the DNA examples
Can't do that Wally, sorry. It's factual evidence that completely debunks your preferred mythology derived from Spekes Hamite myth and corny Hollywood movies, that you mistake for some kind of evidence.
I know it frustrates you that we can relate facts and you can't, but....that's your problem.
quote:Which would suggest: Don't believe your eyes but believe what I tell you...
If you think you can determine geneology by 'looking' at people, while ignoring genetics, linguistics, archeology, anthropology, then you're even a bigger fool than Speke, and as such, not even worth debating.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dejehut writes, LOL [wally] Speak for yourself! You have not provided anything factual let alone relevant as it pertains to your claims and it is YOU who seems rather caught up in the Hamitic myth since you are the one repeating it!
Of course.
Just listen to the would be Africanist scholar clinging by the fingernails to racist European mythology.
Meanwhile - he doesn't want to hear about linguistics, genetics, or anything that might interfere with absorbed propaganda from 19th century racist Europeans.
What a perverse triumph of European racism over the mind of a 21st century African man!
Question: What's all that NRY B in the Tutsi? Is it a whole lotta Twa jumping the fence? Pure ignant guesswork from a fella too lazy to look it up right now.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic