posted
Have any of you read Michael H. Hart's latest book? He's a Jewish astrophysicist who holds degrees in physics, law, astronomy, and computer science.
His book is apparently the anti-thesis of Jared Diamond's book Guns, Germs, and Steel which posits that geography was the most important feature in the development of human history.
Open and print it if you don't want to buy the book.
Have a look at the Chapters on Egypt and Sub-saharran Africa. I've noted some problems with his analysis but also am looking for your input/assessments. I'm 2/3 of the way through the book and his thesis (average population intelligences explains world history) does have a lot of explanatory power. It doesn't mean it's correct, but it's another theory alongside all the others written to explain why world history developed the way it did.
For Sub-saharran Africa: he basically says nearly all of it was backwards and contributed nothing to civilization. Anything produced there was introduced from the outside with few exceptions.
For Egypt: he says it was a SouthEast Asian caucasoid people who founded it. He gives reasons why we are still intrigued by Egypt but argues that it's place in history is overrated.
a) the language is extinct and nothing derives from it
b) Egyptians made no significant contribution to literature
c) Egyptian paintings don't appear to have influenced Western art, nor has any Egyptian music survived.
d) The Egyptian political structure (monarch) was not original and did not influence modern thinkers
e) Ancient Egyptian religion was abandoned centuries ago with no successors
f) No major modern philosophical theme derives from Egyptian sources.
He goes on to provide succinct reasons why Egyptian contributions have been overestimated (ex. the pyramids are impressive and are structures that still stand unlike other smaller structures erected in acienct societies; overestimate importance of architecture over science, match, law, literature, philosophy, etc that make up culture).
Agree or disagree I've found the book fascinating. I've never read a book that directly implicates human intelligence as the prime mover in history yet everything written about history is usually a proxy for it. When we talk about military power, victories, agriculture, art, music, architecture, literature, philosophy, economy, political systems etc; where and why these things developed and when, and by whom.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Average African person is mildly retarded
quote:The Emperor also brought Arabs scholars to Timbuktu. To his great surprise, the Emperor has found that these scholars are underqualified compared to the black scholars of Timbuktu. Abd Arahman Atimmi had such a low level that he was obliged to migrate to Marrakech to complete his prerequisites so he can sit in the classes as a student.
posted
Reseachers have noted that the average would probably be raised to 80 for African nations if proper nutrition and environmental conditions existed.
posted
Controlling for bias and environmental factors, I would say 85 would be the average (the same average score for African Americans).
More specifically how would you guys address the points made about Egypt as being overrated? He says that writing originated in the Middle East - Phonecians and some other group which was the foundation for writing systems that occured later across Africa (Egypt) and Europe. Is it not true that Egyptian religion is defunct? And as far as literature, I don't know of any that has philosophical underpinnings.
posted
As far as "intelligence" is concerned, IQ doesn't measure the full range, but it measures something. Some type of proxy for analytical thinking.
It does make sense that geographic population groups differ on average as they evolved in different regions. If we're different on the outside, we're most likely different on the inside. Whether we'll ever be able to measure or pinpoint with accuracy the ways in which we differ mentally remains to be seen. I think it's unlikely given how complex the brain is. But the results on tests stand on their own and it would be strange to assume our brains evolved identically while every other feature - blood groups, bone structure, skin, hair, odor, is all different.
Culture is important for brain development but genes plays a role too. I can't honestly argue that it is merely Jewish culture that has allowed them to rise above in every society they're found. They make up 1/4 of 1% of the earth's population yet make up 50% of Nobel Prize winners in concrete objective areas such as chemistry, physics, and so forth.
posted
I'll post my criticisms of Hart's analysis at a later date. Hopefully some of you will read the book and we can discuss his assertions in greater detail.
It's well worth a reading, even if you disagree with his thesis. Only thru discussions can the truth arise.
I particularily like that the book gives really lucid overviews of human evolution from our predecessors to now, their migration, each civilization on each continent and what they created and why - and the environmental factors at play. He also provides insights into potential reasons as to why the Industrial Revolution began in England and other similar things that I've always wondered. Similarly why Greek civilization started where it did as opposed to Northern Europe which was backward.
He says that civilization began in the Middle East as a result of evolved higher intelligence of those who migrated out of Africa and the fertile environment there. These people brought civilization to Europe, specifically to regions like Greece. While Europeans evolved higher intelligence in the colder climate, they were behind because they lacked large animals and cereal crops and had to live in harsh seasons where nothing could grow. But in mere centuries after civilization was brough to them, they were able to better their Middle Eastern rulers in all aspects since they were on average more intelligent.
Civilization did not reach Northern Europe until later which is why they lagged behind Greece and Rome.
He goes through each major region like China, India, the New World and picks apart what happened in those areas with regard to civilization and how environment and average population intelligence in those places led to certain outcomes.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think there was more influence from the south, this article "black Africa’s first civilization" is interesting http://wysinger.homestead.com/kerma.html
About Egypt's contribution to the world, this site says philosophy began in Egypt, others here will be able to point that out better than me. From what I've read the Greeks generally had high regard for the knowledge of Egyptions, just like we hold the knowledge of Greeks in high regard
You might dismiss the article for being afrocentric, but the what he quotes from the Greeks shows they respected Egyption wisdom
he quotes Diodorus, he says those "celebrated among the Greeks for intelligence and learning, ventured to Egypt in olden times, that they might partake of the customs, and sample the teachings there. For the priests of Egypt cite from their records in the holy books that in the former times they were visited by Orpheus and Musaeus, Melampos, Daedalos, besides the poet Homer, Lycurgus the Spartan, Solon the Athenian, and Plato the philosopher, Pythagoras of Samos and the mathematician Eudoxos, as well as Democritus of Abdera and Oenopides of Chios, also came there.”
Posts: 2642 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
Just pointing out there was stuff going on south of the Sahara and the Greeks themselves admired Egyption knowledge, and thought they were black!
Posts: 2642 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
This Hart guy is the latest in the seemingly endless string of Jewish talking heads who have the kinky need to attack blacks anytime they get a chance. That this stems from an inferiority-complex is obvious --maybe this guy is yet another Jew who couldn't accept that his "shiksa" girlfriend is now some "schartze's" current bop. A Jewish self-perception of terrible shortcomings, in Jewish males and females alike, are at the heart of these ignorant offerings. I wouldn't piss on a POS like him but I would like to note a few things about a few of his addle-brained assertions:
The United States adopted the eagle, which was also the symbol of ancient Egypt. The Washington monument is an obelisk, just like the thousands of others the Egyptiasns built. There's a pyramid on the back of every one-dollar bill, with the eye of Horus at the apex looking over creation. The Egyptians were diests, as were America's Founding Fathers. Freemasonry came from Egypt and most of the Founding Father, and allegedly many of America's current leaders, were/are Freemasons.
And the claims that Christianity was in fact derived from Egyptian legends of death and rebirth such as Horus and Set.
Greek (i.e. western) philiosophers learned the basics of their beliefs at the knees of the Egyptians.
Nope, no Egyptian influences here...
Sadly most Jewish "scholars" work these days are regarded more for their politcal polemic value than for any type of serious academic worth. Books like these and the shite that , Hernnstein, Roth and others write makes a mockery of the Jewish scholar, worse when one considers that racism and hate-speech seem to be the only things these Semetic academics are concerned with. This opinionated Jew should do some research before launching another Ready, Fire, Aim turdbomb of a post.
Posts: 248 | From: Way Down South | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: [QB] Controlling for bias and environmental factors, I would say 85 would be the average (the same average score for African Americans).
You sir, in my honest opinion, are a confused racialist. The fact that you take such pseudoscience at face value speaks volumes about your own IQ, which is also reinforced by this extremely psychotic thought pattern that would lead you to believe that Africans are only capable of attaining an IQ around 85 (even with proper nutrition), or that sub-Saharan Africa had always been in the same crude state with no signs of ingenuity among its native peoples.
Quick points...
* You easily by pass the fact that in reference to IQ, even African Americans suffer from various environmental factors, such as malnutrition, which has a direct impact on tested IQ. The average African American has an IQ that is higher than indigenous people from most near eastern countries, south America, Australia, etc.. IQ has been found to correlate pretty much exclusively with wealth and environment. Click here
* Egypt was a black/Africa civilization. During Egypt's formative period, the Sahara wasn't deserted, hence, no "sub-Saharan" Africa. People freely migrated as far northward as the coast and even into the near east. Those who settled in the Nile were direct ancestors to the ancient Egyptians. Ancient Egyptians and so-called "sub-Saharans had a common ancestry. There is no dichotomy.
For the life of me I don't see how any intelligent person would consider such historical fringe theories from some unqualified loon for an astrophysicist as thought provoking. Though you seem just as eager to impose misguided stereotypes while promoting minority views based on absolutely nothing besides one man's personal prejudices, yet not founded or supported by any contemporary data.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The whole obsession of IQ and intelligence is based on a nonsensical belief by Europeans to begin with. Europeans consider civilization as this expression of intelligence, which allows them to believe that the world can be divided between civilized and uncivilized or intelligent and unintelligent and that this breakdown has something to do with genetics. That is blatantly retarded. Europeans have twisted the reality of history so much with their retarded world views that it is ridiculous.
This is partly the question that scholars want to pretend to be trying to answer with books like this. But the answer is obvious and no amount of B.S. is going to change it. Civilization is a cultural trait a form of human organization that is NOT UNIVERSAL. At the core of such a culture is the importance that is placed on knowledge, learning and development of the arts and industry as a form of expression for the individual and the group. ALL CULTURES do not express themselves the same way and do not place the same amount of importance on outward expressions of knowledge and understanding. Some people who live in remote regions of the world STILL do not really want to adopt the lifestyle of the "modern" world, because of their own cultural beliefs and views. This is not really a question of basic survival, as any idiot can see that humans have been living hundreds of thousands of years without the need for all the trappings of "modern" society.
More importantly, books like these are based on the nonsense belief that Europe and some others have some special form of genetics that allows them to excel where others aren't. THAT is blatantly based on a BACKWARDS reading of history. Europe NEVER ORIGINATED civilization, they LEARNED it from somewhere else. They did not invent writing, language, agriculture, architecture, law, philosophy or religion. Yet they want to CLAIM that this is some UNIQUE trait of the European mind and European genetics. But if that was the case, then why did all the things I just mention not ORIGINATE in Europe, especially northern or western Europe? OBVIOUSLY that puts the whole idea of European intelligence as SPECIAL and ABOVE all others into the category of FANTASY. So this book is another form of historical revisionism written in the guise of science. Secondly, not only did Europe not ORIGINATE any of the things we call "civilized", but they did not just pick up this knowledge ON THEIR OWN and begin to develop civilization without OUTSIDE INFLUENCE. Outside influence and the TRANSMISSION of knowledge from older cultures and civilizations are the basis for the rise of the "West". Ancient Greece was stimulated by contacts with Asia minor (Turkey) and the Mediterranean and so was Rome. This was a DIRECT transmission of traits and knowledge from one place to another. This goes AGAINST the idea of Europe as some BASTION of intellect and rationalism that exists INDEPENDENTLY of everything else and is purely based on superior genes. If this was so, then how come Moorish Spain, with its advanced science and learning derived from ancient cultures in Africa, Mesopotamia, the Mediterranean and Asia more advanced than ANYTHING in Europe? THAT is what set the Western world on course to become what it is today, not that BULLS*T about special genetics that they want to CLAIM is behind their rise to power. Knowledge, organization and learning are the keys to the development of civilization and while it is not linear, it is something that has been directly transmitted from ancient cultures to modern cultures through many hands and many cultures, leading us to where we are today. It is a result of the ACCUMULATED knowledge and understanding of MANY PEOPLE not the SPECIAL genetics of any one group. Without such knowledge and learning, civilization as we know it would end, because such knowledge DOES NOT get carried around in your genes. It is passed through learning and understanding and must be preserved in order to have any benefits for the future. Knowledge and understanding are fragile and many ancient cultures achieved high levels of advancement which were subsequently destroyed, causing the overall state of knowledge and understanding to suffer. The "West" is primarily the beneficiary of the winds of fate, which put a TREMENDOUS amount of ancient knowledge and understanding at THEIR DOORSTEP in Moorish Spain, which itself was destroyed and in many ways only now, 1000 years later are some of their achievements being surpassed.
The point being that NONE of this has anything to do with genetics. But of course they WANT you to believe this so that they can continue onto the NEXT step of their ILLOGICAL thinking, which is the plight of Africa. This irrational reasoning would like you to believe that the current state of Africa is PURELY based on the idea of Africans being INNATELY and GENETICALLY stupid. Of course, that MUST be the reason AND NOT the treatment of Africans at the hands of FOREIGNERS and other invaders over the last 1000 years. In contrast to Western Europe, Africa did not have the benefit of anyone BRINGING all the knowledge and wisdom of the ancient world to its doorstep, developing industry and learning and propagating "civilized" society. Africas interaction with the world has been DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSITE of that in the West. 1500 years ago, Africa had MORE advanced civilizations and cultures than most of Europe. But since this time there has been a gradual DECLINE in the overall state of African civilization. NONE of this has ANYTHING to do with IQ, intelligence or genetics. But that is what you get from historical revisionists who distort history in order to push their OWN agenda. 10,000 years ago, Africa was home to among the most advanced cultures on the planet. Africa has had some of the most advanced cultures develop from indigenous populations of any point in history. Therefore, it is the events of history and the twists of fate that are the basis for the state of Africa, not the nonsense that this guy is talking about. This book should be read "How I failed history 101 and learned to talk like an educated idiot about world history outside Europe (A typical Eurocentric fairy tale)." Of course he doesn't want to accept that knowledge and learning are passed from one culture to another, under favorable conditions, where learning and knowledge are allowed to survive. And OF COURSE he doesn't want to START with Africa as the ORIGINATOR of the human species and THE ORIGIN of ALL HUMAN TRAITS that we identify as "civilized" today. THAT is why he has to focus on some bullsh*t about genetics, in order to create a blatantly RIDICULOUS form of history that has no basis in fact. OF COURSE they don't want to accept the reality of ancient Egypt as a black civilization that TRANSMITTED so much to other cultures and the modern world. It has nothing to do with special genetics in one group over any other.
Likewise, if the modern world was to spend as much time and effort BRINGING knowledge, understanding, education and industry to Africa as it does TAKING AFRICAN RESOURCES and oppressing Africans, Africa would be AS ADVANCED as any other culture on the planet. Again, this is not genetics. It is all about international politics and knowledge and industry as a weapon, which Europe uses to its own tactical and strategic advantage, ESPECIALLY when it comes to Africa. And this modern pseudoscience about African genetic inferiority is JUSTIFICATION for this need to KEEP AFRICA from becoming more DEVELOPED as the development of STRONG independent African civilizations would be A THREAT to the Western World. Therefore, they MUST continue to propagate this NONSENSE, at the same time they CONTINUE to sow the seeds of Africa's destruction. It is the most hypocritical, self serving and ridiculous point of view that can be found anywhere. They do not WANT to help Africa become more educated and independent, so they create this FICTION of IQ related to genetics to try and paint a fantasy picture where AFRICANS just CANNOT LEARN. They are scared. They are afraid that Africans may outdo the West in all areas of intellectual pursuit, if given the proper education and knowledge and an environment where it is nurtured. THEREFORE, to justify NOT CREATING such an environment, they keep creating books like this.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
First, the book explicitly says that civilization arose in the Middle East and not Europe and that the Middle East brought civilization to Europe. Therefore, it does not claim that Europe created civilization.
It also states that Mongols historically had the highest intelligence due to living in extremely cold climates, thus their ability to conquer Europeans, Middle Eastern people, Africans, and so forth even though Mongols always had small population.
As for IQ, I would urge you NOT to dismiss it. It is not some fringe science. It has been established for well over 100 years and it has real life consequences.
While the mainstream has gone in one direction, the science continues to go in the other direction. The data compiled regarding IQ has only gotten stronger over the past 3 decades and it's a well accepted measurement within the scientific community - and educational systems.
quote:Originally posted by sportbilly: The United States adopted the eagle, which was also the symbol of ancient Egypt. The Washington monument is an obelisk, just like the thousands of others the Egyptiasns built. There's a pyramid on the back of every one-dollar bill, with the eye of Horus at the apex looking over creation. The Egyptians were diests, as were America's Founding Fathers. Freemasonry came from Egypt and most of the Founding Father, and allegedly many of America's current leaders, were/are Freemasons.
And the claims that Christianity was in fact derived from Egyptian legends of death and rebirth such as Horus and Set.
Greek (i.e. western) philiosophers learned the basics of their beliefs at the knees of the Egyptians.
posted
What do you think about the early advanced societies in the Sudan
It's also a myth that Egypt dominated the nile all through it's history, there were shifts of power between Egypt and other African powers and they would take turns dominating the area, just felt like pointing that out
quote:Secondly, not only did Europe not ORIGINATE any of the things we call "civilized", but they did not just pick up this knowledge ON THEIR OWN and begin to develop civilization without OUTSIDE INFLUENCE. Outside influence and the TRANSMISSION of knowledge from older cultures and civilizations are the basis for the rise of the "West". Ancient Greece was stimulated by contacts with Asia minor (Turkey) and the Mediterranean and so was Rome. This was a DIRECT transmission of traits and knowledge from one place to another. This goes AGAINST the idea of Europe as some BASTION of intellect and rationalism that exists INDEPENDENTLY of everything else and is purely based on superior genes.
Correct. Hart's book says exactly the same thing you just have.
quote: If this was so, then how come Moorish Spain, with its advanced science and learning derived from ancient cultures in Africa, Mesopotamia, the Mediterranean and Asia more advanced than ANYTHING in Europe? THAT is what set the Western world on course to become what it is today
Correct, Hart's book agrees with this too. Like I said, read the book. It's free. Download the PDF file and save it to your desktop or print it out.
quote: Knowledge, organization and learning are the keys to the development of civilization and while it is not linear, it is something that has been directly transmitted from ancient cultures to modern cultures through many hands and many cultures, leading us to where we are today. It is a result of the ACCUMULATED knowledge and understanding of MANY PEOPLE not the SPECIAL genetics of any one group.
Correct, Hart's book supports these assertions too.
quote: The "West" is primarily the beneficiary of the winds of fate, which put a TREMENDOUS amount of ancient knowledge and understanding at THEIR DOORSTEP in Moorish Spain, which itself was destroyed and in many ways only now, 1000 years later are some of their achievements being surpassed.
Partly correct. Environment and intelligence of the population obtaining that knowledge allowed the West to triumph. Also, don't confuse the transmission of civilization with furthering civilization. While ideas were brought to Ancient Greece, it was in Ancient Greece alone where the modern fruits of civilization began in terms of philosophy, art, music, theatre, political systems, law, architecture, mathematics, science, and so forth. While civilization existed in the Middle East centuries before Europe, they were limited, and Europeans soon added their own mark.
quote:The point being that NONE of this has anything to do with genetics. But of course they WANT you to believe this so that they can continue onto the NEXT step of their ILLOGICAL thinking, which is the plight of Africa. This irrational reasoning would like you to believe that the current state of Africa is PURELY based on the idea of Africans being INNATELY and GENETICALLY stupid.
There is a genetic component on an individual basis as well as a group basis. Some people have different abilities. Some people can do quantum physics but most of us can't. It's in the genes. Refer to my example of Jews above.
Please refer to IQ studies in that it appears there are average general differences in population group intelligences, regardless of which society one goes to. [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor]Occam's Razor[/url] applies here.
quote:Of course, that MUST be the reason AND NOT the treatment of Africans at the hands of FOREIGNERS and other invaders over the last 1000 years. In contrast to Western Europe, Africa did not have the benefit of anyone BRINGING all the knowledge and wisdom of the ancient world to its doorstep, developing industry and learning and propagating "civilized" society.
This is partly correct. Most of Africa did not have contact with the outside world. Only in Egypt and other North African regions did.
However, Natives in the New World had no contact with ancient civilzations either.
quote:Africas interaction with the world has been DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSITE of that in the West. 1500 years ago, Africa had MORE advanced civilizations and cultures than most of Europe.
Hart would agree with this but would cite that such civilization was brought to them, and also that despite these earlier advances, nothing remains from them of significance nor did they add anything to world civilization. Moreover, there is nothing comparable in these ancient civilizations in the way of literature, architecture, science, and so forth that rivals the Middle East, China, and civilizations created in the New World.
quote:It is the most hypocritical, self serving and ridiculous point of view that can be found anywhere. They do not WANT to help Africa become more educated and independent, so they create this FICTION of IQ related to genetics to try and paint a fantasy picture where AFRICANS just CANNOT LEARN. They are scared. They are afraid that Africans may outdo the West in all areas of intellectual pursuit, if given the proper education and knowledge and an environment where it is nurtured. THEREFORE, to justify NOT CREATING such an environment, they keep creating books like this.
There is a lot to be said about robbing Africa of its resources and the world not interested in developing Africa. I don't disagree with this. And I don't doubt that Africans can learn and that Africa's role will change in due time (China is buying up Africa right now and other countries are looking to get in on the action).
However, to ignore the role of intelligence on achievement is wrong. There is a reason why scientists, lawyers, physicists, doctors, have high IQ and that such people are over-represented in innovation. Some people are born with higher IQs than others and some populations have more people in it than others. This is not pseudo-science. It's science and it's also extremely intuitive.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by markellion: What do you think about the early advanced societies in the Sudan
It's also a myth that Egypt dominated the nile all through it's history, there were shifts of power between Egypt and other African powers and they would take turns dominating the area, just felt like pointing that out
Well, this is one of the points where I disagree with Hart. He ignores Nubia and the Sudan in his assessement and there is no indication that any outside source brought civilization. Just like Egypt, these were indigenous and developed their own writing. Some Nubian scripts have survived but haven't been deciphered and they're not Egyptian either. Clearly Egypt and Nubia derived from within Africa. There is no indication that they were influenced by the Middle East.
I also think that Egypt has deep roots in the South of Africa as their own writings suggest, as well as DNA evidence, and Egyptian pictures. While SouthEast Asians may have entered Egypt, I believe Egyptians were a hybrid between those invaders and the original indigenous African population that was there already.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
songhay,mali,axum,the kingdoms of the sudan or the kingdoms south of ancient and medieval egypt and some other african civilaztions do rival and surpass the middle east china and the new world civilization of the native americans.that's the point doug is making.hart is wrong and need to get updated info because new info and books are being written more so today with facts.
Posts: 2688 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Read the book and perhaps we can all compile a worthwhile rebuttal. There are enough areas where Hart's analysis is weak and where I disagree. But, on the whole, it's a decent book that has a lot of explanatory power. This is what one looks for in history books - solid questions to "why" things happened.
quote:Originally posted by kenndo: songhay,mali,axum,the kingdoms of the sudan and some other african civilaztions do rivil and surpass the middle east china and the new world civilization of the native americans.that's the point doug is making.hart is wrong and need to get updated info because new info and books are being written more so today with facts.
Can you recommend some of these books to me? Also, can you list those features of those civilizations that rival the others?
Hart describes some of these briefly. Ghana for example was an Islamic state thus there was clearly outside Middle Eastern transmission/influence or rule there.
Mali reached its apex in 1330 and Moslen scholars were imported there by Mansu Musa where it became a center of Moslem scholarship.
He says that Mali and Songhai were empires of considerable size and wealth and possessed writing but that the source was brough by Berbers to the North. He does not cite a source for this assertion and it's one of the weak points that I would have wanted him to elaborate on.
However, he notes that all the civilizations above were those in the "exposed zone" of Africa - those regions had had contact with the Moslem and European worlds. The "secluded zone" with the exception of Great Zimbabwe was backwards and was this way when Europeans penetrated it in the year 1500.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I AM NOT concern about modern civilzation in the west.the world does not go around it.I DO not like when these eurocentric scholars talk about other folks cultures as it was meant for everything to be build for the west.
Egypt,nubia,mali , etc had great impact on africaFIRST and foremost,that's my main concern. African cultures is not a footnote for europe. african civilaztions must be studied in it's own right and what it di for africa.so in that sense early african cultures did make a impact on world culture-africa first.africa is part of the world. when these scholars mean world culture in their mind it is anything that deals with europe and america.europe and america is not the center of the world.besides we are learning new things all the time about mali,nubia,egypt and many more early african civilizations.the scripts in medieval nubia could be read and some in ancient nubia too.math,art science philosophy,technology etc..did not start in europe or southeast asia or the middle east,it start in africa.period,and no amount of books mt eurocentric scholars is going to change that fact,no matter the sneeky spin tactics they like to use.
Posts: 2688 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:sshaun002 wrote: However, he notes that all the civilizations above were those in the "exposed zone" of Africa - those regions had had contact with the Moslem and European worlds. The "secluded zone" with the exception of Great Zimbabwe was backwards and was this way when Europeans penetrated it in the year 1500.
And the point being? It's not like Europe created it's own indigenous civilizations with no outside hand in it (and don't come with rome or greece, these were not even real europeans). People influence each other you know, i see nothing wierd or wrong with that. This muscle flexing is so typical american, "we were first", "you got civilized", "we were greatest", "you were last" aargh Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I WROTE about this awhile ago and so did not others.just type in mali,nubia or search engine here and you would see because i just dont want to repeat myself all the time.the same thing with this iq nonsense.every 5 or 10 years you have some white racist who come out and says hat black have lower iq's and blacks always have to be on the defensive.i will post alink here with post of the past and send you something in private .
example supercar posted a article awhile ago about early civilzations in west africa before islam and one of the oldest boats found in nigeria in the world.I CAN'T FIND everything now.maybe supercar,rasol ,djehuti could enlighten you.
Posts: 2688 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's funny how these kazhar jews (fake hebrews) and other so called "whites" of usa are always the ones who gloat about the ancient achievemnets of the middle east and southern europe when in reality there is no real link. both groups were untill recently described by the people they claim, as "barbarians" (just citing the ancients) While the real descendants from these areas the kahzars and descendants of germanic and gaulic tribes take credit for as their "racial ancestors" never or rarely engage in such redicoulas muscle flexing when talking of their ancestors. It's more often than not a practice/attitude which prevails in "the new world" i rarely see it in europe.
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
This is from “The Growth of African Civilization A History of West Africa 1000-1800" by Basil Davidson
City of Benin in southern Nigeria
In 1602 a Dutch traveler O. Dapper wrote of the city
“It seemed to be very big, when you go into it, you enter a great broad street, which is not paved, and seems to be seven or eight times broader than the Warmoes street in Amsterdam [the capital of Holland]. The street is straight, and does not bend at any point. It is thought to be four miles long. ‘At the gate where I went in on horseback, I saw a very big wall, very thick and made of earth, with a very deep and broad ditch outside it… And outside the gate there is also a big suburb. Inside the gate, and along the great street just mentioned, you see many other great streets on either side, and these are also straight and do not bend…
‘The houses in this town stand in good order, one close and evenly placed with its neighbor, just as the houses in Holland stand… They have square rooms, sheltered by a roof that is open in the middle, where the rain, and wind and light come in. The people sleep and eat in these rooms, but they have other rooms for cooking and different purposes… ‘The king’s court is very great. It is built around many square-shaped yards. These yards have surrounding galleries where sentries are always places. I myself went into these court far enough to pass through four great yards like this, and yet wherever I looked I could still see gate after gate which opened into other yards....'
It was enough to gain European respect
Also modern art is influenced by much African art, Africans had many different kinds of art, both naturalistic and abstract
Posts: 2642 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
here i thinks we could cover the basics here.if this gets deleted i will send it to you in private. i posted these links because this it is easy to find and it has been talk about already.
as you know steel was developed in meroe and no outsider did it. science,medicine and surgery,tech knowhow was on a higher level than the greeks and romans.morals were higher.greeks and others wrote about the greater respect for women in nubia,and women were more free.less crime etc. so in morals alone nubia was higher than europe or asia.art was on a high level. the meroitic script was the most advanced in the world.get the book the arts of ancient nubia and the sudan,and it will tell you about that.the arabs in medieval times wrote about the kingdoms of medieval nubia and it a civilizations that highly impressed them an was on a higher level than anything the arabs had.nubia and central water systems etc and even more and more widespread in medieval times.in middle ages the nubians kingdoms and public baths,latrines,sewage systems large brick and stone buildings for the massess in fact the arabs were so highly impressed to see such a high level of civilization when they left egypt to write about the south.the civilization they wrote about after th arabs conqured egypt was higher than anything they knew.
THE MANDE HAD civilization BEFORE ISLAM. YES THEY GOT UPDATE KNOWHOW IN CERTAIN THINGS FROM THE ARABS BUT DO YOU KNOW that they build upon it and surpass the arabs in science etc.they even had blue cabon steel just like the nubians.folks were free to walk in the mali empire so in morals and overall culture mali and that west african region as awhole and nubia,darfur and some other civilizations rivaled and surpass arab,european and yes asia. the facts is that when we mean africa was the most advanced up to early modern times that is we mean.in in morals today modern africa beats europe and overall south africa's tech knowhow is on the level of america's and has the most advanced constitution in the world.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^^Just because I'm not black or of African descent does not mean such peoples or cultures do not "pertain" to me, because it does-- both as an American and Westerner as well as a human being simply because black Africans (including West Africans) have contributed much to world history especially the Western World.
Just because you are too ignorant to realize all that does not mean you can denigrate people who do, like me
i KNOW I WENT ABIT OVERBOARD BUT THESE FACTS HAD TO BE POSTED BECAUSE I GET TIRED AND ANNOYED HAVING TO REPEAT MYSELF WHEN THE NEW GUY COMES IN TOWN.
Posts: 2688 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: It also states that Mongols historically had the highest intelligence due to living in extremely cold climates, thus their ability to conquer Europeans, Middle Eastern people, Africans, and so forth even though Mongols always had small population.
Hardly. Looking at Mongolia today it is really no more advanced than the mean of African countries in terms of wealth and industrial production, let alone intellectual capital. Not exactly sure of the point he is trying to make, because in that regard he has none.
quote:As for IQ, I would urge you NOT to dismiss it. It is not some fringe science. It has been established for well over 100 years and it has real life consequences.
Nonsense really. Its all based upon the arbitrary assumption that generalized geographical groups such as African ,Europeans, east Asians etc, are the basis of these so called "genetic" differences and that they are perfectly clear-cut and explicit, where is the proof?
What is to say that a Hausa of Nigeria is not more intelligent on average than a Yoruba? Or a Swede to an Irish? Indeed as often cited yet often ignored:
quote:Most (85%) of our genetic variation is within populations rather than among them, even when different sequences of DNA (or proteins) are examined (Barbujani et al., 1997 ). Statistical divisions of humanity based on different kinds of genetic data do not group people consistently into races (Romualdi, 2002 ).
Given the fact that humanity started in Africa, and the most physical diversity can be shown within African groups, one could actually make more of a case of separate African "races" than anywhere else. If one is to argue of genetic between group IQ differences you would think they would start there.
But of course they won't. Because, as always they have an agenda, and of course it is not based upon science, but is based upon simple bias. That much is quite clear. You must ask yourself what are these guys trying to prove anyway and how will that benefit mankind?
The fact of the matter is, is that they are *still* ignoring the latest genetic findings even as they put out their garbage. They also tend to completely ignore socio-economic data from not only the groups in question but cross-studies done on other groups with the same factors and dynamics.
What crap that passes for science and objective inquiry these days.
Posts: 426 | From: Cali-for-nia | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
While many travelers with the xenophobic and racism that developed during the 19th century would write off any sign of high culture amongst Africans as from foreign influence, as many do today, they had forgotten about the mutual respect between Africans and Europeans in the past. A few did see through the fog of racism of the day
This is from "The Lost Cities of Africa" by Basil Davidson P. 287
While many travelors with the xenophobic and racism that developed durring the 19th century would write off any sign of high culture amongst Africans as from forign influence, as many do today, they had forgotten about the mutual respect between Africans and Europeans in the past. A few did see through the fog of racism of the day
This is from "The Lost Cities of Africa" by Basil Davidson P. 287
quote: Is African religion "primitive"? On the contrary; many African peoples, it transpires, have systems of belief about themselves and universe that are subtle and developed. Confronted with the fact of African philosophy, writes Father Temples, " the false image of primitive man, of the savage, of the manlike creature deprived of a full growth of the intelligence, irremediably disappears." We have thought ourselves to be educating children, he says of Belgian colonial attitudes in the Congo, "and that seemed simple enough. And now quite suddenly it appears that we are dealing with an adult humanity, conscious of its own wisdom, conditioned by its own universal philosophy
posted
alTakruri gave us this information on this site, thanks
Histoire de la Civilisation Africaine
quote: "When they [the first European navigators of the end of the Middle Ages] arrived in the Gulf of Guinea and landed at Vaida, the captains were astonished to find the streets well cared for, bordered for several leagues in length by two rows of trees; for many days they passed through a country of magnificent fields, a country inhabited by men clad in brilliant costumes, the stuff of which they had woven themselves! More to the South in the Kingdom of Congo, a swarming crowd dressed in silk and velvet; great states well ordered, and even to the smallest details, powerful sovereigns, rich industries, -- civilized to the marrow of their bones. And the condition of the countries on the eastern coasts -- Mozambique, for example -- was quite the same.
"What was revealed by the navigators of the fifteenth to the seventeenth centuries furnishes an absolute proof that Negro Africa, which extended south of the desert zone of the Sahara, was in full efflorescence which the European conquistadors annihilated as far as they progressed. For the new country of America needed slaves, and Africa had them to offer, hundreds, thousands, whole cargoes of slaves. However, the slave trade was never an affair which meant a perfectly easy conscience, and it exacted a justification; hence one made of the Negro a half-animal, an article of merchandise. And in the same way the notion of fetish (Portuguese feticeiro) was invented as a symbol of African religion. As for me, I have seen in no part of Africa the Negroes worshipping a fetish. The idea of the 'barbarous Negro' is a European invention which has consequently prevailed in Europe until the beginning of this century.
"What these old captains recounted, these chiefs of expeditions -- Delbes, Marchais, Pigafetta, and all the others, what they recounted is true. It can be verified. In the old Royal Kunstkammer of Dresden, in the Weydemann colection of Ulm, in many another 'cabinet of curiosities' of Europe, we still find West African collections dating from this epoch. Marvellous plush velvets of an extreme softness, made of the tenderest leaves of a certain kind of banana plant; stuffs soft and supple, brilliant and delicate, like silks, woven with the fiber of a raffia, well prepared; powerful javelins with points encrusted with copper in the most elegant fashion; bows so graceful in form and so beautifully ornamented that they would do honor to any museum of arms whatsoever; calabashes decorated with the greatest taste; sculpture in ivory and wood of which the work shows a very great deal of application and style.
"And all that came from cuntries of the African periphery, delivered over after that to slave merchants, . . .
"But when the pioneers of the last century pierced this zone of 'European civilization' and the wall of protection which had, for the time being raised behind it -- the wall of protection of the Negro still 'intact' -- they found everywhere the same marvels which the captains had found on the coast.
"In 1906 when I penetrated into the territory of Kassai-Sankuru, I found still, villages of which the principle streets were bordered on each side, for leagues, with rows of palm trees, and of which the houses, decorated each one in charming fashion, were works of art as well.
"No man who did not carry sumptuous arms of iron or copper, with inlaid blades and handles covered with serpent skin. Everywhere velvets and silken stuffs. Each cup, each pipe, each spoon was an object of art perfectly worthy to be compared to the creations of the Roman European style. But all this was only the particularly tender and iridescent bloom which adorns a ripe and marvellous fruit; the gestures, the manners, the moral code of the entire people, from the little child to the old man, although they remained within absolutely natural limits, were imprinted with dignity and grace, in the families of the princes and the rich as in the vassals and slaves. I know of no northern people who can be compared with these primitives for unity of civilization. And the peaceful beauty was carried away by the floods.
"But many men had this experience: the explorers who left the savage and warrior plateau of the East and South and the North to descend into the plains of the Congo, of Lake Victoria, of the Ubangi: men such as Speke and Grant, Livingstone, Cameron, Stanley, Schweinfurth, Junker, de Brazza -- all of them -- made the same statements: they came from countries dominated by the rigid laws of the African Ares, and from then on they penetrated into the countries where peace reigned, and joy in adornment and in beauty; countries of old civilizations, of ancient styles, of harmonious styles.
"The revelations of fifteenth and seventeenth century navigators furnish us with certain proof that Negro Africa, which extended south of the Sahara desert zone, was still in full bloom, in the full brilliance of harmonious and well-formed civilizations. In the last century the superstition ruled that all high culture of Africa came from Islam. Since then we have learned much, and we know today that the beautiful turbans and clothes of the Sudanese folk were already used in Africa before Muhammed was even born or before Ethiopian culture reached inner Africa. Since then we have learned that the peculiar organization of the Sudanese states existed long before Islam and that all of the art of building and education, of city organization and handwork in Negro Africa, were thousands of years older than those of Middle Europe.
"Thus in the Sudan old real African warm-blooded culture existed and could be found in Equatorial Africa, where neither Ethiopian thought, Hamitic blood, or European civilization had drawn the pattern. Everywhere when we examine this ancient culture it bears the same impression. In the great museums -- Trocadero, British Museum, in Belgium, Italy, Holland, and Germany -- everywhere we see the same spirit, the same character, the same nature. All of these separate pieces unite themselves to the same expression and build a picture equally impressive as that of a collection of the art of Asia. The striking beauty of the cloth, the fantastic beauty of the drawing and the sculpture, the glory of the ivory weapons, the collection of fairy tales equal to the Thousand and One nights, the Chinese novels, and the Indian philosophy.
"In comparison with such spiritual accomplishments the impression of the African spirit is easily seen. It is stronger in its folds, simpler in its richness. Every weapon is simple and practical, not only in form but fantasy. Every line of carving is simple and strong. There is nothing that makes a clearer impression of strength, and all that streams out of the fire and the hut, the sweat and the grease- treated hides and the animal dung. Everything is practical, strong, workmanly. This is the character of the African style. When one approaches it with full understanding, one immediately realizes that this impression rules all Africa. It expresses itself in the activity of all Negro people even in their sculpture. It speaks out of their dances and their masks; out of the understanding of their religious life, just as out of the reality of their living, their state building, and their conception of fate. It lives in their fables, their fairy stories, their wise sayings and their myths. And once we are forced to this conclusion, then the Egyptian comes into the comparison. For this discovered culture form of Negro Africa has the same peculiarity.
Leo Frobenius Histoire de la Civilisation Africaine translated by Back and Ermoat Paris: Gallimard, 1936 6th edition page 56
in
W. E. Burghardt Du Bois The World and Africa: An inquiry into the part which Africa has played in world history New York: Viking Press, 1946 pp. 79, 156
quote: The "West" is primarily the beneficiary of the winds of fate, which put a TREMENDOUS amount of ancient knowledge and understanding at THEIR DOORSTEP in Moorish Spain, which itself was destroyed and in many ways only now, 1000 years later are some of their achievements being surpassed.
Partly correct. Environment and intelligence of the population obtaining that knowledge allowed the West to triumph. Also, don't confuse the transmission of civilization with furthering civilization. While ideas were brought to Ancient Greece, it was in Ancient Greece alone where the modern fruits of civilization began in terms of philosophy, art, music, theatre, political systems, law, architecture, mathematics, science, and so forth. While civilization existed in the Middle East centuries before Europe, they were limited, and Europeans soon added their own mark. [QB]
Wrong. Greece was not alone in the flowering of philosophy and/or science. It was the continuation of a long tradition of philosophy and science that was developed elsewhere. The Greeks did make great achievements, but their GREATEST achievement was the fact that their works have survived the ravages of time and they were closer chronologically to us than ancient Egyptian culture. And, even during the time of the Greeks, other cultures were still thriving and providing their own advances to human knowledge, along with Egypt. Persia, Babylon and Asia were all advanced in their own right without Greece and also had philosophy and science. So ancient Greece was not UNIQUE in any respect and these other civilizations were not limited. And, for all your talk about furthering knowledge, most times knowledge was LOST as a result of the passage of time and transmission of knowledge from one place to another. Much knowledge was LOST from the ancient lands of Egypt, Mesopotamia and India due to wars and the ravages of time. Spanish culture, industry and civilization DECLINED in many ways after the expulsion of the Moors, with much knowledge and science being destroyed in the inquisition.
AND, the key point here is that WITHOUT that transmission of knowledge by the Moors, Europe would NOT be where it is today. They know this and this is WHY they RESTRICTED education of blacks and other slaves in the colonization of the "New World". They realized that knowledge and science are WEAPONS and did NOT want the cultures they destroyed to become STRONG enough and LEARN the technologies that gave the Europeans the advantage militarily. They are NOT going to repeat the mistakes of the Moors who provided the education, industry and training that would eventually be USED TO DEFEAT THEM. THAT is why Europeans are so interested in IQ because the WANT an excuse to CONTINUE the restriction of science, technology and knowledge OUTSIDE of "The West" so that they can STAY ON TOP. This has NOTHING TO DO WITH GENETICS. And face facts, the fact that blacks were a large part of Moorish society shows that IN FACT, Africans had a large part to do with the transmission of knowledge to the West. And much of this transmission involved knowledge and cultural traits FROM AFRICA, even though it was under the banner of Islam and this is from ALL OVER Africa, not just Egypt. Books like this want to DENY THIS and this is why they go to great lengths to deny the facts of history in order to JUSTIFY keeping themselves on top of everyone else. Again, the point here is that spreading civilization means speading knowledge, learning and culture. Western Europe has done nothing but spread war, genocide, disease and destruction in the last 1000 years. That is NOT spreading civilization. People are still trying desperately to cling to half truths and lies as their reality. Europe NEVER INTENDED to spread KNOWLEDGE to the world in its conquests. It intended to CONQUER and DESTROY any and ALL COMPETITION to Europe's claim to the land and resources of OTHER COUNTRIES. That is NOT SPREADING CIVILIZATION. They WERE NOT like the Moors. They did NOT set up universities for the locals to LEARN ANYTHING. They did not ALLOW the locals to OWN their own land. They DESTROYED their cultures and civilizations and reduced the population to the status of ANIMALS, using all sorts of racist and genocidal ARBITRARY measurements to claim that these people were UNFIT to be civilized and therefore UNFIT to learn how to be anything other than SLAVES. So this NONSENSE about IQ is only a FAKE FRONT that hide's what has been Europe's TRUE INTENTION all along, to KEEP THE KNOWLEDGE, WEALTH and POWER of the world TO THEMSELVES and F*CK everyone else. Knowledge and education are the keys TO FREEDOM and this is NOT WHAT EUROPE WANTS for anyone OTHER THAN EUROPEANS.
Giving book and a gun to a savage does not make a savage civilized. It makes him a DANGEROUS SAVAGE. The only thing that Europe has done with the knowledge and learning that they have obtained in the last 500 years is learn how to KILL MORE PEOPLE and TAKE MORE WEALTH. That is NOT CIVILIZED and is NOT REFLECTIVE of ANY IQ ADVANTAGE. What happened to Spain after the Moors? Certainly I would not call the fascist, genocidal and homicidal homicidal regimes that came SINCE THEN a reflection of HIGH IQ.
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: [QB]
quote:The point being that NONE of this has anything to do with genetics. But of course they WANT you to believe this so that they can continue onto the NEXT step of their ILLOGICAL thinking, which is the plight of Africa. This irrational reasoning would like you to believe that the current state of Africa is PURELY based on the idea of Africans being INNATELY and GENETICALLY stupid.
There is a genetic component on an individual basis as well as a group basis. Some people have different abilities. Some people can do quantum physics but most of us can't. It's in the genes. Refer to my example of Jews above.
Please refer to IQ studies in that it appears there are average general differences in population group intelligences, regardless of which society one goes to. [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor]Occam's Razor[/url] applies here.
It is about the spread of knowledge and education along with the distribution of wealth. Period. That B.S. about occam's razor and genetics has nothing to do with the reality of Africa and much of the world today in reference to Europe. It is about WHY the wealth and resources of Africa and other parts of the world are NOT being used to develop the knowledge and science for the people of the world as opposed to making a SMALL MINORITY of the population of the earth more rich.
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002:
quote:Of course, that MUST be the reason AND NOT the treatment of Africans at the hands of FOREIGNERS and other invaders over the last 1000 years. In contrast to Western Europe, Africa did not have the benefit of anyone BRINGING all the knowledge and wisdom of the ancient world to its doorstep, developing industry and learning and propagating "civilized" society.
This is partly correct. Most of Africa did not have contact with the outside world. Only in Egypt and other North African regions did.
However, Natives in the New World had no contact with ancient civilzations either.
Nobody has gone to Africa and built universities in order to transmit knowledge and science TO AFRICANS. They have gone there to build mansions and universities FOR THEMSELVES and kill Africans by working them to death and taking the land from them.
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002:
quote:Africas interaction with the world has been DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSITE of that in the West. 1500 years ago, Africa had MORE advanced civilizations and cultures than most of Europe.
Hart would agree with this but would cite that such civilization was brought to them, and also that despite these earlier advances, nothing remains from them of significance nor did they add anything to world civilization. Moreover, there is nothing comparable in these ancient civilizations in the way of literature, architecture, science, and so forth that rivals the Middle East, China, and civilizations created in the New World.
Bullsh*t. The oldest pottery, animal husbandry, tool making, writing, mining, jewelry, clothing, pottery and many other things are IN AFRICA. So what on earth are you talking about? What civilization was brought TO AFRICA? West Africa ALREADY had cities prior to the arrival of Islam. They ALREADY were making STEEL prior to the Europeans. They were MINING prior to ANY CONTACT with ANYONE ELSE. So how on EARTH did someone BRING this to them? That is blatantly false. On top of that Egypt and Sudan had civilization LONG BEFORE anyone could BRING IT to them and CERTAINLY thousands of years before anything comparable existed OUTSIDE of Greece and Rome. Remember the most advanced parts of Europe were HISTORICALLY in the regions of the Mediterranean and Turkey. Northern and Western Europe had NOTHING approaching even the sophistication of other cultures in the world until the arrival of the Moors. The reason for this being that Turkey and the Mediterranean were ancient routes for the transmission of knowledge from East to West. Again, the point here is that Europe is only benefiting from FREE access to knowledge and learning that they acquired over time and have expanded. It is NOT simply because they had a SPECIAL IQ. If it was then they would NOT have NEEDED such EXTERNAL stimuli to START their progress in the first place.
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002:
quote:It is the most hypocritical, self serving and ridiculous point of view that can be found anywhere. They do not WANT to help Africa become more educated and independent, so they create this FICTION of IQ related to genetics to try and paint a fantasy picture where AFRICANS just CANNOT LEARN. They are scared. They are afraid that Africans may outdo the West in all areas of intellectual pursuit, if given the proper education and knowledge and an environment where it is nurtured. THEREFORE, to justify NOT CREATING such an environment, they keep creating books like this.
There is a lot to be said about robbing Africa of its resources and the world not interested in developing Africa. I don't disagree with this. And I don't doubt that Africans can learn and that Africa's role will change in due time (China is buying up Africa right now and other countries are looking to get in on the action).
However, to ignore the role of intelligence on achievement is wrong. There is a reason why scientists, lawyers, physicists, doctors, have high IQ and that such people are over-represented in innovation. Some people are born with higher IQs than others and some populations have more people in it than others. This is not pseudo-science. It's science and it's also extremely intuitive.
Neither China nor anyone else BUYING UP Africa will help Africans. What will help Africa is Africans doing for themselves and beginning to gain the MAJORITY of the benefit from their OWN land, labor and resources and beginning to PUT THOSE resources to use BUILDING AFRICA FOR AFRICANS not for EVERYONE ELSE.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yonis2: And the point being? It's not like Europe created it's own indigenous civilizations with no outside hand in it (and don't come with rome or greece, these were not even real europeans). People influence each other you know, i see nothing wierd or wrong with that. This muscle flexing is so typical american, "we were first", "you got civilized", "we were greatest", "you were last" aargh
His point is that it was unlikely for civilizatin to arise in Africa even though the environment there was ideal: fertile soil and ideal climate; and access to large animals.
I don't know what you mean that the Greeks and Romans weren't real Europeans.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
WELL CIVILIZATION DID CAME TO AFRICA FIRST,IN THE SUDAN THAN EGYPT.THE MANDE DID FOR THEMSELVES BUT LATER.THERE ARE MORE DIFFERENT INDEPENDENT SCRIPTS IN AFRICA THAN ANYWHERE ELSE.EVEN THE WHEEL WAS KNOWN AND WAS DEVELOPED IN LIBYA.
ONE MORE THING AND I AM DONE HOPEFULLY.IN SCIENCE NUBIANS,MANDE SONGHAY ETC HAD A HIGH LEVEL OF BRAIN SURGERY SKILLS AND WERE HIGHLY ADVANCED IN ASTRONOMY.EVEN IN MODERN TIMES A BLACK MAN IN SOUTH AFRICA WAS THE TRUE ONE TO HAVE THE FIRST OPEN HEART SURGERY.EVEN THE WHITE DOCTOR HE HELP SAID AFTER ALL THESE YEARS.SO GREAT THING BLACKS HAVE DONE ARE STILL GOING ON TODAY
CERTAIN WEST AFRICAN CIVILIZATIONS KNEW THE HOW TO DEAL WITH SMALLPOX BEFORE THE WEST,LIKE THE MANDE AND SOME OTHERS IN WEST AFRICA
NUBIANS KNEW THE USE OF antibiotics .IN OTHE WORDS ANTIBIOTICS WAS USED IN A NUBIA FIRST BEFORE THE WEST.
Some Africans who lived 1,600 years ago were protected against disease by natural antibiotics in their food. This unexpected discovery was made accidentally by a student learning to prepare bone sections for microscopic observation. She happened to use the only microscope available at the time, a fluorescing microscope used to identify samples by shining ultraviolet light on them. Bands of yellow green, characteristic of the antibiotic tetracycline, glowed on her samples. The bone, it turned out, came from mummified remains from a Nubian cemetery in the Sudan and dated from between AD 350 and AD 550. Apparently the tetracycline got into the Nubians’ diet by accident, through Streptomyces, a bacterium that manufactures tetracycline and makes up more than half of the bacteria in Nubian soils. Researchers believe it grew on grain stored at the bottom of mud bins.
Probably the Nubians used such contaminated grain only during famines; tetracycline imparts a bitter taste and would otherwise be avoided. Since the drug is deposited only on actively growing bone surfaces, banded patterns on bone samples support the theory that the antibiotic was only an occasional part of the Nubians’ diet. Struck by periodic famine, the Nubians should have been plagued by infectious diseases, but studies of scar tissue in the bone samples indicate a very low incidence of such disease. Surprisingly, tetracycline levels found in the bone samples equal levels prescribed by modern doctors.
African Science Before The Birth Of The New World by Dr. Ivan Van Sertima
The reason we did not discover African science is that we were looking at primitives and semi-primitives. I shouldn't say we It was a certain Eurocentric idea or assump- tion that the only thing that you could study closely and accurately were little, small-scale communities. These small-scale communities were the survivors of the holocaust that struck Africa. They did not realize that a civilization which had, in some centers, sophisticated technologies, was shattered by the slave trade and by the other horrors that struck Africa, both internal and external. They studied the periphery or edge of African civilizations. Whereas these things, which have only been uncovered over the last 20 years, existed in the shattered center. The reason we are able to recover it now is because the eye of consciousness is opening as well as the eye of the machine.
We can see things we could not see before. From outer space, we have been able to see rivers that died in the Sahara thousands of years ago. We could see traces of those rivers linking what was once a lush Sahara that became desert, linking it to the Sudan, and linking it to the Nile River, showing that Africans retreated from those shrinking flood plains toward the Nile valley. They have actually tracked it down from outer space, showing Africans migrating to the Nile valley from an earlier stage. In 1978, Peter Schmitt and Donald Avery discovered along the lakes of Tanzania, an industrial site which Africans had established as early as 1500 years ago. They discovered that Africans there were producing steel, the finest carbon steel in the world, at temperatures of about 1,825 degrees. That is the highest ever recorded before the 19th century--they were doing it in the fifth century. Not only were they doing this, but also they found they were doing it in a single-stage process. Even in the 19th century, when the Germans discovered a process for mass producing steel, Europe did it in two crude stages. The Africans were doing it in a single- stage process, which calls for semi-conductor technology unknown in the world until centuries later. Not only that, they found they were doing it using less fuel. They have found 13 of these machines in Iron Age strata. They found that the people known as the Haya could reconstruct the smelt.
In the field of astronomy, there is more. In 1978, Lynch Robbins of Michigan State discovered that Africans had built an astronomical observatory in Kenya, 300 years before Christ, in Namoratunga. There, in 300 BC, they had plotted a series of stars and constellations, and on the basis of the alignment of these stars and constellations, they had built the most accurate of prehistoric calendars. But even more significant, a Frenchman, Marcel Griaule, encountered the Dogon people, about 200 miles from the University of Timbuktu. They had fled into the mountains when they heard Europeans were advancing on the continent. There they found that these people had a very complex knowledge of the stars. They have written books about these people, The Pale Fox (just translated into English), as well as Conversations with Ogotomalli, where they showed that these people had started a dance, a ceremony known as Bado, more than 500 years ago, where they danced the orbit of a star, which we call Sirius B. This star is impossible to see with the naked eye. They not only saw it, but also danced its orbit up until the year 1990. They plotted its orbit up until the year1990. They stopped dancing in 1990. The Russians seemed to have found the solution to the question of how they saw it One of the Russian scientists, Volosimo, discovered perfectly ground spherical crystal lenses in ancient Egypt at the time when it was dominated by Black people. The Dogon kept up caravan trade with Egypt even after its decline and conquest by other people. The Dogon also pointed out that the was an object flashing and darkening near Sirius B. NASA discovered that five years ago. The Dogon knew about this at least 500 years ago. This object turned out to be dwarf nova, discovered by the NASA Einstein orbiting satellite. The Dogon said it was an extremely heavy star. We has found that it is the heaviest type of star in our galaxy. They also said it was made of a bright metallic iron. They said it had an orbit of 50 years around its parent star, Sirius A, and a orbit of one year on its own axis. We has found since that its elliptical orbit is correct we still don't know about the one-year orbit on its own axis.
We did not know that Africans had math ematical systems we thought they counted on their fingers. Claudia Zaslavsky wrote book on African mathematics. She did not go to the little tribes she went to the centers. The Yoruba, for example, have a very sophisticated number system. Where the Africans needed mathematics, where they had to use it in trade, over hundreds of years, they developed mathematical systems. They also developed a range of mathematical games.
We did not know they had writing systems. Let me name half a dozen. There is the Mande, which occurs more than 5000 years ago in the Sahara. They also have the Meroitic. We have found at UNESCO more than 800 surviving books in Meroitic, which means they had a lot more. That's what survived in Nubia. We found that the hieroglyphic script did not begin in Egypt, but that it began in Nubia, in the dynasty of Ta Seti, which was at least 200 years before the first Egyptian dynasty, 3300 BC. We also find they had the Vai script, which is a variant of the Mande, which is found among the elders of Sierra Leone. Then there is the Akan script. A new book is being written about that by a man called Bouah of the Ivory Coast. The most extraordinary thing we have found is a script that has survived among the slaves in Surinam, which is known as Asaka. And that is a variant of the Akan script. That is the only script that we know that traveled from Africa to America in slavery time.
Africans became masters in the medicinal use of at least a thousand plants. We have also found that they had far earlier cattle rearing and domestication of crops than any people. We have found, for example, vaccines among them that occurred before Jenner, who is supposed to be the discoverer of vaccines. We have found that in terms of the smallpox vaccine, Cotton Mather reported that his slave, Onesimos, brought the smallpox vaccine from Africa. They have found that Africans were using tetracycline long before us here. An American research associate discovered tetracycline in the bones of ancient Africans in Nubia. Tetracycline is an antibiotic that we began using in the 1950s. They found it in Nubia 14 centuries ago. And, where they found it, they also found the lowest incidence of infectious disease in an ancient population. They gave us physostigmine, one of the most important medicines in treating glaucoma. It was synthesized by the AfricanAmerican scientist, Dr. Percy Julian. They also gave us reserpine, which was the first drug to treat hypertension and psychotic disorder. They also gave us kaopectate, it has a brand name, but it came from an early Nigerian invention. The Bantu were found to be using aspirin very long ago. They were using salix capensis, which yields salicylic acid, the main active ingredient in aspirin. Africans had also made breakthroughs in certain surgical operations. In the middle of the 19th century, in Europe, whenever the Cesarean section was performed, the woman almost invariably died. The British learned that the Banyoro surgeons in East Africa were performing the surgery with 100 percent success. They sent a team under a Dr. Felkin, and that team studied how the Africans performed the operation. To their surprise, they found that these Banyoro surgeons had superior antiseptic solutions to what was then being used in Europe. They found that Africans could seal off bleeding points with minor tissue damage with the use of hot iron. They studied how they collapsed the abdominal wall and drew the stitches. After this, the Cesarean section was performed with much greater success in Europe.
We must remember that these scientific achievements happen at centers, not on the periphery of cultures. We now live in a global village, so, if anything is invented anywhere, we're all connected by communications. It automatically transmits itself almost instantly somewhere else. In the early world, wherever you were, in Europe, Africa, Asia--if you shatter the center, it disappears. The reason that we did not know of these sophistications is that after the conquest of Africa and America, the slave trade, and the breakup of centralized empires in Africa, all of these things went underground. It was like a holocaust it's as if you had hit Africa with six hydrogen bombs. There's an Africa before, and there's an Africa after the holocaust. The burgeoning technology, these incipient technologies, were halted. The point being made is not the lack of inventive capacity or the lack of technological sophistication, but that there is a break, there is a shattering, an explosion. There's no sense in us mourning the loss, but rather becoming aware of the potential that lay there so that we can pick up from that broken world and recover its fragments--to make whole again that which has been shattered.
It is important that the evidence of the African presence in America prior to Columbus' voyage be presented in a clear, academic manner so that the vast number of students in schools and universities can master these facts. My main focus here is the late preColumbian journeys that occurred between 1312 and 1492. In practically every field of study we have evidence of these connections, these voyages. This evidence can be established on a hard scientific basis. When I appeared at the Smithsonian last November, my opponent said that the evidence I presented on behalf of the Mandingo voyages is as good as the evidence for the Norse voyages. Leif Erikson is credited with having made a sojourn to America long before Columbus, and that is accepted. People should be aware of how much evidence does exist for the Mandingo voyages. At least a dozen Europeans who came to this hemisphere at the time of Columbus reported seeing Black people among the Native Americans. Columbus himself said that when he was in Haiti, Native Americans came to him and told him that Blackskinned people had come in large boats trading in gold-tipped metal spears. These spears were sent back to be assayed by metallurgists in Spain and were found to be, not similar, but identical in their ratio of gold, silver, and copper alloys as spears then being forged in African Guinea. Also, we find that the linguistic evidence links these spears with Africans and Americans before Columbus. The word being used for the spear in America was guanin. Other words like gana, kani, and coana are identical variants of the wordColumbus. The word being used for the spear in America was guanin. Other words like gana, kani, and coana are identical variants of the word found in Africa. There are other forms of the word like nuhkuh--in Arabic it's nege, but pronounced nuhkuh. I There is also botanical evidence. The Portuguese found a plant growing plentifully in West Africa off the coast of Guinea. Thinking it to be African, they took it in 1462--30 years before Columbus--and planted it in the Cape Verde Islands just off Africa. It turned out to be an American plant. It was gossypium hirsutum var. punctatum. This is very hard scientific evidence that an American plant had entered Africa before Columbus. We have also found African plants that entered America before Columbus. So, we have American plants entering Africa and African plants entering America. In addition to the botanical evidence, there is cartographic evidence--maps. There are two maps. One is known as the Piri Reis map, a very early map which has Cairo as the meridian for its computation of longitude. Nobody in Europe, 200 years after Columbus, could plot latitude and longitude. One hundred and fifty years after the death of Columbus, the Encyclopedia of Europe reported that longitude had not been discovered and was probably undiscoverable. Yet this map showed the correct latitudinal and longitudinal coordinates between the African Atlantic coast and the South American Atlantic coast. It has the Amazon river plotted. It has the Atrata river in Columbia plotted for 300 miles accurately. In addition to that, there is the Andrea Biancho map, which appeared in 1448. It has the exact coastline of Brazil, and the exact distance between West Africa and Brazil. There are currents off Africa that take you irresistibly towards South America, the Caribbean, and the Gulf of Mexico. In fact, there we have found Africans having been sighted exactly where these currents end. Continuing with the eyewitness accounts, Columbus' son, Fernando, reported in a book about his father, that his father told him he had seen Black people off Honduras. In addition, Peter Martyr, the first historian of America, reports seeing Black people in the region which is now called Panama. He said that these Black people were probably shipwrecked in the mountains at an earlier stage. We also have reports by Rodrigo de Colmenares, who said that one of the captains of Balboa saw Black people off the Gulf of San Miguel. Vasco Nunez de Balboa, himself, saw Black people among the Native Americans in 1513. When he asked where they came from, the Native Americans said, We do not know all that we know is that they are living in settlements nearby. Lopes de Gomara reported that the Black people they saw in that area were identical to the Black people of Guinea. They were not just dark-skinned like them, but identical. We have reports by Father Ramon Pane, who reports on the Black guanini, the Black gold merchants. We also have reports by Fray Gregoria Garcia, who reports that they saw Black people off Cartagena, Columbia. A man called Alonzo Ponce reports that the natives of Compeche, off the coast of Mexico, saw a boatload of Black people landing and terrorizing the natives there in pre-Spanish times. There is another report of Black people on the Honduran/Nicaraguan border. There is also a Captain Kerhallet, who drew a map of settlements along the South American coast where he said Black people had specific communities that were not the slave communities. Labe Brasseur de Bourbourg reports Black people in Panama, where he said there were two distinct tribes, the Black Mandinga and the red-skinned Tule. There are more, but this gives you an idea of how many of these people actually saw them and reported on them. These things are always put in footnotes that's why it took so many years to find out. When I wrote They Came Before Columbus, I only knew about half a dozen now I know of a dozen. I'm sure more will turn up. The Smithsonian found two African skeletons in Hull Bay in the US. Virgin Islands near St. Thomas. They found them in preColumbian layers, or strata, dated 1250 AD, more than 200 years before Columbus. They said they were African males in their 30s and they found a pre-Columbian American ornament around the forearm of one of these African skeletons. One of the marvelous things about that finding is that close by in St. John's, at the bottom of an ancient waterfall, I found a dot and crescent script. It has been deciphered by the Libyan Department of Antiquities and was found to be the Tifinag branch of the Libyan script. It was used mainly by darkskinned people in southern Libya, the Tamahaq Berbers, who were largely Black before mixtures came into North Africa. It was also used by some of the people in medieval Mali. Apart from these finds, we have found a lot of terra cotta, clay sculptures. Von Wuthenau found dozens of these terra cotta both in South America and parts of Mexico. Those that are found from this period, about 200 years before Columbus, are strikingly African. They are not only African in terms of facial features, they have the hair, the coloration-- oxide dyes are actually introduced into the clay to evoke the coloration. They are absolutely startling they look like modern things, and there is no question about their age and the layers in which they were found or the cultures in which they were found. In addition to that, there is the capacity to travel. Many people thought that the Africans could not travel. But, in fact, Thor Hyerdahl got Africans on Lake Chad, through a man called Abdullah Djibrine, to rebuild a papyrus reed boat which had been used by Africans before Christ. That boat successffilly crossed the Atlantic in 1969. It crossed from Safi in North Africa all the way to Barbados. The important thing about the Hyerdahl experiment was that the steering rudder broke on the first day, so, the boat came by itself, drawn by the currents. There are three currents off Africa that will take anything to America, if the fish don't get it first. Dr. Bombard, in 1952, made the journey in the most ancient and primitive boat, a dugout. He crossed without a crew, without a sail, without food or water, using an African fishing kit and an instrument to squeeze juice out of the fish. He made it across in less time than Columbus or Vespucci. The reason he made it in less time is that there are two advantages that Africans have. First, Africa is only 1500 miles from America at its nearest point Europe is 3,000 miles away, twice as far. Second, Europe does not have the advantage of the African current. In addition, on the Indian Ocean we have found boats which took elephants to China 200 years before Columbus. You can't bring elephants to China in a dugout.
So, you see, whether it is navigational, oceanographic, cartographic, linguistic, botanical, eyewitness account, skeletal, epigraphical--script-there is evidence in nearly a dozen disciplines. No find, in any archeological context, even if you go back to early man, can provide evidence of its existence in nearly a dozen disciplines. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason, except prejudice and a refusal to look at the evidence, that can dismiss this as simply fantasy.
Author Information Dr. Ivan Van Sertima is one ofthe world's preeminent authorities on African and African-American civilizations. He is a linguist, anthropologist, and professor of African Studies at Rutgers University. He is the author of They Came Before Columbus, a powerful book that documents the presence of Africans in ancient America.
LIKE I SAID,NUBIA,MALI,SONGHAY AND SOME OTHER AFRICAN CIVILIZATIONS HAD THIS KNOW HOW OF BLUE CRABON STEEL TOO.IVAN DID NOT KNOW TOO MUCH ABOUT THEMBUT NOW WE KNOW THAT THIS KNOWHOW WAS IN OTHER PARTS IN AFRICA TOO LIKE WEST AFRICA,NUBIA AND MAYBE SOME OTHER PARTS.WE KNOW MORE NOW WHEN IVAN WROTE HIS COMMENTS ABOVE.CIVLIIZATION IN AFRICA WAS HIGH WHEN THE EUROPEANS CONQURED MOST OF IT AND IT IS STILL HIGH NOW.SOMETHINGS NEED UPDATING IN THE COMMENTS OF IVAN SINCE WE HAVE NEW INFO ABOUT AFRICA OF THE PAST BUT HIS PAST COMMENTS GIVES YOU A IDEA OF AFRICAN SCIENCE AND OTHER THINGS IN THE PAST.
Posts: 2688 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kenndo: I WROTE about this awhile ago and so did not others.just type in mali,nubia or search engine here and you would see because i just dont want to repeat myself all the time.the same thing with this iq nonsense.every 5 or 10 years you have some white racist who come out and says hat black have lower iq's and blacks always have to be on the defensive.i will post alink here with post of the past and send you something in private .
emxaple supercar posted a article awhile ago about early civilzations in west africa before islam and one of the oldest boats found in nigeria in the world.I CAN'T FIND everything now.maybe supercar,rasol ,djehuti could enlighten you.
This is most interesting. As for IQ data, the gap between blacks and whites is well established. The only line of contention is what causes this and how much of it is genetic versus environmental.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also in “Lost Cities of Africa” we read about an expedition into the far interior in the 19th century and people meeting a remote kingdom, the travelers were impressed by the king's court and their dress, especially for a people supposedly so "barbarous and savage"
Sample of an African court:
quote:After his journeys through central Africa Livingstone repeatedly commented on the peace and security that reigned over great expanses of the interior, and Krapf in east Africa at about the same would find the same thing. These people might not be anxious for Christian teaching, Livingstone said, but there was “no impediment in the way of instruction.” On the contrary, “every headmen would be proud of a European visitor or resident in his territory, and there is perfect security for life and property”- he was thinking of course, of human dangers not of animals and disease-“in the interior.” Missionaries cooking in the cannibal pot would become a standby of European humor. As it happens, only six missionaries of some three hundred penetrated into east and central Africa before 1884 are known to have been killed by Africans, and none of these, it would appear, was killed by wanton murder. What looked like chaos, in short, was seldom anything of the kind; what seemed like great danger of life was nearly always a huge exaggeration. Life for the traveler in middle Africa was in fact a good deal safer- from wars and human killing- than it generally was in Europe; Which may explain, of course, the gentler way in which Africans were accustomed to welcome strangers.
quote:Originally posted by Yonis2: It's funny how these kazhar jews (fake hebrews) and other so called "whites" of usa are always the ones who gloat about the ancient achievemnets of the middle east and southern europe when in reality there is no real link. both groups were untill recently described by the people they claim, as "barbarians" (just citing the ancients) While the real descendants from these areas the kahzars and descendants of germanic and gaulic tribes take credit for as their "racial ancestors" never or rarely engage in such redicoulas muscle flexing when talking of their ancestors. It's more often than not a practice/attitude which prevails in "the new world" i rarely see it in europe.
I don't believe this to be true. The racist groups in Europe are much larger and much more dangerous than anything one sees in the New World.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: Read the book and perhaps we can all compile a worthwhile rebuttal. There are enough areas where Hart's analysis is weak and where I disagree. But, on the whole, it's a decent book that has a lot of explanatory power. This is what one looks for in history books - solid questions to "why" things happened.
Nonsense. Hart's book does not answer JACK. It just presents GARBAGE for disposal.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: First, the book explicitly says that civilization arose in the Middle East and not Europe and that the Middle East brought civilization to Europe. Therefore, it does not claim that Europe created civilization.
It also states that Mongols historically had the highest intelligence due to living in extremely cold climates, thus their ability to conquer Europeans, Middle Eastern people, Africans, and so forth even though Mongols always had small population.
As for IQ, I would urge you NOT to dismiss it. It is not some fringe science. It has been established for well over 100 years and it has real life consequences.
While the mainstream has gone in one direction, the science continues to go in the other direction. The data compiled regarding IQ has only gotten stronger over the past 3 decades and it's a well accepted measurement within the scientific community - and educational systems.
sshaun002, stop desperately holding on to nonsense, trying to pass it off under the guise of "accepted science". I've already shown you a history mapping the course of this problematic sub-field as it is drenched in pre-conceived assumptions and misappropriation of data. Again, contrary to what you imply here, IQ has NEVER been found to have any genetic basis and after years of rigorous testing and examination, the consensus pretty much affirms what I've stated.
It is also so painfully obvious that your insistence to promote this seeming "genetic variation" is clouded by biased wishful thinking. I know this because I'd just given you a PDF study preformed by Leonard Lieberman and contributed to by a plethora of other scientists in direct denunciation and refutation of the very race loons that you cite here.
Again, I show you a paper entitled: "How Caucasoids got such big crania and why they shrank : From Morton to Rushton"( Click Here Again!) , and as a supposed rebuttal, you show me a paper by Philippe Rushton himself?! Him and Jensen are virtually the only two "science" quacks holding steadfast to their demonstrably bogus hypotheses, yet their Eurocentric followers hold them dear in that they openly reinforce racial superiority, no matter how many times they've been refuted by mainstream academics, as can be seen here as well (click that).
A lot of their work, ironically have shown opposite conclusions. One minor example is that African Americans seem to possess more neurons (thought to be indicative of mental capabilities) than the average white American. Rushton was caught with his hand in the cookie jar plenty of times, but if this man is your idol, then nothing I show you would probably lead you on the objective path.
Also, some of the main points that I referred to as "fringe" also is the completely absurd notion that Egyptians descent from southeast Asians, or any non-African people for that matter. Funny how when even modern Egyptologists debunk such hyperdiffusionist ideas ( see here), people in need of comfort start resorting to astrophysicists as authorities for biohistory and population genetics. How rich..
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I'll play along with this troll-bait thread for one post.
White American IQ score = 100 Jewish American IQ score = 114
Does Hart explain the IQ gap between Hybrid Jews and Aryan Whites?
Does he explain why Hybrid European Jews who have more African ancestry than whites also have higher IQ's and greater intellectual acheivement, in spite of the racism they face in Europe?
Does he believe whites are genetically inferior to Jews?
Is Jewish intellectual acheivement the result of 'hybrid vigour'? IE - the fact that Jews are a mixture of European Asian and African, unlike low IQ white Europeans who are the product of recessive inbreeding?
Does Hart elaborate on the need for European whites to practise discrimination against Hybrid Jews in order to counter-balance the natural intellectual superiority of Jew Hybrids, and compensate for white racial inferiority?
If that is not the reason for white anti-semitism, what then in Hart's view...is?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kenndo: I WROTE about this awhile ago and so did not others.just type in mali,nubia or search engine here and you would see because i just dont want to repeat myself all the time.the same thing with this iq nonsense.every 5 or 10 years you have some white racist who come out and says hat black have lower iq's and blacks always have to be on the defensive.i will post alink here with post of the past and send you something in private .
emxaple supercar posted a article awhile ago about early civilzations in west africa before islam and one of the oldest boats found in nigeria in the world.I CAN'T FIND everything now.maybe supercar,rasol ,djehuti could enlighten you.
This is most interesting. As for IQ data, the gap between blacks and whites is well established. The only line of contention is what causes this and how much of it is genetic versus environmental.
arabs wrote that the european were the dumbest folks they knew in the middle ages.certain greeks and romans wrotes than the africans were the smartest folks they knew.why is that different today?because it is not.now i am not saying that modern europeans are dumb like arabs writers said in the past about europeans but africans are highly intelligent just like anyone else today.let's give this scholar hart a iq test and see if you could past in africa.i know there are some african scholars who could put a test together for him and let's see how fars he goes in a african culture today.he will not get far,trust me.
by the way the ancient egyptians are a not a mixture of southwest asians and africans.egyptians were africans,and yes later in ancient times there were some that mix but most egyptians did not mix with outsiders in ancient times.
Posts: 2688 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kenndo: arabs wrote that the european were the dumbest folks the knew in the middle ages.certain greeks and romans wrotes than the africans were the smartest folks they knew.why is that different today?because it is not.now i am saying that europeans are dumb like arabs writers said in the past but africans are highly intelligent just like anyone else today.let's give this scholar hart a iq test and see if you could past in africa.i know there are some african scholars who could put a test together for him and let's see how fars he goes in a african culture today.he will not get far,trust me.
by the way the ancient egyptians are a not a mixture of southwest asians and africans.egyptians were africans,and yes later in ancient times there were some that mix but most egyptians did not mix with outsiders in ancient times. [/QB]
posted
I don't know if the mongols of today are the same as those in the past. I know a lot of them were absorbed into the populations that they conquered.
quote: Nonsense really. Its all based upon the arbitrary assumption that generalized geographical groups such as African ,Europeans, east Asians etc, are the basis of these so called "genetic" differences and that they are perfectly clear-cut and explicit, where is the proof?
What is to say that a Hausa of Nigeria is not more intelligent on average than a Yoruba? Or a Swede to an Irish?
This data does exist. Irish IQ does differ from Swede which does differ from other European countries. However, all of the averages are close and around 100. Similarly African IQs are around similar values.
quote:
quote:Most (85%) of our genetic variation is within populations rather than among them, even when different sequences of DNA (or proteins) are examined (Barbujani et al., 1997 ). Statistical divisions of humanity based on different kinds of genetic data do not group people consistently into races (Romualdi, 2002 ).
Given the fact that humanity started in Africa, and the most physical diversity can be shown within African groups, one could actually make more of a case of separate African "races" than anywhere else. If one is to argue of genetic between group IQ differences you would think they would start there.
Hart cites the work of geneticist giant Cavalli-Sforza which shows that people do group into the racial categories established long ago and which we group just by using our eyes. Asians, Africans, Europeans.
I'm not saying you believe this about Ethiopians or not but many racist/racialists believe Ethiopians are mixed with south west Asians
But also their IQ is the 2nd lowest of Africans according to the same people; you would think the outside genes would help raise Ethiopians above other Africans in IQ
Again I'm not saying you believe that just that it's a contradiction many racists have
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
:
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
is clouded by biased wishful thinking. I know this because I'd just given you a PDF study preformed by Leonard Lieberman and contributed to by a plethora of other scientists in direct denunciation and refutation of the very race loons that you cite here.
Printer-friendly view of this topic