posted
Mediterranean is a term still bandied about when more precise words will not suffice a positer's pet theory.
There is not now nor has there ever been any cuisine, culture, music, language, architecture, basic spirituality, agriculture, flora, fauna, etc that is universal to all lands embanking that sea.
Nor can civilizations as different as say the northeast African civilization of ancient Egypt and the sub-Alpine European civilization of Rome be lumped together as so-called "Mediterranean civilization" when they have so very little in common (especially ethnically).
So, outside of geography or climate, what do the aboriginal cultures of the twenty one Mediterranean littoral countries
Morocco
Algeria
Malta
Tunisia
Libya
Egypt
Palestine
Israel
Lebanon
Syria
Turkey
Cyprus
Crete
Greece
Albania
Italy
Sicily
Sardinia
Corsica
France
Spain
have in common that could hope to justify Mediterranean as a blanket description for the all of them?
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
So, outside of geography or climate, what do the aboriginal cultures of the twenty one Mediterranean littoral countries...
Those who use it, generally justify with the flimsy idea that it is a general reference to regions bordering the Mediterranean sea, and/or the idea that these cultural complexes in the past, had "traded" amongst themselves within relative geographical proximity. In some cases like that of ancient Egypt, the advocates seemingly prefer this term over "Red Sea civilization", which is also an application based on the same level of flimsiness. For those [particularly non-Africans], who don't get amusement from the idea that "ancient Egypt" is African based, the term incites a sense of relief of not having to refer to this complex in an African context, but rather, lump it with non-African territories under the generalized "Mediterranean" moniker, and in effect, distance its relationship with the rest of Africa and simultaneously increase its relationship with non-African entities lumped into the same construct.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interestingly, coming from someone who frequents this board, UP Man/Achillobator/Tyrannosaurus wrote elsewhere:
Well, why did you choose to use "Semite"? Besides, the consensus seems to be that the Ancient Egyptians were a multi-chromatic society, with blacks predominanting in Upper Egypt and more Mediterranean people in the north.
What is "more Mediterranean" supposed to be? Goes back to my point that:
For those [particularly non-Africans], who don't get amusement from the idea that "ancient Egypt" is African based, the term incites a sense of relief of not having to refer to this complex in an African context, but rather, lump it with non-African territories under the generalized "Mediterranean" moniker, and in effect, distance its relationship with the rest of Africa and simultaneously increase its relationship with non-African entities lumped into the same construct.Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Strictly speaking, 'Mediterranean' is the sea that bounds southern Europe, Southwest Asia, and Northern Africa. Of course the Eurocents have really done a number on the term. To use the Mediterranean as some focal point of the "caucasian race". Especially anthropologist Sergei, who came up with his "Mediterranean race" which was a subgroup of the "caucasian race". What's funny is that many peoples who are not even close to the Mediterranean like Indians and Southeast Asians were classified as such.
Posts: 26243 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sergi never classified all his Mediterraneans as members of a caucasian race. If you insist that he did, please provide a citatin from him (not from somebody reviewing him who can't tell the difference between Sergi and those who Sergi quotes in disagreement). Nor did Sergi class Levantines within his Mediterranean race.
posted
^Well if not Sergei than Coon. One or the other (I can't keep track of all these debunked Eurocent scholars).
Posts: 26243 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well dayyum pahdnuh, that's a like saying if not Djehuti tththen Jaime (Salsasin, etc.)
And if anything Sergi was Medicentric and I doubt he's debunked. His science is now outdated, his separating African Meds from Africsn non-Meds is disproved, yet in his day independent minded black history scholars used Sergi's Med Race book to the best of their interest for all it and he were worth.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
So, outside of geography or climate, what do the aboriginal cultures of the twenty one Mediterranean littoral countries...
Those who use it, generally justify with the flimsy idea that it is a general reference to regions bordering the Mediterranean sea, and/or the idea that these cultural complexes in the past, had "traded" amongst themselves within relative geographical proximity. In some cases like that of ancient Egypt, the advocates seemingly prefer this term over "Red Sea civilization", which is also an application based on the same level of flimsiness. For those [particularly non-Africans], who don't get amusement from the idea that "ancient Egypt" is African based, the term incites a sense of relief of not having to refer to this complex in an African context, but rather, lump it with non-African territories under the generalized "Mediterranean" moniker, and in effect, distance its relationship with the rest of Africa and simultaneously increase its relationship with non-African entities lumped into the same construct.
BINGO!! We have a winner...
Posts: 1219 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Of course, Mysterysolver is only repeating what is long been known about the use of the phrase "Mediterranean" when it comes to ancient cultures.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Well dayyum pahdnuh, that's a like saying if not Djehuti tththen Jaime (Salsasin, etc.)
And if anything Sergi was Medicentric and I doubt he's debunked. His science is now outdated, his separating African Meds from Africsn non-Meds is disproved, yet in his day independent minded black history scholars used Sergi's Med Race book to the best of their interest for all it and he were worth.
Takruri, I take it that you are a fan of Sergi's work(?)
Posts: 26243 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
^^Of course, Mysterysolver is only repeating what is long been known about the use of the phrase "Mediterranean" when it comes to ancient cultures.
"only repeating what is long been known about the use of the phrase "Mediterranean" when it comes to ancient cultures"...after whom, and specifically where?.....which if it is the case, just goes to show the underlying intellectual deprivation with which those who are supposedly in the know of the above, continue to propagate its contextualization as described [above], and hence in doing so, attempt to lend it some "legitimacy", as well as general acceptance by an inalert and subservient audience.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
I must have seen Sergi on the local public library shelves in my youth. My first truly conscious allusion to it was when I entered college and found it in the broadside Black Manhood by an author only known as Ta(r)harqa, who quoted Sergi's famous anti-Eurocentric rebuttal to his colleagues' "dark whites" doublespeak in reference to Ethiopians, "If they are black then how can they be white?"
Then I recalled Rogers' use of Sergi. I didn't know it at the time, but DuBois quoted passages from Sergi as did Parker.
Just as Diop is not debunked though on certain issues is outdated today, so is Sergi who hails from a much earlier time than Diop, so we would quite naturally not expect late 1800's anthropology to know or use the tools at our disposal in this the 21st century.
Yet, what Sergi saw in osteo measurements we see in NRY, specifically E3b. We're on much surer ground than Sergi was because he was wrong about some of the peoples he excluded as well as though he mistakenly included. He was right about the East African origins and spread to North Africa and the northern Mediterranean shores.
And despite the title of his book and its postulations, there's no such thing as a Mediterranean race or stock.
Somewhere where I can't find it is a recent discussion involving Sergi where Rasol made a good point about Sergi in very astute verbiage such that I got an understanding of Sergi that before then I couldn't see :that he separated his black Eurafrican subgroup from the rest of the black Africans. Anybody who can dig up that thread?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Takruri, I take it that you are a fan of Sergi's work(?)
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: "only repeating what is long been known about the use of the phrase "Mediterranean" when it comes to ancient cultures"[/i]...after whom, and specifically where...
I am saying, you are just repeating a well known fact about the fallacy that is Eurocentrics use of the term "Mediterranean". It is a geographic term that has been slyly used as a cultural term.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: No, I'm not a fan nor have I any heroes.
I must have seen Sergi on the local public library shelves in my youth. My first truly conscious allusion to it was when I entered college and found it in the broadside Black Manhood by an author only known as Ta(r)harqa, who quoted Sergi's famous anti-Eurocentric rebuttal to his colleagues' "dark whites" doublespeak in reference to Ethiopians, "If they are blackthen how can they be white?"
Then I recalled Rogers' use of Sergi. I didn't know it at the time, but DuBois quoted passages from Sergi as did Parker.
Just as Diop is not debunked though on certain issues is outdated today, so is Sergi who hails from a much earlier time than Diop, so we would quite naturally not expect late 1800's anthropology to know or use the tools at our disposal in this the 21st century.
Yet, what Sergi saw in osteo measurements we see in NRY, specifically E3b. We're on much surer ground than Sergi was because he was wrong about some of the peoples he excluded as well as though he mistakenly included. He was right about the East African origins and spread to North Africa and the northern Mediterranean shores.
And despite the title of his book and its postulations, there's no such thing as a Mediterranean race or stock.
Somewhere where I can't find it is a recent discussion involving Sergi where Rasol made a good point about Sergi in very astute verbiage such that I got an understanding of Sergi that before then I couldn't see :that he separated his black Eurafrican subgroup from the rest of the black Africans. Anybody who can dig up that thread?
^That is pretty much what I meant-- that Sergi is wrong for seperating his so-called "Eurafricans" from other Africans.
Posts: 26243 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Despite dismal effort to smear by association with Coon and such Ilk, no, Sergi was no "wacist." nor did he ever posit the nonsense recently attributed to him.
As I did years ago in an above post I invite proofs to the contrary but do not reply unless you have a copy of Mediterranean Race in your hands.
posted
?? 2007!!!
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
BTW. DJ and his typical slick talking forked tongued response.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is no such thing as a Mediterranean “Race” but he was right in his postulation. We know that now. An African Origin of the Neolithics who brought civilization to the shores of Africa , Southern Europe(we now know they reached into Northern Europe since the Scandinavians farmers were also Neolithics), Persia and the Harrapan Valley. As I stated before. He separated Asiatics from Neolithic Eurafrican based upon Osteo measurements. Coon came to the same conclusion.
I remember when I brought up that discussion with the then rabid un-reformed Cass. He told me I was wrong but went back to read my quoted passages. He took back everything he said. Lol! Was Sergi an Africanist?
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic