posted
The terms "sub-Saharan" and "East African" keep being used on this forum, even though it seems that some of the areas encompassed by the latter term are south of the Sahara, so that the former is restricted to West Africa south of the Sahara, i.e. the area which is falsely associated solely with "the true Negro" phenotype. The terms are used as if mutually exclusive by both posters and scientists in the journals quoted here. I think that part of the program of liberating oneself from Eurocentrism and its intellectual bankruptcy is ceasing to employ such terms which are so laden with negative, false, and ultimately racist denotations. If leucoderms are not indigenous to Africa, then what is the point of using such terms except as geographical ones, when in fact the contexts in which they are often used imply that racial or phenotypical categories are implied. One may not be able to compel scientists writing for mainstream journals to cease using such terminology, but one could cease employing them oneself.
I also have a question about the use of the term "Ethiopia" amongst the "ancients." I was in my Latin class two days ago and the idiot professor, who happens to be from far Northern Europe, was speaking about the geography known to the Romans, which included as the southern extremity Ethiopia, which she said meant Africa south of Egypt or Black Africa. She is obviously wrong and a Eurocentrist, but I was under the impression that the term was used by the Greeks for persons darker than themselves, so there were the Western Ethiopians (Africans) and the Eastern ones (Indians). Could someone please correct me if I am wrong? It is so frustrating to have to deal with the plethora of terms, many of which are obscure or erroneous, often insidiously and purposely so. It is also frustrating when information is purposely omitted, so that one constantly hears of the Neolithic and/or agriculture being introduced into Europe by "Near Easterners," when in fact agriculture was introduced by Africans into the"Near East" by the Natufians.
Also, there are links on some older posts to the sister Nile Valley forum, but they all lead to the home page. I am under the impression that it is now defunct; is there a search function through which one can look up the links from this forum? Why is it defunct, and is there any hope of reviving it?
And finally, the term Near East keeps being used, despite the problems with which it is laden. There is also the question of "Near Eastern" or "Levantine" influence on the Nile Valley, when in fact judging from the Natufians and Mushabaeans, not to speak of the proto-Semitic or Semitic speakers, who basically linguistically conquered an entire area, the influence was much more in the opposite direction, south to north.
All answers and help would be much appreciated.
Posts: 140 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Neith-Athena: Also, there are links on some older posts to the sister Nile Valley forum, but they all lead to the home page. I am under the impression that it is now defunct; is there a search function through which one can look up the links from this forum? Why is it defunct, and is there any hope of reviving it?
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Neith-Athena: I also have a question about the use of the term "Ethiopia" amongst the "ancients." I was in my Latin class two days ago and the idiot professor, who happens to be from far Northern Europe, was speaking about the geography known to the Romans, which included as the southern extremity Ethiopia, which she said meant Africa south of Egypt or Black Africa. She is obviously wrong and a Eurocentrist, but I was under the impression that the term was used by the Greeks for persons darker than themselves, so there were the Western Ethiopians (Africans) and the Eastern ones (Indians). Could someone please correct me if I am wrong?
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ how accurate is Herodotus about the Ethiopians and Egyptians? would most people consider most of what he says to be true?
I heard many people say that Herodotus is not a dependable person when describing the Egyptians and Ethiopians.
Posts: 229 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
The terms "sub-Saharan" and "East African" keep being used on this forum, even though it seems that some of the areas encompassed by the latter term are south of the Sahara, so that the former is restricted to West Africa south of the Sahara, i.e. the area which is falsely associated solely with "the true Negro" phenotype. The terms are used as if mutually exclusive by both posters and scientists in the journals quoted here.
I think that part of the program of liberating oneself from Eurocentrism and its intellectual bankruptcy is ceasing to employ such terms which are so laden with negative, false, and ultimately racist denotations.
Your general premise is correct; however, please understand that a few of us are already in the know about what you've just said, and have taken note of it time and again, even if each time such notification was made, there were people who were too mentally shackled to be perceptive: Bantus, Berbers, East Africans, Northeast Africans, Sub-Saharan AfricansPosts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nefar: ^ how accurate is Herodotus about the Ethiopians and Egyptians? would most people consider most of what he says to be true?
I heard many people say that Herodotus is not a dependable person when describing the Egyptians and Ethiopians.
* Heard from whom?
** "Many people" would refer to whom?
*** Do these heard from/many people say why (?) Herodotus is -not reliable when describing Ethiopians and Egyptians? ?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^well not heard but read. that Herodotus may have Exaggerated a lil bit.
and some people think that he may have never gone to egypt. it was on some world history websites. I searching for some new stuff when this poped up
Posts: 229 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
You got that from an obviously white supremacist website. Wow, that must be so goddamn reliable. Indeed, rasol is right in asking how Herodotus is wrong when writing about the Ethiopians and Egyptians according to his detractors, some of whom are no doubt classical "scholars" who live millennia after the fact and are bothered by his description of the ancient Egyptians as Blacks. But guess what, discrediting Herodotus would not do much good, because there are plenty of other Greco-Roman writers who also describe the Egyptians as Black. I guess the next step would be to discredit all of them, but then you would be left with unreliable primary sources, would you not, because if you say such writers were wrong about the Egyptians (how difficult can it be to describe someone's skin color and hair texture?) then you have to consider the possibility that they are unreliable when it comes to everything else.
Posts: 140 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Indeed, rasol is right in asking how Herodotus is wrong when writing about the Ethiopians and Egyptians according to his detractors, some of whom are no doubt classical "scholars" who live millennia after the fact and are bothered by his description of the ancient Egyptians as Blacks. But guess what, discrediting Herodotus would not do much good, because there are plenty of other Greco-Roman writers who also describe the Egyptians as Black. I guess the next step would be to discredit all of them, but then you would be left with unreliable primary sources, would you not, because if you say such writers were wrong about the Egyptians (how difficult can it be to describe someone's skin color and hair texture?) then you have to consider the possibility that they are unreliable when it comes to everything else.
Printer-friendly view of this topic