quote:Providing the strongest evidence yet that humans are still evolving, researchers have detected some 700 regions of the human genome where genes appear to have been reshaped by natural selection, a principal force of evolution, within the last 5,000 to 15,000 years.
The genes that show this evolutionary change include some responsible for the senses of taste and smell, digestion, bone structure, skin color and brain function.
Many of these instances of selection may reflect the pressures that came to bear as people abandoned their hunting and gathering way of life for settlement and agriculture, a transition well under way in Europe and East Asia some 5,000 years ago.
Under natural selection, beneficial genes become more common in a population as their owners have more progeny.
Three populations were studied, Africans, East Asians and Europeans. In each, a mostly different set of genes had been favored by natural selection. The selected genes, which affect skin color, hair texture and bone structure, may underlie the present-day differences in racial appearance.
The study of selected genes may help reconstruct many crucial events in the human past. It may also help physical anthropologists explain why people over the world have such a variety of distinctive appearances, even though their genes are on the whole similar, said Dr. Spencer Wells, director of the Genographic Project of the National Geographic Society.
The finding adds substantially to the evidence that human evolution did not grind to a halt in the distant past, as is tacitly assumed by many social scientists. Even evolutionary psychologists, who interpret human behavior in terms of what the brain evolved to do, hold that the work of natural selection in shaping the human mind was completed in the pre-agricultural past, more than 10,000 years ago.
"There is ample evidence that selection has been a major driving point in our evolution during the last 10,000 years, and there is no reason to suppose that it has stopped," said Jonathan Pritchard, a population geneticist at the University of Chicago who headed the study.
Dr. Pritchard and his colleagues, Benjamin Voight, Sridhar Kudaravalli and Xiaoquan Wen, report their findings in today's issue of PLOS-Biology.
Their data is based on DNA changes in three populations gathered by the HapMap project, which built on the decoding of the human genome in 2003. The data, though collected to help identify variant genes that contribute to disease, also give evidence of evolutionary change.
The fingerprints of natural selection in DNA are hard to recognize. Just a handful of recently selected genes have previously been identified, like those that confer resistance to malaria or the ability to digest lactose in adulthood, an adaptation common in Northern Europeans whose ancestors thrived on cattle milk.
But the authors of the HapMap study released last October found many other regions where selection seemed to have occurred, as did an analysis published in December by Robert K. Moysis of the University of California, Irvine.
Dr. Pritchard's scan of the human genome differs from the previous two because he has developed a statistical test to identify just genes that have started to spread through populations in recent millennia and have not yet become universal, as many advantageous genes eventually do.
The selected genes he has detected fall into a handful of functional categories, as might be expected if people were adapting to specific changes in their environment. Some are genes involved in digesting particular foods like the lactose-digesting gene common in Europeans. Some are genes that mediate taste and smell as well as detoxify plant poisons, perhaps signaling a shift in diet from wild foods to domesticated plants and animals.
Dr. Pritchard estimates that the average point at which the selected genes started to become more common under the pressure of natural selection is 10,800 years ago in the African population and 6,600 years ago in the Asian and European populations.
Dr. Richard G. Klein, a paleoanthropologist at Stanford, said that it was hard to correlate the specific gene changes in the three populations with events in the archaeological record, but that the timing and nature of the changes in the East Asians and Europeans seemed compatible with the shift to agriculture. Rice farming became widespread in China 6,000 to 7,000 years ago, and agriculture reached Europe from the Near East around the same time.
Skeletons similar in form to modern Chinese are hard to find before that period, Dr. Klein said, and there are few European skeletons older than 10,000 years that look like modern Europeans.
That suggests that a change in bone structure occurred in the two populations, perhaps in connection with the shift to agriculture. Dr. Pritchard's team found that several genes associated with embryonic development of the bones had been under selection in East Asians and Europeans, and these could be another sign of the forager-to-farmer transition, Dr. Klein said.
Dr. Wells, of the National Geographic Society, said Dr. Pritchard's results were fascinating and would help anthropologists explain the immense diversity of human populations even though their genes are generally similar. The relative handful of selected genes that Dr. Pritchard's study has pinpointed may hold the answer, he said, adding, "Each gene has a story of some pressure we adapted to."
Dr. Wells is gathering DNA from across the globe to map in finer detail the genetic variation brought to light by the HapMap project.
Dr. Pritchard's list of selected genes also includes five that affect skin color. The selected versions of the genes occur solely in Europeans and are presumably responsible for pale skin. Anthropologists have generally assumed that the first modern humans to arrive in Europe some 45,000 years ago had the dark skin of their African origins, but soon acquired the paler skin needed to admit sunlight for vitamin D synthesis.
The finding of five skin genes selected 6,600 years ago could imply that Europeans acquired their pale skin much more recently. Or, the selected genes may have been a reinforcement of a process established earlier, Dr. Pritchard said.
The five genes show no sign of selective pressure in East Asians.
Because Chinese and Japanese are also pale, Dr. Pritchard said, evolution must have accomplished the same goal in those populations by working through different genes or by changing the same genes but many thousands of years before, so that the signal of selection is no longer visible to the new test.
Dr. Pritchard also detected selection at work in brain genes, including a group known as microcephaly genes because, when disrupted, they cause people to be born with unusually small brains.
Dr. Bruce Lahn, also of the University of Chicago, theorizes that successive changes in the microcephaly genes may have enabled the brain to enlarge in primate evolution, a process that may have continued in the recent human past.
Last September, Dr. Lahn reported that one microcephaly gene had recently changed in Europeans and another in Europeans and Asians. He predicted that other brain genes would be found to have changed in other populations.
Dr. Pritchard's test did not detect a signal of selection in Dr. Lahn's two genes, but that may just reflect limitations of the test, he and Dr. Lahn said. Dr. Pritchard found one microcephaly gene that had been selected for in Africans and another in Europeans and East Asians. Another brain gene, SNTG1, was under heavy selection in all three populations.
"It seems like a really interesting gene, given our results, but there doesn't seem to be that much known about exactly what it's doing to the brain," Dr. Pritchard said.
Dr. Wells said that it was not surprising the brain had continued to evolve along with other types of genes, but that nothing could be inferred about the nature of the selective pressure until the function of the selected genes was understood.
The four populations analyzed in the HapMap project are the Yoruba of Nigeria, Han Chinese from Beijing, Japanese from Tokyo and a French collection of Utah families of European descent. The populations are assumed to be typical of sub-Saharan Africa, East Asia and Europe, but the representation, though presumably good enough for medical studies, may not be exact.
Dr. Pritchard's test for selection rests on the fact that an advantageous mutation is inherited along with its gene and a large block of DNA in which the gene sits. If the improved gene spreads quickly, the DNA region that includes it will become less diverse across a population because so many people now carry the same sequence of DNA units at that location.
Dr. Pritchard's test measures the difference in DNA diversity between those who carry a new gene and those who do not, and a significantly lesser diversity is taken as a sign of selection. The difference disappears when the improved gene has swept through the entire population, as eventually happens, so the test picks up only new gene variants on their way to becoming universal.
The selected genes turned out to be quite different from one racial group to another. Dr. Pritchard's test identified 206 regions of the genome that are under selection in the Yorubans, 185 regions in East Asians and 188 in Europeans. The few overlaps between races concern genes that could have been spread by migration or else be instances of independent evolution, Dr. Pritchard said.
I've included this as an item that may hopefully be of interest to the forum.
Posted by Calypso (Member # 8587) on :
quote:Dr. Richard G. Klein, a paleoanthropologist at Stanford, said that it was hard to correlate the specific gene changes in the three populations with events in the archaeological record, but that the timing and nature of the changes in the East Asians and Europeans seemed compatible with the shift to agriculture.
Read between the lines. The good doctor can't understand the 10800 year figure for Africans.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
Yes, very interesting Calypso.
quote:Dr. Pritchard estimates that the average point at which the selected genes started to become more common under the pressure of natural selection is 10,800 years ago in the African population and 6,600 years ago in the Asian and European populations.
Posted by Calypso (Member # 8587) on :
quote:Rasol writes: Yes, very interesting Calypso.
It bolsters much of what we discuss here regarding the anteriority of the African neolithic and the notion that a new technolgy and way of life was introduced into the Levant and Europe from Africa.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
Posted recently by Supercar:
quote: Pleistocene connections between Africa and SouthWest Asia: an archaeological perspective.
By Dr. Ofer Bar-Yosef, 1987; The African Archaeological Review; Chapter 5, pg 29-38.
The Mushabians moved into the Sinai from the Nile Delta, bring North African lithic chipping techniques.
Thus the population overflow from Northeast Africa played a -definite role- in the establishment of the Natufian adaptation, which in turn led to the emergence of agriculture as a new subsistence system.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:
Dr. Richard G. Klein, a paleoanthropologist at Stanford, said that it was hard to correlate the specific gene changes in the three populations with events in the archaeological record, but that the timing and nature of the changes in the East Asians and Europeans seemed compatible with the shift to agriculture. Rice farming became widespread in China 6,000 to 7,000 years ago, and agriculture reached Europe from the Near East around the same time.
Skeletons similar in form to modern Chinese are hard to find before that period, Dr. Klein said, and there are few European skeletons older than 10,000 years that look like modern Europeans.
This is all hog wash. First of all there are no skeletons of modern Chinese dating to 10,000 years. The earliest Mongoloid people in China and elsewhere were the Indonesian/Filipino type.The contempory Chinese are decendants of the Zhou who did not arrive in China until after 1700 BC.
There are no contemporary European that are anologous to the Old Europeans (c.4000-3500 BC) let alone, related to Grimaldi and Cro-Magnon (another African type) skeletons dating to 10,000 BC. Moreover, as pointed out in a recent news story the ancient Europeans and contemporary Europeans have different genes and do not show continuity.
The skeletal evidence for Asians and Europeans do not go back to 10000 BC, therefore the conclusions of this paper are unfounded. This paper is propaganda. Even if there were Indo-European speakers at 10,000 BC these people were nomadic and failed to practice agriculture at this early date.
.
Posted by Calypso (Member # 8587) on :
quote:Clyde Winters wrote: Moreover, as pointed out in a recent news story the ancient Europeans and contemporary Europeans have different genes and do not show continuity.
Hi Clyde, Are you refering to the research that found discontinuity between the original farmers and contemporary Europeans? I think the same research found continuity between the original hunter-gatherers and contemporary population.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: This is all hog wash. First of all there are no skeletons of modern Chinese dating to 10,000 years. The earliest Mongoloid people in China and elsewhere were the Indonesian/Filipino type.The contempory Chinese are decendants of the Zhou who did not arrive in China until after 1700 BC.
There are no contemporary European that are anologous to the Old Europeans (c.4000-3500 BC) let alone, related to Grimaldi and Cro-Magnon (another African type) skeletons dating to 10,000 BC. Moreover, as pointed out in a recent news story the ancient Europeans and contemporary Europeans have different genes and do not show continuity.
The skeletal evidence for Asians and Europeans do not go back to 10000 BC, therefore the conclusions of this paper are unfounded. This paper is propaganda. Even if there were Indo-European speakers at 10,000 BC these people were nomadic and failed to practice agriculture at this early date.
.
LOL Sorry Clyde, but the only one spouting hogwash is YOU. Where is the evidence of Austronesians (Indonesian-Filipinos) in China [if that's what you mean]?! If Chinese are "recent" arrivals as you claim, then where did they originate?? You are aware that human remains have been found in China dating from the Mesolithic that look like Native Americans or such.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
djehuti
quote: LOL Sorry Clyde, but the only one spouting hogwash is YOU. Where is the evidence of Austronesians (Indonesian-Filipinos) in China [if that's what you mean]?! If Chinese are "recent" arrivals as you claim, then where did they originate?? You are aware that human remains have been found in China dating from the Mesolithic that look like Native Americans or such.
I am surprised to discover you know much about African history but none about your own. The earliest remains in China are of "Negro" people. Next we have the Classical Mongoloids or Austronesian speakers.
Archaeological research makes it clear that Negroids were very common to ancient China. F. Weidenreich ( in Bull. Nat. Hist. Soc. Peiping 13, (1938-30) noted that the one of the earliest skulls from north China found in the Upper Cave of Chou-k'ou-tien, was of a Oceanic Negroid/ Melanesoid " (p.163). This is the so-called Peking Man. This would place people in China during the Mesolithic looking like African/Negro people , not native American.
These blacks were the dominant group in South China. Kwang-chih Chang, writing in the 4th edition of Archaeology of ancient China (1986) wrote that:" by the beginning of the Recent (Holocene) period the population in North China and that in the southwest and in Indochina had become sufficiently differentiated to be designated as Mongoloid and OCEANIC NEGROID races respectively ."(p.64). By the Upper Pleistocene the Negroid type was typified by the Liu-chiang skulls from Yunnan (Chang, 1986, p.69).
Negroid skeletons dating to the early periods of Southern Chinese history have been found in Shangdong, Jiantung, Sichuan, Yunnan, Pearl River delta and Jiangxi especially at the initial sites of Chingliengang (Ch'ing-lien-kang) and Mazhiabang (Ma chia-pang) phases ( see: K.C. Chang, The archaeology of ancient China, (Yale University Press:New Haven,1977) p.76) . The Chingliengang culture is often referred to as the Ta-wen-k'ou (Dawenkou) culture of North China. The presence of Negroid skeletal remains at Dawenkou sites make it clear that Negroes were still in the North in addition to South China. The Dawenkou culture predates the Lung-shan culture which is associated with the Xia civilization.
Many researchers believe that the Yi of Southern China were the ancestors of the Austronesian, Polynesian and Melanesian people.
In the Chinese literature the Blacks were called li-min, Kunlung, Ch'iang (Qiang), Yi and Yueh. The founders of the Xia Dynasty and the Shang Dynasties were blacks. These blacks were called Yueh and Qiang. The modern Chinese are descendants of the Zhou. The second Shang Dynasty ( situated at Anyang) was founded by the Yin. As a result this dynasty is called Shang-Yin.
The Yin or Classical/ Oceanic Mongoloid type is associated with the Austronesian speakers ( Kwang-chih Chang, "Prehistoric and early historic culture horizons and traditions in South China", Current Anthropology, 5 (1964) pp.359-375 :375). Djehuti your Austronesian or Oceanic ancestors were referred to in the Chinese literature as Yin, Feng, Yen, Zhiu Yi and Lun Yi.
.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:The skeletal evidence for Asians and Europeans do not go back to 10000 BC, therefore the conclusions of this paper are unfounded.
I think I understand what you are saying, however literally skeletal evidence of Europeans goes back to 35,000 BC and for Asians and Australians to 50/60 thousand BC - however much or however little they resemble modern Europeans or Asians - they are the ancestors of the modern populations.
[once again we see the need to distinguish phenotype and genotype]
The reason I understand what you are saying is that - you are defining Asian and European as physically closely resembling modern northEast Asians and Europeans.
This is true - to a degree - although it is also subjective and subject to bias amongst anthropologists - especially those who use race-typologies like K-zoid, N-groid and M-gloid - which because they are inherently nonsensical - can then be "pronounced" or denied, pretty much whenever and where-ever they want.
Colin Groves is notorious for playing this game.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
rasol
quote: I think I understand what you are saying, however literally skeletal evidence of Europeans goes back to 35,000 BC and for Asians and Australians to 50/60 thousand BC - however much or however little they resemble modern Europeans or Asians - they are the ancestors of the modern populations.
[once again we see the need to distinguish phenotype and genotype]
The reason I understand what you are saying is that - you are defining Asian and European as physically closely resembling modern northEast Asians and Europeans.
This is true - to a degree - although it is also subjective and subject to bias amongst anthropologists - especially those who use race-typologies like K-zoid, N-groid and M-gloid - which because they are inherently nonsensical - can then be "pronounced" or denied, pretty much whenever and where-ever they want.
I don't think the contemporary European and Chinese people are descendants of the original Black population which lived in Europe and Asia; and I do not believe that the Chinese are descendants of the Austronesian speaking people.
If you look at the textual evidence and the skeletal record contemporary Chinese and European people come out of nowhere after 1500 BC, the European Sea People came from the North and attacked Egypt, and the Chinese (Hua) people came from the North and ran the Black Qiang and Yueh tribes, along with the Austronesian Yin (classical mongoloid or Austronesian spekers) off the Chinese mainland back into Southeast Asia or on to the Pacific Islands.
.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:I don't think the contemporary European and Chinese people are descendants of the original Black population which lived in Europe and Asia
Then where do they come from: not indigenous to Europe, not indigineous to Asia, certainly not indiginous to Africa:
Then where (?)
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
rasol
quote:
Then where do they come from: not indigenous to Europe, not indigineous to Asia, certainly not indiginous to Africa:
Then where (?)
This is a good question which the Indo-European specialist are trying to determine today. I won't give my opinion on this issue in this forum.
.
Posted by Calypso (Member # 8587) on :
The hunter-gatherer lifestyle would imply low population densities because large areas of land would be needed to adequately provide the needs of each individual. The low population densities of these foraging cultures would make skeletal remains more difficult to find but there is no need to introduce unknowns - such as populations that arise from nowhere.
The whole point of posting this article is to provide more evidence of the anteriority of the agricultural revolution and of animal domestication in Africa.
As Rasol has pointed out in his reply this revolution was carried into the Levant and Europe.
Range expansion occured because this new lifestyle lead to greater population densities and thus the need for more arable land and grazing territory.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: djehuti
I am surprised to discover you know much about African history but none about your own. The earliest remains in China are of "Negro" people. Next we have the Classical Mongoloids or Austronesian speakers.
Well Winters, the earliest remains anywhere on th globe were "negro" including Europe, what exactly is your point?
quote:Archaeological research makes it clear that Negroids were very common to ancient China. F. Weidenreich ( in Bull. Nat. Hist. Soc. Peiping 13, (1938-30) noted that the one of the earliest skulls from north China found in the Upper Cave of Chou-k'ou-tien, was of a Oceanic Negroid/ Melanesoid " (p.163). This is the so-called Peking Man. This would place people in China during the Mesolithic looking like African/Negro people , not native American.
Well since ALL non-Africans are descended from Africans this is not really surpring. And we also have the negroid remains of Lucy in South America who pre-dates the Olmecs by the way.
quote:These blacks were the dominant group in South China. Kwang-chih Chang, writing in the 4th edition of Archaeology of ancient China (1986) wrote that:" by the beginning of the Recent (Holocene) period the population in North China and that in the southwest and in Indochina had become sufficiently differentiated to be designated as Mongoloid and OCEANIC NEGROID races respectively ."(p.64). By the Upper Pleistocene the Negroid type was typified by the Liu-chiang skulls from Yunnan (Chang, 1986, p.69).
I wouldn't say 'dominant'. Even by dynastic Chinese times black populations were a minority but still acknowledged. One of the ancient Kingdoms of Malaysia were said to be ruled by a very dark queen.
quote:Negroid skeletons dating to the early periods of Southern Chinese history have been found in Shangdong, Jiantung, Sichuan, Yunnan, Pearl River delta and Jiangxi especially at the initial sites of Chingliengang (Ch'ing-lien-kang) and Mazhiabang (Ma chia-pang) phases ( see: K.C. Chang, The archaeology of ancient China, (Yale University Press:New Haven,1977) p.76) . The Chingliengang culture is often referred to as the Ta-wen-k'ou (Dawenkou) culture of North China. The presence of Negroid skeletal remains at Dawenkou sites make it clear that Negroes were still in the North in addition to South China. The Dawenkou culture predates the Lung-shan culture which is associated with the Xia civilization.
Well that depends on what you call 'negroid'. Kenewick Man in North America and even some Africans were called "caucasoid"!
quote:Many researchers believe that the Yi of Southern China were the ancestors of the Austronesian, Polynesian and Melanesian people.
But there are others that suggests the indigenous people of Taiwan were the ancestors of Austronesian speakers and may have even been responsible for the spread of Neolithic culture in East Asia! Certain genetic studies seem to support this.
quote:In the Chinese literature the Blacks were called li-min, Kunlung, Ch'iang (Qiang), Yi and Yueh. The founders of the Xia Dynasty and the Shang Dynasties were blacks. These blacks were called Yueh and Qiang. The modern Chinese are descendants of the Zhou. The second Shang Dynasty ( situated at Anyang) was founded by the Yin. As a result this dynasty is called Shang-Yin.
And where is the evidence that Xia were black?!! You even claim a Manding connection to Japanese, so there ends the story.
quote:The Yin or Classical/ Oceanic Mongoloid type is associated with the Austronesian speakers ( Kwang-chih Chang, "Prehistoric and early historic culture horizons and traditions in South China", Current Anthropology, 5 (1964) pp.359-375 :375). Djehuti your Austronesian or Oceanic ancestors were referred to in the Chinese literature as Yin, Feng, Yen, Zhiu Yi and Lun Yi.
More broke-down evidence in the form of poor linguistics. Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: This is a good question which the Indo-European specialist are trying to determine today. I won't give my opinion on this issue in this forum.
LMFO Way over Winter's head as usual! Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
This is a good question which the Indo-European specialist are trying to determine today. I won't give my opinion on this issue in this forum.
The evidence is contradictory concerning Indo-European origins. Originally Europeans were proud of the fact that they were nomads. As a symbol of their heritage they made the creation of the wheel and the domestication of the horse as symbols of Indo-European civilization.
In the 19th Century linguist began to "reconstruct" Proto-Indo-European the imagined ancestral language of people speaking these related languages. I say that Proto-Indo-European , like my Paleo-African reseaches is imagined because we have no text supporting the Proto/Paleo-languages we reconstruct. This research suggested that Indo-Europeans may have come from the Black Sea area. The only problem with the linguistic discoveries is that much of the cultural lexical is of unknown origin.
Renfrew attempted to link the IE people to the early farmers in Anatolia and Europe. This view was rejected because there is no evidence for farming playing a major role in IE civilization. Moreover, if farming terms are limited to geographically neighboring IE languages they suggest that these terms could be either innovations for this group of languages or borrowing from a a former language spoken in the area when the IE speakers arrived.
This conflicted with the popular view that the first IE speakers were Kurgan nomads . And in recent years some researchers have pointed out the fact that the Kurgan people may not have even domesticated the horse.
The Anatolia hypothesis had a good fit for Indo-European origin, because of Hittite. Indo-Europeanist claim that Hittite was the first IE language. The Hittite language is called Nesa.
The only problem with this theory was it was later found that the earliest rulers of the land were Kaska and Hatti speakers who spoke non-IE languages called Khattili. The gods of the Hattic people were Kasku and Kusuh (< Kush).
The Hattic people, may be related to the Hatiu, one of the Delta Tehenu tribes. Many archaeologist believe that the Tehenu people were related to the C-Group people. The Hattic language is closely related to African and Dravidian languages for example: English Hattic Egyptian .. Malinke (Mande language)
powerful .ur ..wr'great,big' . Fara
protect .. $uh . Swh .. solo-
head .. tup .. tp . tu 'strike the head'
up,upper tufa .tp .dya, tu 'raising ground'
to stretch . put . pd . pe, bamba
to prosper . falfat -- ..find'ya
pour .. duq .. --- . du 'to dispense'
child .. pin,pinu --- den
Mother .na-a .. -- . Na
lord .. sa ..-- .. sa
place .. -ka .--- . ka
The languages have similar syntax Hattic le fil 'his house'; Mande a falu 'his father's house'.
This suggest that the first Anatolians were Kushites, a view supported by the Hattic name for themselves: Kashka.
The Hittites adopted much of Hattic culture. There were other languages spoken in Anatolia, including Palaic Luwian and Hurrian.
The languages of the Hittites: Nesa, was a lingua franca used by the Luwian and Palaic speakers.
The Hurrians spoke a non-IE language.Formerly,linguist suggested that the Hurrians were dominated by Indic speakers. Linguist of the IE languages were fond of this theory because some of the names for the earliest Indo-Aryan gods,chariots and horsemenship are found in Hurrian. This made the Indo-Aryan domination of Hurrians good support for an Anatolia origin for the IE speakers.This theory held high regrads until Bjarte Kaldhol studied 500 Hurrian names and found that only 5, were Indo-Aryan sounding. This made it clear that the IA people probably learned horsemenship from the Hurrians, and not the other way around.
Hurrian . Sanscrit
Mi-it-ra .. Mitra
Aru-na Varuna
In-da-ra .. Indra
At the base of Nesite, the language of the Hittites is Hattic. Since this language was used as a lingua franca, Nesa was probably not an IE language as assumed by IE linguist. This along with the fact that Diakonoff and Kohl point out that the Hittites never defeated the Kaska; and the Hurrians introduced horse-drawn war chariots for military purposes indicate that Anatolia probably was not a homeland for the IE speakers.
Finally, this review of the theories about IE languages is complicated and on-going.
[/B]
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:This research suggested that Indo-Europeans may have come from the Black Sea area
Which would make them native Eurasians, no?
My question was:
quote:Then where do they come from: not indigenous to Europe, not indigineous to Asia, certainly not indiginous to Africa
They have to come from somewhere - you can't just pretend that present population os Europe and Asia - have no ancient ancestry.
Almost all of your methodologies in some ways mirror extreme Eurocentric fallacy [aka Dienekes, et. al, ad nauseum].
These fibbers define the modern african race as - negroes - and then claim negroes - 'don't exist' in the past.
Are you trying to define Asian and European so that they also do not exist in the past?
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
rasol
quote:
Are you trying to define Asian and European so that they also do not exist in the past?
No I am saying that there is no textual or skeletal evidence for the Modern Chinese (Mongoloid) group who call themselves Hua, and Modern European type called Caucasian until after 1500 BC.
As most of you know I don't believe mtDNA can really tell us the whole story of mankind's history over the past 10,000 years. This was proven when they published the study last year showing that the contemporary Europeans had little if anything genetically in common with the Old Europeans who began civilization on the Continent.
In addition, when you read the literature many researchers admit that some genetic evidence they find out of place in a specific country they just don't bother to report it. As a result, I read the mtDNA literature, but linguistic, skeletal remains and textual evidence informs most of my writing on history.
A positivist view of history (i.e., that the people who live in an area today probably lived in the same area in the past) may not give you the whole story. For example, if you look at Chinese history, we find that the first Chinese Empire was Xia it was founded by Mande speaking people; next in line was the first Shang Civilization it was founded by the Dravidian speakers; the Second Shang Empire was founded by the Classical Mongoloid people, the people who live in Indo-China the Pacific Islands and Indonesia today; while the Zhou Dynasty was founded by the contemporary Chinese. Naturally their was mixing among the races but this is the general frame for the rise of civilization in China.
The most interesting thing I have been thinking about over the years is the ancient history of the Austro-Asiatic speakers. It is clear from Paul Kekai Manansalas research on the relationship between the Sumerian language and the Austro-Asiatic language family that the speakers of these languages are genetically related.
My earlier research had made it clear that the Dravidian and Mande speaking people expanded across West, South and East Asia together after 3000 BC. The close relationship between the Austro-Asiatic and Sumerian-Dravidian-Mande group of languages has made me reconsider some of my earlier hypotheses.
Given the close relationship of Sumerian and Austro-Asiatic indicate that the later group had lived in close proximity to one another prior to 3000 BC, since the Sumer civilization rose in Mesopotamia a few centuries thereafter. Also, I have seen no evidence of the Sumerians settling parts of Southeast Asia and the Pacific, even though their own records do record a possible migration to Dilmun > the Indus Valley.
My original hypothesis saw the Classical Mongoloid or Yi people of China, being pushed out of China into Southeast Asia (all the way back to India), Indonesia and the Pacific by the Hua tribes of the Zhou Dynasty. These people thus replaced the Dravidians in Southeast Asia,and the former African speaking groups that lived in South China (especially Yunan) and the Pacific Islands. Other African and Dravidian speaking groups from Kansu and Xianjiang Provinces in China made their way back to India via Central Asia.
Now I have a number of questions regarding the origin of the AustroAsiatic speakers:
Did Classical Mongoloid people leave Africa before the Dravidian and Niger-Congo speakers to found ciivlizations in Asia?
Did the Classical Mongoloids originate in China?
Did the Classical Mongoloids found Mehrgarh in India and Catal Huyuk?
Was the first civilization of the Classical Mongoloids the Shang-Anyang Civilization?
Given the evidence I believe the Classical Mongoloid or AustroAsiatic people originally lived in Africa.
.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:rasol:
Almost all of your methodologies in some ways mirror extreme Eurocentric fallacy [aka Dienekes, et. al, ad nauseum].
These fibbers define the modern african race as - negroes - and then claim negroes - 'don't exist' in the past.
Are you trying to define Asian and European so that they also do not exist in the past?
Interestingly, from my observations of Mr. Winters' various hypothesis; from the Olmecs, Mande speakers, Berbers, to the Dravidians and Pacific Islanders, he seems to posit the origins of extra-African cultures to early "Africans", and at the same time posit African cultures/accomplishments to extra-African folks. For example, the origins of the Olmec cultural complex is attributed to the Mande speakers of West Africa, while the Berber languages are attributed to a Germanic group.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
rasol
quote:
Are you trying to define Asian and European so that they also do not exist in the past?
No I am saying that there is no textual or skeletal evidence for the Modern Chinese (Mongoloid) group who call themselves Hua, and Modern European type called Caucasian until after 1500 BC.
As most of you know I don't believe mtDNA can really tell us the whole story of mankind's history over the past 10,000 years. This was proven when they published the study last year showing that the contemporary Europeans had little if anything genetically in common with the Old Europeans who began civilization on the Continent.
The said publication would be...
quote:Clyde Winters:
In addition, when you read the literature many researchers admit that some genetic evidence they find out of place in a specific country they just don't bother to report it. As a result, I read the mtDNA literature, but linguistic, skeletal remains and textual evidence informs most of my writing on history.
A positivist view of history (i.e., that the people who live in an area today probably lived in the same area in the past) may not give you the whole story. For example, if you look at Chinese history, we find that the first Chinese Empire was Xia it was founded by Mande speaking people; next in line was the first Shang Civilization it was founded by the Dravidian speakers; the Second Shang Empire was founded by the Classical Mongoloid people, the people who live in Indo-China the Pacific Islands and Indonesia today; while the Zhou Dynasty was founded by the contemporary Chinese. Naturally their was mixing among the races but this is the general frame for the rise of civilization in China.
The most interesting thing I have been thinking about over the years is the ancient history of the Austro-Asiatic speakers. It is clear from Paul Kekai Manansalas research on the relationship between the Sumerian language and the Austro-Asiatic language family that the speakers of these languages are genetically related.
My earlier research had made it clear that the Dravidian and Mande speaking people expanded across West, South and East Asia together after 3000 BC. The close relationship between the Austro-Asiatic and Sumerian-Dravidian-Mande group of languages has made me reconsider some of my earlier hypotheses.
...Which was discredited here.
quote:Clyde Winters:
Given the close relationship of Sumerian and Austro-Asiatic indicate that the later group had lived in close proximity to one another prior to 3000 BC, since the Sumer civilization rose in Mesopotamia a few centuries thereafter. Also, I have seen no evidence of the Sumerians settling parts of Southeast Asia and the Pacific, even though their own records do record a possible migration to Dilmun > the Indus Valley.
My original hypothesis saw the Classical Mongoloid or Yi people of China, being pushed out of China into Southeast Asia (all the way back to India), Indonesia and the Pacific by the Hua tribes of the Zhou Dynasty. These people thus replaced the Dravidians in Southeast Asia,and the former African speaking groups that lived in South China (especially Yunan) and the Pacific Islands. Other African and Dravidian speaking groups from Kansu and Xianjiang Provinces in China made their way back to India via Central Asia.
Now I have a number of questions regarding the origin of the AustroAsiatic speakers:
Did Classical Mongoloid people leave Africa before the Dravidian and Niger-Congo speakers to found ciivlizations in Asia?
Did the Classical Mongoloids originate in China?
Did the Classical Mongoloids found Mehrgarh in India and Catal Huyuk?
Was the first civilization of the Classical Mongoloids the Shang-Anyang Civilization?
Given the evidence I believe the Classical Mongoloid or AustroAsiatic people originally lived in Africa.
I find it interesting that you downplay the importance of genetics on the likes of the theories that you [or any other person for that matter] come up with. Yet, I don't see how you could claim to know the distinct identities of these folks, without support of bio-anthropology, in the first place. You have to understand that, people are biological entities, and as such, have to leave clues about their "presence", which is where human anatomy and molecular genetics, hand in hand, come to play. Thus, for example, if you claim the Dravidians were in so and so place, at so and so time, not only do you need archeology and linguistics to back your claims, but your hypothesis has to also take into account Dravidian gene pool, as well as the socio-ethnic complex of any potential inhabitants of the locales involved.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
rasol
quote:
Thus, for example, if you claim the Dravidians were in so and so place, at so and so time, not only do you need archeology and linguistics to back your claims, but your hypothesis has to also take into account Dravidian gene pool, as well as the socio-ethnic complex of any potential inhabitants of the locales involved.
I don't think you need genetic evidence to support linguistic, anthropological and archaeological evidence. Just because the genes don't support a fact does not make the genetic evidence correct. If archaeology, linguistics and anthropological research support a conclusion , while genetic research does not it says that the genetic research is incorrect.
People accept the genetic evidence because "surprisingly" it supports a Eurocentric view of the world. This is why so many new comers to this forum see you guys as Afrocentric researchers, which you are not, because of the way you interpret the genetic research you read.
You can pretend to yourselves that race does not exist, here on this forum . And that genes, not facial features and skin color determine and explain who we are; but in the real world, and even in the genetic papers you cite race is paramount.
Aluta continua (The struggle continues)
.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:I don't think you need genetic evidence to support linguistic, anthropological and archaeological evidence.
If your theories are correct then all lines of investigation will either affirm them, or remain neutral.
If they are not - then one or more line of inquiry will dis-confirm them.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
*sigh* We all know about Winter's agenda to associate language to a 'race' typology.
quote:The evidence is contradictory concerning Indo-European origins. Originally Europeans were proud of the fact that they were nomads. As a symbol of their heritage they made the creation of the wheel and the domestication of the horse as symbols of Indo-European civilization.
A big but common mistake is to associate Indo-European speakers with ALL Europeans. All archaeological as well historical evidence shows that the ancestors of the majority of Europeans were NOT originally Indo-European speaking peoples.
quote:In the 19th Century linguist began to "reconstruct" Proto-Indo-European the imagined ancestral language of people speaking these related languages. I say that Proto-Indo-European , like my Paleo-African reseaches is imagined because we have no text supporting the Proto/Paleo-languages we reconstruct. This research suggested that Indo-Europeans may have come from the Black Sea area. The only problem with the linguistic discoveries is that much of the cultural lexical is of unknown origin.
You are correct about this. Indo-European speakers but NOT all Europeans.
quote:Renfrew attempted to link the IE people to the early farmers in Anatolia and Europe. This view was rejected because there is no evidence for farming playing a major role in IE civilization. Moreover, if farming terms are limited to geographically neighboring IE languages they suggest that these terms could be either innovations for this group of languages or borrowing from a a former language spoken in the area when the IE speakers arrived.
The latter hypothesis seems to be the case.
quote:This conflicted with the popular view that the first IE speakers were Kurgan nomads . And in recent years some researchers have pointed out the fact that the Kurgan people may not have even domesticated the horse.
How does it conflict with the Kurgan theory? And if the Kurgans didn't domesticate the horse then who did, Africans?! LOL
quote:The Anatolia hypothesis had a good fit for Indo-European origin, because of Hittite. Indo-Europeanist claim that Hittite was the first IE language. The Hittite language is called Nesa.
Correction. Hittite is the first recorded IE language, NOT the first of them all.
quote:The only problem with this theory was it was later found that the earliest rulers of the land were Kaska and Hatti speakers who spoke non-IE languages called Khattili. The gods of the Hattic people were Kasku and Kusuh (< Kush).
You are correct about all of this except of the 'Kush' part. Again associating any and every word similar to Kush. LOL
quote:The Hattic people, may be related to the Hatiu, one of the Delta Tehenu tribes. Many archaeologist believe that the Tehenu people were related to the C-Group people. The Hattic language is closely related to African and Dravidian languages for example:
English Hattic Egyptian .. Malinke (Mande language)
powerful .ur ..wr'great,big' . Fara
protect .. $uh . Swh .. solo-
head .. tup .. tp . tu 'strike the head'
up,upper tufa .tp .dya, tu 'raising ground'
to stretch . put . pd . pe, bamba
to prosper . falfat -- ..find'ya
pour .. duq .. --- . du 'to dispense'
child .. pin,pinu --- den
Mother .na-a .. -- . Na
lord .. sa ..-- .. sa
place .. -ka .--- . ka
NOPE.
quote:The languages have similar syntax Hattic le fil 'his house'; Mande a falu 'his father's house'.
This suggest that the first Anatolians were Kushites, a view supported by the Hattic name for themselves: Kashka.
NOPE.
quote:The Hittites adopted much of Hattic culture. There were other languages spoken in Anatolia, including Palaic Luwian and Hurrian.
The languages of the Hittites: Nesa, was a lingua franca used by the Luwian and Palaic speakers.
The Hurrians spoke a non-IE language.Formerly,linguist suggested that the Hurrians were dominated by Indic speakers. Linguist of the IE languages were fond of this theory because some of the names for the earliest Indo-Aryan gods,chariots and horsemenship are found in Hurrian. This made the Indo-Aryan domination of Hurrians good support for an Anatolia origin for the IE speakers.This theory held high regrads until Bjarte Kaldhol studied 500 Hurrian names and found that only 5, were Indo-Aryan sounding. This made it clear that the IA people probably learned horsemenship from the Hurrians, and not the other way around.
Hurrian . Sanscrit
Mi-it-ra .. Mitra
Aru-na Varuna
In-da-ra .. Indra
Correct except for one thing. These were not Hurrians but Mitanni. While the majority of Mitanni spoke Urartu which is a language related to Hurrian, the elite apparently spoke Indo-European.
quote:At the base of Nesite, the language of the Hittites is Hattic. Since this language was used as a lingua franca, Nesa was probably not an IE language as assumed by IE linguist. This along with the fact that Diakonoff and Kohl point out that the Hittites never defeated the Kaska; and the Hurrians introduced horse-drawn war chariots for military purposes indicate that Anatolia probably was not a homeland for the IE speakers.
Finally, this review of the theories about IE languages is complicated and on-going.
It sure is, but no Africans involved unless you count the spread of Neolithic.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
rasol
quote:
If your theories are correct then all lines of investigation will either affirm them, or remain neutral.
If they are not - then one or more line of inquiry will dis-confirm them.
You falsify a hypothesis based on abundance of evidence. The weight of the evidence supports my theory and thus it remains confirmed.
.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: rasol
quote:
Thus, for example, if you claim the Dravidians were in so and so place, at so and so time, not only do you need archeology and linguistics to back your claims, but your hypothesis has to also take into account Dravidian gene pool, as well as the socio-ethnic complex of any potential inhabitants of the locales involved.
...
Just note: That is me you are citing, not Rasol.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
djehuti
quote:
Correct except for one thing. These were not Hurrians but Mitanni. While the majority of Mitanni spoke Urartu which is a language related to Hurrian, the elite apparently spoke Indo-European.
Bjarte Kaldhol studied 500 Hurrian names and found that only 5, were Indo-Aryan sounding. Are disputing the research of Dr. Kaldhol?
This theory of an Indo-Aryan elite that ruled Mitanni always had some unresolved problems. For instance, only the male members of the ruling dynasty had Indo-Aryan names (e.g, Tasaratha ) and not the queens. But still, the evidence seems quite firm.
Then a Norwegian scholar, Bjarte Kaldhol, delivered a series of bombshells on the Indology list. In a remarkable series of posts, starting with this one, he proceeded to show that current scholarship in Hurrian rejects this theory. No one has provided a refutation, so I can only assume that he is correct. Here is a longish quote from one of his posts , more than just the state of affairs, it points to how that might have arisen (the $ is a "th"-like sound, my comments in {}).
"Just to give you an idea of how almost invisible the Indo-Aryans are at Nuzi and in the whole kingdom of Arrapha:
Among the five or six hundred names indexed in AASOR 16, I could find only five that have an Indo-Aryan "ring". Less than one percent. They are all found on two pages out of twenty-three, so, there are twenty-one non-IA pages. If I ask you to explain these names etymologically, I believe I shall have to wait ad Kalendas Graecas. Here they are - they can be read in many more ways than indicated:
1. Parda$sua? Farda$sua? Barda$sua? Farda$swa? Farda$sfa? etc.
{The point being that seeing Indo-Aryan in these names may simply be reader's bias.}
Except for Biriazzana, son of the Hurrian Pai-Tilla, and Purusa father of Hudib-Abu, both Hurrians, nothing is known about their families, I think. They are all men.
We have thousands of Akkadian administrative and legal texts from Nuzi, some of them at Harvard. They are full of Akkadianized Hurrian words. I do not remember to have seen any Indo-Aryan Rechtstermini among them. Where is the Indo-Aryan ruling class? This may sound polemical, but I would like to see some facts.
Also, I would like to point out that marianni does not mean "Streitwagenkaempfer" {chariot fighter}. It is simply a term denoting a social class - women and children could also be mariannena. There are mariannena who do not even possess a cart or a horse. One might object that this could have been a late development, but that would be speculative. Is marianni really a Hurrianized Indo-Aryan word? Or is it Hurro-Urartean marij-anne, as Diakonoff thought?
The other Hurrian social classes and groups are termed haniahhe, ehele, hup$e, unu$$uhuli etc. - all Hurrian words. There are no traces of an Indo-Aryan administrative language. Did it ever exist? Cord Kuhne, who in his article in Studies on the Civilization and Culture of Nuzi and the Hurrian, vol. 10, p. 203-221, "Imperial Mittani: An Attempt at Historical Reconstruction", starts by stating that "the haphazard and often ambiguous state of the historic documentation available allows only for an incomplete picture, resulting in many gaps that can be bridged only by hypotheses". But he proceeds to write history in a Herodotean vein, without reference to Hurrian glyptic art, religion, or archaeology, where he would have found nothing to substantiate claims like these:
"It seems probable that the 'Hurrian troops' meant by our annalistic texts were drawn from a recent wave of Hurrian invaders who had descended from the mountainous flanks of northwestern Iran and superseded the older Hurrian ethnic layers, eventually expanding the territory of settlement...
In support of a fairly recent arrival of a substantial part of these Hurrians is the convincing theory that their military and political success, and perhaps even their emigration, was due to the leading role of a group of Indo-Arians [sic et not aliter]... Perhaps they searched, together with their new partners, for better homesteads in the lush plains of Mesopotamia and provided successful leadership..."
This is where the cat escapes from the bag, as we say in Norwegian. The Hurrians, who were not Aryans, needed successful leadership.
{Demonstrating the importance of being Norwegian -- not having a German bias.}
My main objection (besides the curious idea that the steppes of Mesopotamia were "lush") is that there is nothing to substantiate the massive invasion envisaged. His linguistic argument - that the Hurrian language changed after the assumed invasion, is not tenable. In fact, the Akkadian language changed much more than Hurrian during the six hundred years from 1950 to 1350. Hurrian was spread over a vast area, and there were several dialects, but no Indo-Aryan influence can be detected either in vocabulary or syntax. No pure IA words are attested - only Hurrianized ones.
Kuhne does not refer to archaeology and religion, which demonstrate that the holy cities of the Hurrians were located in the Khabur triangle and in the area east of Tigris. Te$$ub is called The Great Lord of Kumme, which is thought to have been located in this area, and other Hurrian deities were connected to Ninuwa, Nagar/Nawar, and Halab, as well as to mountains and rivers in this part of Syria and Iraq.
None of the Hurrian kings who are claimed by some to have been Aryans, worshipped Indian or Iranian gods. Their gods are known. They were Syro-Mesopotamian deites, because the Hurrians were a North Syrian people rooted in this country, with very old traditions. In fact, if we turn to page 277 in op.cit., we find an article by Marie-Claude Tremouille, "La religion des Hourrites: etat actuel de nos connaissances", which concludes in the following way (this time translated for the benefit of lurkers, please forgive me if my English does not render the French text as well as it deserves):
"The documentation that we possess today shows that the Hurrians venerated the same gods and followed the same religious practices as did the other contemporaneous peoples in the Near East. Pressed to the extreme, one might even be led to ask oneself if there ever was a 'religion of the Hurrians'."
But she points to the excavations going on at Urgi$/Urkesh and Nagar (Tell Mozan and Tell Brak) and expresses the hope that they might bring us "quelques lumieres plus vives" {some light and clarity ?}. This is true. The capital of Mittani, Wa$$ukkanni/U$$ukkanni, has yet to be found. While Tell Brak tells the same story as Nuzi and Alalah, Wa$$ukkanni might tell another story. But I don't think it will be THAT different.
So, it appears that the Indologists were basing their view of Mitanni using scholarship from around World War II. But remember, the Nazis were proponents of a theory of racial superiority of blonde, blue-eyed supermen, Aryans, the originators of the Indo-European family of languages, and carriers of civilization. The Aryans supposedly went around conquering the world, subjugating and civilizing inferior people. Thus, the reading of Indo-Aryan into Hurrian may simply be an artifact of Nazi ideology (innocently and uncritically) adopted by later scholars. Or current Hurrian scholarship may simply be rejecting the Nazi past by stripping out a real Indo-Aryan presence from Mitanni. In any case, it has been a while since scholars of Sanskrit and of Hurrian have spoken to one another.
I hope the reader has found this to be a useful digression. Perhaps the reader has an increased appreciation of the difficulty of research in the humanities. "Truth" in the humanities has very different connotations from that in science.
What I've quoted from Bjarte Kaldhol does not touch on all the points raised by Mallory; but the arguments on these are similar. If the evidence of Indo-Aryan influence on Hurrian is unclear, then the argument about pre-Rigvedic forms of words found in Hurrian is more a matter of interpretation than of fact. With that understanding, we are in a position to examine why many arguments persist about how the Rig Veda is much older than the consensus view, and why they are not easily dismissed, even if they are wrong. We shall examine these arguments in part III.
Thus, for example, if you claim the Dravidians were in so and so place, at so and so time, not only do you need archeology and linguistics to back your claims, but your hypothesis has to also take into account Dravidian gene pool, as well as the socio-ethnic complex of any potential inhabitants of the locales involved.
I don't think you need genetic evidence to support linguistic, anthropological and archaeological evidence. Just because the genes don't support a fact does not make the genetic evidence correct. If archaeology, linguistics and anthropological research support a conclusion , while genetic research does not it says that the genetic research is incorrect.
If you feel that you as a person, who hypothetically speaking, happens to have relatives living outside the U.S., cannot be determined to be related to those relatives via genetic analysis! Basically, what you are saying is that human genealogical content, cannot be evidence of human presence Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: You falsify a hypothesis based on abundance of evidence.
Incorrect. That is an example of confirmation bias, and burdan of proof fallacy.
see, the following....
It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory - if we look for confirmations.
Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory - an event which would have refuted the theory.
Every "good" scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.
A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.
Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks.
Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory. - Karl Popper's Falsification Principle
Your linguistics arguably violate every one of the above principals:
* The selective trivial word lists - that seek only to confirm relationships where you desire them be found.
** The anti-scientific posturing against genetics - in which you essentially claim that genetics cannot be used to "disconfirm" your hypothesis on geneology, , so rendering your hypothesis effectly non falsifiable and hence - non scientific from the start.
You have yet to subject your hypothesis to the stringent qualifications of science.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Speaking for myself, Brother, you got that ever so right! The top contributors here have all at one time or another clarified themselves of the Afrocentric label and the cultural bias inherant to most of its subsets.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: ... so many new comers to this forum see you guys as Afrocentric researchers, which you are not,
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
rasol
quote:
** The anti-scientific posturing against genetics - in which you essentially claim that genetics cannot be used to "disconfirm" your hypothesis on geneology, , so rendering your hypothesis effectly non falsifiable and hence - non scientific from the start.
You have yet to subject your hypothesis to the stringent qualifications of science.
Science is based upon hypothesis testing. Dr. B.B. Lal claimed that the pottery used by the Megalithic people of South India was identical to the red-and-black pottery used the Nubians that he excavated in Africa. This led to hypothesis 2: if the people shared archaeological features, Africans and Dravidians probably shared culture features. This hypothesis was confirmed, and led to hypothesis 3: the Dravidians and Africans should speak genetically related languages. This hypothesis was also confirmed. This puts abundance of support behind the theory that Africans and Dravidians are related and the Dravidians originally came from Africa.
You claim genetic evidence does not support this relationship. If this hypothesis is correct you should be able to find supporting evidence for this theory. There is no supporting evidence for this theory because most geneticists believe that the M haplogroup originated in Africa. It is only a matter of time as genetic research advances that we will discover that they are one.
But until then, if you are correct that the Dravidians are not related to Africans and only recently migrated to India, you should be able to produce evidence that the linguistic, anthropological and archaeological evidence is false. Until you do this your theory remains unconfirmed.
.
Posted by Calypso (Member # 8587) on :
Another way that you can tell, that a hypothesis is on the right track, is if it receives independent corroboration. In this case the findings (see highlighted text in article above) of Dr. Pritchard and his colleagues, I believe, supports the idea that Africans were pioneers in adopting an agricultural lifestyle. As the language of the article suggests, their findings, regarding Africans, were unexpected to the research team. With a strong hypothesis lines converge.
A hypothesis that introduces more unknowns than it eliminates, muddying the water rather than clarifying, is on the wrong track.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Dr. B.B. Lal claimed that the pottery used by the Megalithic people of South India was identical to the red-and-black pottery used the Nubians that he excavated in Africa. This led to hypothesis 2: if the people shared archaeological features, Africans and Dravidians probably shared culture features.
This hypothesis was confirmed
Nope - see prior post on confirmation fallacy.
Your above statement confirms nothing beyound the existence of pottery which is found as far east as Japan at least as early if not earlier than in South India.
quote: and led to hypothesis 3: the Dravidians and Africans should speak genetically related languages.
That is a non-sequitur. Whatever is the case of the pottery would tell us nothing - in and of it itself - about language.
quote: This hypothesis was also confirmed.
Nope. You still confirmed nothing - for the all noise, you have said absolutely nothing other than that the Dravidians had pottery.
So what? The neolithic Japanese had pottery too.
Eventually almost all civilisations produced pottery - does it follow that they all speak AFrican languages? No. Does it follow that they are all descendant from Neolithic Africans? No.
quote: This puts abundance of support behind the theory that Africans and Dravidians are related and the Dravidians originally came from Africa.
Again no - absolutely no proof of anything has been offered in your reply - only overblown claims.
quote:You claim genetic evidence does not support this relationship.
Incorect. The correct statement is that geneticists and linguists correctly state that the evidence does not support your claims.
quote: If this hypothesis is correct
Burdan of proof fallacy. No hypothesis is offered here.
Only the observation that your claims are utterly baseless.
Unless and until you provide some - sound - basis for them - that is not a hypothesis - it is a fact.
quote: you should be able to find supporting evidence for this theory.
Again Burdan of Proof fallacy - your theory, your lack of evidence - your problem.
You simply make ridiculous claims supported by no scholarhip, and ask us to 'DIS-prove' them.
But you can't prove a negative - or disprove a nothing - and that is what your hypothesis amounts to - nothing.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by Calypso: Another way that you can tell, that a hypothesis is on the right track, is if it receives independent corroboration. In this case the findings (see highlighted text in article above) of Dr. Pritchard and his colleagues, I believe, supports the idea that Africans were pioneers in adopting an agricultural lifestyle. As the language of the article suggests, their findings, regarding Africans, were unexpected to the research team. With a strong hypothesis lines converge.
A hypothesis that introduces more unknowns than it eliminates, muddying the water rather than clarifying, is on the wrong track.
Well said. Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Calypso
quote:
A hypothesis that introduces more unknowns than it eliminates, muddying the water rather than clarifying, is on the wrong track.
This is why the genetic evidence disputing a Dravido-African connection must be rejected it has no support in relation to this reality. The linguistic, anthropological, and archaeological evidence proves that there is something wrong in the interpretation of the Dravidian genetic evidence. Researchers are trying to make the Dravidians original inhabitants of India when all the evidence, including oral traditions point to a recent migration of Dravidian people into South India, from Africa, Kumarinadu, and a back migration from China and Southeast Asia due to the Chinese pressure.
.
.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Dr. Winters writes: This is why the genetic evidence disputing a Dravido-African connection must be rejected.
You've reversed the matter.
You don't reject the evidence for the sake of the hypothesis, but rather you reject a hypothesis when falsified by the evidence - as your hypothesis most certainly has been.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
rasol
quote:
To challenge genetics you'd need to show us precisely where and how the science is faulity - and you can't do that with word lists either.
It is easy to attack genetic research, especially in regards to the Dravidian origin in India thesis. The geneticist support this theory by claiming that the ancient Dravidian expansion in India was due to agriculture, and the cultivation of wheat. And the Dravidian languages are not related to any other language except Elamite.
The ancient Dravidians were cattle herders and they grew millet, African millets instead of wheat. The Dravidian languages are not isolate languages they are genetically related to African languages .Once you knock down the idea that the Dravidians spoke a isolate language, cultivated wheat and were agriculturalist, the genetic evidence has nothing to support it. The absence of supporting evidence for the genetics will show that the science is faulty.
But this won't last long. Once geneticists see that the anhtropological, linguistic and archaeological evidence indicates that Dravidian and Africans are closely related they will stop pretending that the Dravidian M haplogroups are different from African M haplogroups so their "science" won't appear "faulty". Geneticist only know about Dravidian history, linguistics and etc., from a Eurocentric perspective. The geneticists don't even know that Dravidians have written their own history for thousands of years and have their own ideas about their roots not found in popular text on Indian history.
.
Posted by Calypso (Member # 8587) on :
quote:Rasol Wrote: Of course, it's the word lists that are not directly relevant to geneology - not genetics, which by definition provides the most direct possible evidence of your ancestry - namely your own genes.
To challenge genetics- pertaining to geneology - you'd need to show us precisely where and how the science is faulity - and you can't do that with word lists either.
This is the crux of the matter indeed Rasol. Dr Winters is questioning the ability of genetics to make meaningful claims regarding geneology but his critique of genetics is not based upon an examination of its internal principles but, after the fact, because it fails to validate his theories. I suspect that if it confirmed his notions he'd love it.
Dr. Winters I don't mean to impugn your character in any way by the above remarks but you can't justify rejecting genetic data because it undermines your theory. Genetic findings are not part of a hypothesis, as you stated above, its data plain and simple. It IS the reality.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Calypso
quote: This is the crux of the matter indeed Rasol. Dr Winters is questioning the ability of genetics to make meaningful claims regarding geneology but his critique of genetics is not based upon an examination of its internal principles but, after the fact, because it fails to validate his theories. I suspect that if it confirmed his notions he'd love it.
No I reject the genetic data because it is contrived to support the current research paradigm supported by the Academie. Any population movement supported by the Academie, is "surprisingly" supported by the "genetic" data.
As long as it is supported by invalid linguistic evidence, alleging a language family called Afro-Asiatic, which includes Berber when the linguistic evidence does not support this linguistic classification I must reject the science. This makes me believe that the geneticists don't really care about the truth they are just writing articles to increase their academic rank and get research grants.
You may see genetic research as your bride in your research. I hate to tell you this but genetic research is a whore. And many geneticists are pimping the science instead of always telling the truth.
Aluta Continua.....(The Struggle Continues) .
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:It is easy to attack genetic research,
It's easy to "attack" any scientific discipline, especially if you don't understand and don't want to - since all that is required is for you to go on not understanding it.
But "attacking" is neither a form of proof, nor a technique of falsifiction. It is just a kind of a agrression and usually a symptom of fear. [of genetics and how it moots your hypothesis?]
quote:The geneticist support this theory by claiming that the ancient Dravidian expansion in India was due to agriculture, and the cultivation of wheat.
What geneticists state based on genetics - is that Dravidians are largely descendant of Upper Paleolithic Asians, and not neolithic Africans.
What you state - is largely unintelligible - in reference to this, such as....
quote:The ancient Dravidians were cattle herders and they grew millet, African millets instead of wheat.
The Ancient Dravidians raised domesticated Indian cattle - not African cattle.
Millet is Native to both Asia and Africa - and, it is grown in the tropics as far East as China.
The Dravdians also grew Asian Wheat, and had Asian sheep and goats.
Morever Nile Valley AFricans grew Mesopotamian wheat, and Asian goats.
quote:The Dravidian languages are not isolate languages they are genetically related to African languages
More non-sequiturs from you. That claim does not follow logically from your empty 'attack' on genetics, or facile observation about millet.
quote:Onnce you knock down the idea that the Dravidians spoke a isolate language, cultivated wheat, and were agriculturalist,
You haven't, but even if you did, none of those things lead to the conclusion that Dravidians are descendant from Neolithic AFricans.
quote:the genetic evidence has nothing to support it.
That genetic evidence stands unrefuted. It's your hypothsis that are unsupported by any of your arguments.
quote:The absence of supporting evidence[ for the genetics will show that the science is faulty.
The abscene of any evidence for your hypothesis, plus you inability to deal with the genetic evidence exposes your hypothesis as being both faulty and very weak.
quote:But this won't last long. Once geneticists see that the anhtropological, linguistic and archaeological evidence indicates that Dravidian and Africans are closely related they will stop pretending that the Dravidian M haplogroups are different from African M haplogroups
This argument might be less comical had you not confused maternal lineage M2, with paternal E3a-M2,
Perhaps you should stop pretending to "attack" genetics - and start trying to learn it.
Then and only then, will your hypothesis be taken seriously.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Calypso writes: is is the crux of the matter indeed Rasol. Dr Winters is questioning the ability of genetics to make meaningful claims regarding geneology but his critique of genetics is not based upon an examination of its internal principles but, after the fact, because it fails to validate his theories. I suspect that if it confirmed his notions he'd love it.
I enjoy the conversation with Dr. Winters but I suspect even more:
I suspect he knows his hypothesis is - in deep trouble, and is testing the processes of bailing it out of trouble.
I'm willing to help him test it, for sporting saake, if nothing else. Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
rasol
quote:
The Ancient Dravidians raised domesticated Indian cattle - not African cattle.
Millet is Native to both Asia and Africa - and, it is grown in the tropics as far East as China.
The Dravdians also grew Asian Wheat, and had Asian sheep and goats.
Please post an article that the ancient Dravidian people cultivated wheat.
I invite you to also post to this forum any article that you can find that says the millet grown by the Dravidians originated in India. Also please post an article that shows that the Indus Valley millet originated in India instead of Africa.
Also please present evidence that the Sanga cattle of India was native to India, instead of Africa.
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
rasol
quote:
But "attacking" is neither a form of proof, nor a technique of falsifiction. It is just a kind of a agrression and usually a symptom of fear. [of genetics and how it moots your hypothesis?]
The Dravido-African relationship is firmly established, I have no fear about this.
.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ So....let's keep learning about genetics instead of trying in futility to beat it off with the primative wooden club of anti-scientific posings.
The DNA trail leading back to the origins of today's cattle has taken some surprising turns along the way.
- By Daniel G. Bradley
The genes present in the 1.3 billion cattle living on the Earth today represent a stream of inheritance that stretches back 10,000 years. The founding event in the legacy of the domesticated farm animal was the capture of the formidable wild ox, or aurochs. Taming a long-horned beast six feet tall at the shoulder must have been a daunting task, but it was just one of a series of plant and animal domestications that forever changed the way most people live.
But just what is the genetic heritage of domestic cattle? Was more than one kind of aurochs brought under human control, and if so, how many ancestral species does that heritage encompass?
INDIA:
Our work has shown that the cattle of Europe, northern Asia, and Africa all have closely related DNA sequences and that they all belong to a group that corresponds most closely to the humpless cattle known as Bos taurus.
But the genes of the humped, zebu cattle native to India, known as Bos indicus, tell a different story. On the bovine family tree, zebu are ten times further removed from the three members of the B. taurus group than those three are from one another.
The Indian humped cattle belong to a genetically distinct group of their own. So the genetic evidence firmly sides with the archaeological findings: early farmers, in what are now Pakistan and India, did indeed capture and tame their own zebu-like version of the wild ox.
EUROPE:
The forebears of European cattle, then, were wholesale importations from the Near East.
Today a British cow's mitochondrial genes are much more similar to the genes of a cow-ancient or modern-from Syria or Turkey, than to the genes of the wild ox that used to roam the island.
AFRICA:
According to our genetic analyses, African cattle originated neither from Indian humped cattle nor from Near Eastern cattle.
Those findings support the separate-origins theory of cattle domestication favored by archaeologists, who had maintained that in Africa, too, cattle domestication was local. Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
Good post Rasol. I wonder what Winters has to say about this.
Peace
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Indian humped cattle belong to a genetically distinct group of their own. So the genetic evidence firmly sides with the archaeological findings: early farmers, in what are now Pakistan and India, did indeed capture and tame their own zebu-like version of the wild ox.
...and this is where most linguists root the origins of the Dravidian languages.
...and, this is where geneticist root the origins of Dravidian lienages - in Upper Paleolithic southern Asia.
Good luck Dr. Winters...you've much work to do. Posted by Calypso (Member # 8587) on :
Dr. Winters, importation and exportation of food crops and livestock could easily have taken place along trade routes. Millet grows well in Africa and India so it doesn't really matter where it originated: one doesn't have to conclude that Tamils are expat Madingoes simply because they both planted pearl millet. BTW for a handful of Mandes to mushroom (no pun intended) into so many millions and millions (paraphrasing Carl Sagan)of Dravidians they must have grafted that millet with some good yohimbe.
Posted by Calypso (Member # 8587) on :
^^As always Rasol, you put the science and logic on the front burner.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
rasol
quote:
AFRICA:
According to our genetic analyses, African cattle originated neither from Indian humped cattle nor from Near Eastern cattle.
Those findings support the separate-origins theory of cattle domestication favored by archaeologists, who had maintained that in Africa, too, cattle domestication was local.
Rasol if you re-read my post I said Sanga cattle.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote: Millet grows well in Africa and India so it doesn't really matter where it originated: one doesn't have to conclude that Tamils are expat Madingoes simply because they both planted pearl millet.
I agree Calypso and per your parent post - there is much to be said for research into the myraid influence of the African neolithic.
Africa may have been the 1st region of the world to domesticate cattle.
African pottery - a precurser to sedantism - agriculure - food storage, etc.., is the earliest known, outside of Japan and predates both Mesapotamian and Indian.
There is little doubt that neolithic Africans poored out of the delta and into the Levant, and influenced the Levantine,Europe and Asia.
But, that's not the same thing as saying that the Dravidians come from Africa.
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
Dr. Winters is quiet. This just proves that his ideas are Bogus and not really that good. Dravidians belong to India not Africa. Good post Calypso. I for one don't understand why Winters claims the Dravidians as Africans and then says the Berbers who are African are not African. If he wants to learn the truth people will teach him the truth but he cant keep talking about the Dravidians being African they are not Africans. All this Afro Dravidian crap makes me laugh.
Peace
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Calyso
quote: Dr. Winters, importation and exportation of food crops and livestock could easily have taken place along trade routes. Millet grows well in Africa and India so it doesn't really matter where it originated: one doesn't have to conclude that Tamils are expat Madingoes simply because they both planted pearl millet.
The fact that both the Dravidians and Mande among other West African groups cultivated the same millets, while they are not cultivated along the Eastern African coastal region is one of the main reason some archaeologist believe that these people once were in close contact.
Absence of the cultivation of West African millets along the known trade routes to India and in East Africa supports the African origin of the Dravidian speaking people.
.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:The fact that both the Dravidians and Mande among other West African groups cultivated the same millets, while they are not cultivated along the Eastern African coastal region is one of the main reason some archaeologist believe that these people once were in close contact.
It helps if you confuse Mandingo male lineage E3a-M2 of which the Dravidians have none - with Dravidian female M2 lineages - of which the Mandingo have none - and you further profess that it's only a matter of time before geneticists see that they are in fact - the same lineage. Posted by Calypso (Member # 8587) on :
Hi King, Again, I want to stress that I have a great deal of respect for Dr. Winters, but he has to honestly confront the questions that Rasol, Supercar, alTakruri and Djehuti, to name a few, has posed to him regarding his theories.
In the early twentieth century there was widespread belief that the universe was filled with a substance called ether that facilitated the propagation of light through space. Michelson and Morley undertook an experiment to detect this ether. The experiment failed to detect it. As widespread and cherished as the belief in ether was in the scientific community -this belief had to be abandoned. A new paradigm had to be found. Out of this search came Einstein's theory of relativity.
Dr Winters has to abandon his theories. They're based upon superficial ideas that, as Rasol says, mirrors Eurocentricism. In this case the foundation of his view that Dravidians and Mande are related is the fact that they both have black skin. Knowing what we know today - that's a rather shakey foundation.
Posted by Calypso (Member # 8587) on :
quote:Dr. Winters wrote: The fact that both the Dravidians and Mande among other West African groups cultivated the same millets, while they are not cultivated along the Eastern African coastal region is one of the main reason some archaeologist believe that these people once were in close contact.
Dr. Winters please see the following:
quote:Pearl millet Pearl millet, Pennisetum glaucum, is also known as spiked millet, bajra (in India) and bulrush millet (Purseglove, 1972). Pearl millet may be considered as a single species but it includes a number of cultivated races. It almost certainly originated in tropical western Africa, where the greatest number of both wild and cultivated forms occurs. About 2 000 years ago the crop was carried to eastern and central Africa and to India, where because of its excellent tolerance to drought it became established in the drier environments
Some millet species are better suited to tropical environs compared to wheat which thrives in more temperate zones.
That's one reason you find millet in south India and tropical Africa, and wheat in Mesopotamia and Egypt.
Once agriculture is invented - these crops can easily spread from region to region, they do not require wholesale population replacement.
Black Dravidians independantly developed agriculture and animal domestication - and deserve as much credit for it as Black Africans.
Ironically - it's Europe - that can be shown - quite clearly, to have imported agriculture and cattle domestication.
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
Hear is a study on Dravidians that I think Clyde should read. Hope this helps. Dravidians belong to India:
quote:Dr Winters has to abandon his theories. They're based upon superficial ideas that, as Rasol says, mirrors Eurocentricism. In this case the foundation of his view that Dravidians and Mande are related is the fact that they both have black skin. Knowing what we know today - that's a rather shakey foundation
Very well said!
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Calyso
quote:
Dr Winters has to abandon his theories. They're based upon superficial ideas that, as Rasol says, mirrors Eurocentricism. In this case the foundation of his view that Dravidians and Mande are related is the fact that they both have black skin. Knowing what we know today - that's a rather shakey foundation.
My research has a firm foundation. If the only support you have disputing my research is genetics, this will not be enough to falsify my research.
Genetics have not changed anybody's idea about anything. It claims that all people are descendent from Africans, what's new about that. Most people in the 1930's were proving that the first people in the Americas were negroes, and that the grimaldi of Europe, and first man in China were negroes say around 20-30,000 years ago.
Then in the next breath these same scientist, say that the present people living in this or that area, have always lived in that area since the Mesolithic and especially during the Neolithic.
Then in the next breath we discover that the Natufians came from Africa and spread civilization into Europe. We also know that the skeletal remains, iconographic representations of negro figurines and archaeological assemblanges indicate that people from Africa moved into the Americas,Europe and Asia during the neolithic especially after 3000.
Yet the genetic literature claims that the only Blacks in these areas were their 30,000 years ago. How can I accept this research as valid, when it ignores all the other research showing a recent presence of Blacks in these areas.
I must reject this literature as illigitimate and not reliable since abundance of evidence proves that much of it in relation to recent population movements Black Africans is conjecture based upon agreed upon "facts" accepted by the Academie.
This is why the geneticist like to spend time talking about the Bantu. They are saying nothing new about the Bantu migrations that I didn't learn back in the 1970's.
If you really believe in some of your theories why don't you guys publish some papers and present your ideas at conferences. If your ideas are correct, and support the status quo, I am sure they will be published in some peer reviewed journal.
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Calypso
quote: About 2 000 years ago the crop was carried to eastern and central Africa and to India, where because of its excellent tolerance to drought it became established in the drier environments
Sorry to bust your bubble, but the earliest evidence of African millets in India date back to the Indus Valley civilization. Some 2000 years before this date.
Bulrush Millet and Sorghum Archaeological Sites in South Asia and Africa
Africa Fayum 7000 Tenerean 4500-3300 Kadero 3310 Karkarichinkat 2000-1000
Dhar Tichitt 1830 Ntereso 1630-1240
Posted by Yonis (Member # 7684) on :
quote:If you really believe in some of your theories why don't you guys publish some papers and present your ideas at conferences. If your ideas are correct, and support the status quo, I am sure they will be published in some peer reviewed journal
First of all most here i believe are not as old as you, so there is probably gonna come a time when someone here's paper will be published and hopefully commented by authorities in their respective field unlike your work.
And secondly no one goes around deciphering hundred inscriptions and doesn't stop along the line questioning himself, and try to rethink his position, especilly when not recieving any feedback from Academia. I'm sorry Mr winters but you're not convincing enough, you need to try harder.I'm quite sure these scholars who really deciphered inscriptions(accepted by academic peers) invested time, money and heart in their work and should be commended for that. I suggest you should start follow suit, there are really no shortcuts in life!
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yonis:
quote:If you really believe in some of your theories why don't you guys publish some papers and present your ideas at conferences. If your ideas are correct, and support the status quo, I am sure they will be published in some peer reviewed journal
First of all most here i believe are not as old as you, so there is probably gonna come a time when someone here's paper will be published and hopefully commented by authorities in their respective field unlike your work....
Better yet, why publish material that is ALREADY available in abundance to descredit Mr. Winters' Dravidian hypothesis.
Ps - Of course, all this counter info on millet, cattle, wheat and all, have already been presented to Mr. Winters here before; hence, nothing new to him.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Yonis
quote:
I'm quite sure these scholars who really deciphered inscriptions(accepted by academic peers) invested time, money and heart in their work and should be commended for that. I suggest you should start follow suit, there are really no shortcuts in life!
Your problem Yonis, is that you feel that if the Academie does not accept a proposition it is wrong. You seem to accept the old saying when you white you right and black step back.
This is how many Blacks feel because they have an inferiority complex. Luckily, people like DuBois, J.A. Rogers and Diop let the truth speak for them instead of following blindly Eurocentric ideas.
You don't know anything about the deciphers of ancient languages. Except for Champollion, most people attacked the decipherers results, especially those of Col. Rawlinson.
Many people were against Col Rawlinson, because he used an African language Galla/Oromo to decipher the cuneiform writing and a South Semitic language. Moreover, he said these inscriptions were produced by the Kushite people.
As a result, his decipherment was not popularized until after his death. The the new deciphers of the cuneiform script denied Kushites invented cuneiform writing, and that the founders of Mesopotamia civilization had come from Africa.
They did this to deny the Black African role in world civilization, just like you use genetics to ghettoize ancient Black history into the West African Kingdoms and the Swahilli Cities. And of course the Bantu migrations.
Shame on you. Read Diop, DuBois and J.A. Rogers then you'll know something about the ancient history Blacks.
. .
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
I think you are missing the point. Nobody denies that the civilizations that were found in India were largely created by black poeoples originally. The POINT we are making is that just because they were BLACK does not make them AFRICAN. African is a geospatial reference that tells us where the people lived or where the recently came from and where their culture and language originated. There is NO proof that the cultures of ancient India were created by RECENT migrants from Africa. So, this is NOT about denying that black people played an important part in ancient history. It is about NOT calling ALL black people in the world Africans, especially in the historical period before slavery, since MOST people in the world were DARK SKINNED prior to European expansion and colonization. Therefore, MOST of these people could not have been AFRICAN, because they did not all live in or recently come from Africa.
In today's world, with the massive forced migration of Africans to various places in the Western Hemisphere and Carribean, as well as large African populations in the former colonial countries in Europe, it is a little bit of a different story. But you MUST separate the African diaspora of today from the reality of black people around the world in HISTORY which is a TOTALLY different concept.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
DougM
quote: I think you are missing the point. Nobody denies that the civilizations that were found in India were largely created by black poeoples originally. The POINT we are making is that just because they were BLACK does not make them AFRICAN. African is a geospatial reference that tells us where the people lived or where the recently came from and where their culture and language originated. There is NO proof that the cultures of ancient India were created by RECENT migrants from Africa. So, this is NOT about denying that black people played an important part in ancient history. It is about NOT calling ALL black people in the world Africans, especially in the historical period before slavery, since MOST people in the world were DARK SKINNED prior to European expansion and colonization.
This is hog wash. There are Europeans in America. These people are white skinned.We call these people Americans since they landed at Pymouth Rock and founded this great Nation. Eventhough they are called American we know their roots lie in Europe.
Therefore, when Dravidian authors themselves, who are Black skinned, say they came from Africa, what's wrong with them being called African. We call white Americans: Europeans.
You seem to have a double standard. All whites if they came from Europe, and now live in Australia, New Zeland or South Africa, can be Europeans, and still have their own nationality: Australian, Canadian, American, Afrikaaner/South African. But Dravidian speaking people, who came from Africa and now live in India, can only be called Indians. Don't you see the illogicalness in your proposition?
Doug M
quote:
In today's world, with the massive forced migration of Africans to various places in the Western Hemisphere and Carribean, as well as large African populations in the former colonial countries in Europe, it is a little bit of a different story. But you MUST separate the African diaspora of today from the reality of black people around the world in HISTORY which is a TOTALLY different concept
I agree. But just because you separate this African diaspora of today from the ancient African diaspora, this does not mean that the later did not exist.
I don't even understand why you accept European dogma on the origin of the Dravidian people, when Dravidian people claim otherwise. You know the Egyptians are suppose to have claimed that their ancestors came from the Mountain of the Moon or Punt. They accepted the fact they did not originallly live along the Nile, yet today we aknowledge that they were of Kemit, yet their ancestors came from somewhere else.
When you deny the Dravidians from acknowledging their African roots you are disrespecting their culture and intelligence. You respect the right of whites to live anywhere in the world and have a European relationship, but the Dravidian people who came from Africa, must lose their heritage because You and Eurocentric scholars declare that they are solely India.
Shame on You to take away a peoples history, their roots....just to support Eurocentrism and maintain the status quo.
.
Posted by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
Clyde, Depends on what you mean by roots. If you go back far enough my family came here from Germany. I do not consider myself German in any way and at this point do not think I have German roots. I suppose in some distant genetic sense I am realted to them but its meaningless at this point. I am much closer to southern blacks culturally than I am to modern Germans. You have to be careful when you start talking about 'roots' in that respect.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Hore
quote:
Clyde, Depends on what you mean by roots. If you go back far enough my family came here from Germany. I do not consider myself German in any way and at this point do not think I have German roots. I suppose in some distant genetic sense I am realted to them but its meaningless at this point. I am much closer to southern blacks culturally than I am to modern Germans. You have to be careful when you start talking about 'roots' in that respect.
What you say has great merit. Granted, because of your American heritage you are closer to blacks culturally due to your acculturation as an American. But you also admit that although you are American you have a Germanic heritage.
This is what I am talking about, you can move and live anywhere is the world, but we always know where we, and our ancestors first came from.
.
Posted by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
I have a German heritage but its so distant its not important in my life. Not only that, its getting more complicated. My grand daughter is half mexican and half german. What is she? The world is getting smaller and smaller. As races begin to 'mix up' what you are seeing is a social system emerging that will no longer be based on race but rather wealth and education.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
hore
quote:
I have a German heritage but its so distant its not important in my life. Not only that, its getting more complicated. My grand daughter is half mexican and half german. What is she? The world is getting smaller and smaller. As races begin to 'mix up' what you are seeing is a social system emerging that will no longer be based on race but rather wealth and education.
This is a complicated question. She has dual heritage so she will probably have to acknowledge both-or she may just want to be referred to as an American and leave it like that.
I hope you are right about the end of race. But the Old American West is a good example of how race eventually raises its ungly head. At one time all the races lived in unity out West, it was here that women first earned the right to vote. But once statehood came people chose sides and race became the paramount determiner of one's status and opportunity for success.
.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Your problem Yonis, is that you feel that if the Academie does not accept a proposition it is wrong. You seem to accept the old saying when you white you right and black step back.
I agree with you that such a biased proposition exists - though I doubt it's fair to label Yonis that way - however, that has nothing to do with the rejection of your hypothesis by 'academie' and here at ES.
Your hypothesis is rejected because it is simply unsound.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: DougM
quote: I think you are missing the point. Nobody denies that the civilizations that were found in India were largely created by black poeoples originally. The POINT we are making is that just because they were BLACK does not make them AFRICAN. African is a geospatial reference that tells us where the people lived or where the recently came from and where their culture and language originated. There is NO proof that the cultures of ancient India were created by RECENT migrants from Africa. So, this is NOT about denying that black people played an important part in ancient history. It is about NOT calling ALL black people in the world Africans, especially in the historical period before slavery, since MOST people in the world were DARK SKINNED prior to European expansion and colonization.
This is hog wash. There are Europeans in America. These people are white skinned.We call these people Americans since they landed at Pymouth Rock and founded this great Nation. Eventhough they are called American we know their roots lie in Europe.
Therefore, when Dravidian authors themselves, who are Black skinned, say they came from Africa, what's wrong with them being called African. We call white Americans: Europeans.
You seem to have a double standard. All whites if they came from Europe, and now live in Australia, New Zeland or South Africa, can be Europeans, and still have their own nationality: Australian, Canadian, American, Afrikaaner/South African. But Dravidian speaking people, who came from Africa and now live in India, can only be called Indians. Don't you see the illogicalness in your proposition?
Doug M
quote:
In today's world, with the massive forced migration of Africans to various places in the Western Hemisphere and Carribean, as well as large African populations in the former colonial countries in Europe, it is a little bit of a different story. But you MUST separate the African diaspora of today from the reality of black people around the world in HISTORY which is a TOTALLY different concept
I agree. But just because you separate this African diaspora of today from the ancient African diaspora, this does not mean that the later did not exist.
I don't even understand why you accept European dogma on the origin of the Dravidian people, when Dravidian people claim otherwise. You know the Egyptians are suppose to have claimed that their ancestors came from the Mountain of the Moon or Punt. They accepted the fact they did not originallly live along the Nile, yet today we aknowledge that they were of Kemit, yet their ancestors came from somewhere else.
When you deny the Dravidians from acknowledging their African roots you are disrespecting their culture and intelligence. You respect the right of whites to live anywhere in the world and have a European relationship, but the Dravidian people who came from Africa, must lose their heritage because You and Eurocentric scholars declare that they are solely India.
Shame on You to take away a peoples history, their roots....just to support Eurocentrism and maintain the status quo.
.
First off, you have to accept that African is a geocultural concept. How can someone be African if they have not been in AFrica for thousands of years? Therefore, if there were populations in the world who had features LIKE Africans, but have been where they are for thousands of years, does that make it ok to still call them Africans? NO. Indigenous people around the world who have features like Africans are MOST LIKELY found around the tropics. Therefore Africa itself is not the REASON for people having certain features, rather than their location relative to the EQUATOR. Since Africa is LOCATED astride the Equator and much of it is subtropical, it therefore makes sense that MOST people there reflect biological adaptation to those conditions. The following map shows the climate zones in the world:
Looking at this map, you can see that many of the places in the world where "black" people were found were in regions that had SIMILAR conditions to those in Africa. Therefore temperature and environment are the PRIMARY forces that determine ones appearance, NOT Africa itself. The only reason Africa has so many people with such feature s is because it is the ONLY continent that STRADDLES the equator. Africa is not the cause of dark skin, the equator and sun exposure is. Therefore, I am AGAINST using African as some GLOBAL cultural/political/social construct, since Africa is NOT a common point of reference for "black" people in the world, especially not in historical times before the slave trade.
Using Africa as a common point of reference for populations distributed from Africa because of the slave trade is a totally different concept than understanding the culture, lanuage and history of those who had migrated from Africa tens of thousands of years ago.
Finally, a third idea that "bridges" the gap between populations that left Africa tens of thousands of years ago and contemporary African cultures is the idea of continuous contact. Therefore, according to this theory, not only did Africans leave Africa and populate the world, but they also maintained contact with these widely scattered populations in Asia, America and elsewhere via long distance travel. Until you can show me some EVIDENCE of contact between such groups, you are therefore allowing yourself to let Africa as a geographic concept, distort how you interperet "black" peoples in the world from a historical and cultural context. The MAIN thing that Africans have had to fight against concerning European aggression was skin color. Skin color is not a UNIQUE trait only to Africans. Many other people in the world have such skin colors and have likewise been oppressed by Europeans. Therefore, if you want to focus on "blackness" in the diaspora and fighting against racism, then you must understand that "blackness" is not unique to Africa and is NOT a result of recent African migrations.
And finally, as far as the dravidians claiming links to Africa, where are they? What dravidian scholars have said this and propose this?
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
rasol
quote: I agree with you that such a biased proposition exists - though I doubt it's fair to label Yonis that way - however, that has nothing to do with the rejection of your hypothesis by 'academie' and here at ES.
Your hypothesis is rejected because it is simply unsound.
What hypothesis are you talking about? My Dravidian hypothesis has not been rejected among Dravidian scholars, that is why so many of my articles on Dravidian studies have been published over the years.
I can't even say my decipherments have been rejected, they are just ignored. I have presented numerous papers on my Olmec decipherments at AAA and CSAS conferences. These papers have to be peer reviewed before you can present them so there are at least two people (usally there are three people who referee your paper) who feel my ideas should be placed before a professoional audience.
In relation to my decipherment of Indus Valley writing I have had numerous papers published on my decipherment and I have published a grammar and dictionary of the language. Yet in the books published on failed decipherments of the Indus Valley writing my work is never mentioned, eventhough I have been publishing articles on my decipherment since 1985.
In relation to my decipherment of Meroitic, I have had numerous articles published of translation of Meroitic text. Again no one mentions my work, but it gets published, and I am not paying to have it published.
Here at ES you guides reject my hypothesis because you worship genetics. Like most zealots you believe everything hook line and sinker you read without critically analyzing what you read.
DNA can only show who you are related too. You guys, try to use the fact that people are related through haplogroups and haplotypes, to claim that they were in a specific place at a specific time. This is impossible to do with genetics, since it only shows who you are related too. This is why people claim you misuse the science.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:I can't even say my decipherments have been rejected, they are just ignored.
Not to be the bearer of bad news - but - being ignored is a form of rejection.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Doug M
quote:
Therefore, if you want to focus on "blackness" in the diaspora and fighting against racism, then you must understand that "blackness" is not unique to Africa and is NOT a result of recent African migrations.
And finally, as far as the dravidians claiming links to Africa, where are they? What dravidian scholars have said this and propose this? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are a few of the papers: Dravidians and Africans-5 The Languages of Africans and Dravidians
A BIRDS EYE VIEW*
S. R SANTHARAM,
A language can adopt and create as many words as it pleases without changing its character, but it cannot alter its grammar, its syntax, without becoming another, for grammar represents the innate made of thought over which the Individual person or nation has no real control By Gustove Appert.
- This assumption applies to each and every language in the world. No doubt, the African and Dravidian languages are also governed by this assumption. Before going to know about these languages, we must have some ideas about Africans and Dravidians.
Who are the Dravidians? Who are the Africans? Whether they belong to the same family? or they are closely related to each other ? etc. Solutions are yet to be found out.
Who are the Dravidians? Even today research Works are going on to get the solution for this problem. Till we get the correct Solution, we may probably define, that the Dravidians are those who speak Dravidian languages. [Notes: I am indebted to 1Dr. S. Agasthiyalizngom based on whose Writing this article has been produced.]
Dravidian languages: A family of languages spoken by more than 1,10,000,000 people, primarily in Southern India. There are seven major Dravidian languages spoken in India: Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, Malayalam, Gondi, Kurukh, and Tulu; minor Dravidian languages are Kota, Toda, Budaga, Irula, Kolamj, Naiki, Puriji, Konda, Gadho, Pemzo, Manda, Kui, Kuvi, Matta and Kodaga, all spoken in India.
Among these languages Tamil is the oldest of the Dravidjan language. Basham states-Tamil has undergone change as follows. Tamil
l Dramizha
l Damila
l Dramila
l Dravida
Africans:
African peoples vary in racial origin and stand at many different cultural levels. From the ethnic point of view there is both a white and a black Africa, but the first important human occupation appears to have been by Negroes or Negroid people, several types of whom, probably entered the Continent from Arabia and spread over the land south of the Sahara Desert. They probably inhabited the Sahara also, for in the glacial period it was well watered and fertile. Northern Africa, however was penetrated by the invasion from Europe or Western Asia of Caucasian (white) people at a later date. These Caucasian peoples are broadly classed as Bamitic and include an important type referred to as Berber, as well as the Tuareg. Semitic people at a later date penetrated Africa. They are the Arabs, who established themselves in Northern and East Africa. The Phoenicians who founded Carthage were Semites. Madagascar shows a remarkable intrusion of Malayo Polynesian people, Who crossed the Indian Ocean, perhaps by way of island stepping-stones; probably more than two thousand years ago and settled on the island, which may or may not have had an earlier Negro population. It may be noted that neither Greek nor Roman left any permanent ethnic mark upon Africa.
The modern period has seen the settlement of large numbers of Europeans.
African Languages:
Languages indigenous to the African continent that belong to the Hamito-Semitic, Niger-Congo, (or Niger-Kordopfanian) Chari-nil (or Nilo-Saharan) and Khoisan language families. The number of African languages has been estimated at between 800 and 1000. In Northern Africa, languages of the Hamitic Semitic family are spoken. Arabic is most widespread of these. Important sub-Saharan languages included are Swahili, Fulani, Yoruba and Zulu of the Niger-Congo group. Nulian of the Chari-Nile group, and Bushman and Hottentot of the Khoisan family.
Similarities:
Besides language similarities, physical and cultural similarities appear between these two continents. Frobenjusa German ethnologist identified some cultural similarities between Africa and Ancient India. Baumann, Westermaun and CheikAnta Diop have also stated the same opinion.
Physical Similarities:
In Tamilnadu, the suppressed people are called aati Draavidaa (Old Dravidians). The size of head, forehead, nose, ear and the colour of body, hair and eyes are common between these aati-Dravidida~i and African. The main two differences are Africans have curling black hair and slightly thick lips, but aati-Dravidaas do not have them.
Cultural Similarities:
Cultural similarities appear between these countries. The legend of Lord Kannan, killing Kamsaa is reflected in African legend. Soni Ali Ber. in which Burgo appears as the hero in the place of Krishnaa. [. Dr K P. A. clearly compares these legends in his book~ Senthamtil, Sene~al, Senghor P. 18.]We can expand the above similarities and other similarities further more. But confining to our topic on languages, we can deal with particular reference to languages.
Niger Congo Languages:
Niger-Congo group is the largest among the African language families. Bantu which were once treated as a separate group are also now included in this group. Though there ate about thirty divisions Geenberg classifies them nto 6 major divisions. They are as follows :
I. Western Atlantic languages, 2. Mamde languages. 3. Gur languages. 4. Kwa languages. 5. Adamawa-Eastern languages. 6. Benue-Congo-languages.
West Atlantic Languages:
These are classified as Northern and Southern languages. The most important among these is ~Fulani, Wolof and Temme come next to it. More than,56,00000 people speak Fulani. In Fulani there is no distinction of gender in nouns. To indicate sex the suffix male or female is added to the nouns. For example in Tamil the sex of a horse is indicated by suffixing male or female before the nouns.
aaN Kulirai PeN Kutirai
In Fulani the sex of human beings are indicated as follows.
biddo debbo (girl) biddo gorko (boy)
In Tamil the verb endings do not recognise gender of the non-human category. To denote the female or male horse the pronoun That is used. But the classification human and neuter category is also found in Fulani. The changes which a noun may undergo to show the plural primarily depend on to which of the two comprehensive classes the noun belongs, to the personal, or human class, or to the non-personal, or non-human and thing, class. This division is extremely important for it is the fundamental principle at the genious of the language. Neuter gender has got three different persons. They occur only in plural form. In Tamil Tholkappiar has also included first person within the scope of human category. Indicative pronouns that indicate human category and neuter gender are always of different kinds. In this language by suffixing endings to a verb we can obtain so many verbs
In this language by suffixing endings to a verb we can obtain so many verbs
For Example:
o Janaki - he read 0 Janahithi - be read very well
o fiyi - he beat 0 fifini - he beat badly.
This characteristic phenomena, seen in Tamil language is also found in the Bantu languages. As in Tarnil, active voice becomes passive voice, by the mere modification of the verb. Wolof: Wolof language is notable language, among the languages that are existing in Senagal Democratic Nation. Just like in Tamil we can see the doubling of the consonants.
Example:
i, ii; k, kk; m, mm; n, nn; Since there are no verbs to indicate gender in this language, a separate word is used to indicate gender. As far as the numerals are concerned, there are only two i.e. singular and plural. The units that indicate the numbers also occur by the side articles and indicate numerals.
Example: fas w-i - the horse fas y-i - the horses a-w fas - a horse a-y fas - some horse
In interrogative forms too we can find the difference between singular and plural.
w-an fas which horse.
y-an fas which horses.
In several aspects this language resembles Tamil language. It also has its own specialities. The articles which are not seen in Tamil are found in this language. This is a major difference between these languages. Ki, Ka, Gi, Ga - are the units that stand for the artic1e~ In the same way as, ag, a, aw, ab and so on serve as Common indications.
Mande Languages: These languages are spoken by more than 70 lakhs of people. This group is often called Mali or Mantonga group. Though in these groups there are about 22 languages, Malinda-Bambara, Soninde, Mande, Susu-Dyal onke, Vai, Loma, Kpela are considered as important.
North West - Languages: Mande: In this language there is no discrimination of genders. But a difference is seen between human category nouns and neuter gender nouns.
Nouns of Mande have got the two numerals both singular and plural. Common nouns by addition of suffix nga and proper nouns by the addition of suffix sia indicate plural numerals. Apart from this there is third numeral. This plural form is made up of the indefinite plural + i + - - + - - Sia. This form is much rarer than the other two and is normally found only with a few words referring to human beings and domestic animals.
Just like in Tamil, in Mande language there are indications to point out nearer and farther. But it does not have separate words for adjectives.
The verbs of Mande languages, show tense, negative and so on. Past tense, present tense, future tenses are shown by the verbs. When tenses change the noun also undergoes a change. (When it occurs in three persons.) Interrogative verbs occur in second person both in plural and in singular which is similar to Tamil In Tamil we can say to a person or to many persons Let us go. But in this language we cannot say like this. If we address one person means, we have to say Muli, if many persons means we have to say amuli. (Let us go) Kwa Languages :- Yoruba: This language is familiar in Nigeria. The nouns of this languages have got two genders and two numerals. Separate words show separate genders as in
laba father
cya - mother Sometimes by the addition of suffixes they show different gender.
aburo - ikonrin brother aburo - ilnrin sister Nouns have no cases in Yoruba. The cases are supplied by the use of prepositions. This is the main difference between this language and Tamil language.
III case si, ba (Preposition)
IV case : - si, fun Example : Si odo to river fun mi to me
V case :- (ti)
ti ile from the house
VII case :- (ni)
ni ile in the house
Bantu Languages :- This group contains more than five hundred languages. These languages have simple voice system. A, E, U, these three vowels are the basic. Though there are plenty of prefixes and suffixes no prepositions are to be seen. The cases as found in Tamil are not found in these languages. There is no distinction of masculine and feminine, it is not merely that nouns have no femine terminations, but there are not even separate pronouns corresponding to be and she. There is however a set of distinctions quite strange to us, nouns being devided into a number of classes. (Usually eight or nine) distinguished by their prefixes.
A unique concord is seen, which is not to be found in any other language. All the words in a sentence are affixed with the noun having the function of subject which replaces the prefix. This reappearance of the prefix before every word in agreement with the noun is called the Alliterative concord, which is not found in Tamil.
a-na, a~nga, a-ngona, a-ia, a-tayika.
Those, my little children were missing
This Nyanja sentence shows this Alliterative concord,
The repetitive morpheme (irattaikilavikal) which are less frequent in Tamil are found in Bantu in abundance,
A lot of verbal variations are found in Bantu. The ideas expressed by Tamil in many words are brought out by less number of suffixes.
Example :- Bantu Tamil English
Mona Kalaku Shake
Monesa Palamaaka Kalaku Shake violently
Luganda or Ganda :- The main difference between Tamil and Luganda is the absence of differentiation of gender in the latter.
Comparatively simpler verbs show the past, future and present tenses. Within the past tense there are three divisions viz., without any time limit and just within last 12 hours and past continuous. Example :-
nn - a - lake - saw
nn - a - labye - saw (just within 12 hours) n - o - dabye - had seen
In future tense there are separate words for denoting happenings, which are to happen within 24 hours and after 24 hours, which are novel to Tamil.
Example :-
nnaa - laba - will see (within 24 hours) n-di-raba - will see
In imperative verbs take three forms.
I. To be done at once, 2. To be done continuously 3. To be done in the prescribed hour. Example:-
Soma - Read at once
o soma - Read quickly
Somanga - Read continuously
Muba musoma - Read in the evenings
These are not found in Tamil
Swahili :- It is an important language in North-Eastern region. In Tamil diminutives are denoted by small adjectives. The same pattern is well followed in Swahili. In this language the nouns that occur in all the three persons as they occur in Tamil. Third person singular and plural show neither category nor gender. This also happens in Malayaalam Example
mimi I we we you ye ye He/She/it si si We ninyi You (Plural) Wao They
Adjectives come after the nouns, as in other Bantu languages. There is a concord between adjectives and noun -the prefixes of the adjectives undergo change, with reference to the prefixes to the nouns.
There are articles to point out nearness and distance. The root -le points out nearness. But with reference to the noun that occurs, this root takes various prefixes and becomes an indicative:
adjective. - ki - suki - le sword (near by) wa - tura - le Those people vy - amba - vile Those trees.
In second person interrogative verbs indicate singular, plural -and negative, which is also the case with Tamil.
Example :- -~ big-a beat (Singular) big-eni beat (Plural)
Nyanja :- As in ancient Tamil, in Nyanja there are three classes or demonstratives which point out different degrees of distance or reference like adjectives. Similar to Tamil the nouns of all the three persons will occur. In first person plural, there is no inclusive numbers. In the third person singular, there are not divisionsuch feminine gender, masculine gender; human category, non human category and so on.
Example :-
ine - I iwe - You lye - He/She/It ife - We ma - You (PluraJ) iwo - They/those
In the commanding verbs of Tamil, they do not point out whether the command should be obeyed immediately or to be done later. But the commanding verbs in the language point out urgency and so on,
Example :-
tatenga - take immediately
Zulu :- Gender is not a grammatical feature in Zulu. That is to say, the fact that any particular noun may indicate the masculine, feminine, common or neuter idea does not in any way influence a Zulu sentences grammatically, the form of the prefix of the noun ruling the concordial structure.
In Zulu there are three positional types of demonstrative pronoun. The first demonstrative signifies this these indicating proximity to the speaker. The second demonstrative signifies that those indicating relative distance from the speaker. The third demonstrative signifies Yonder, that yonder indicating distance from the speaker and the one spoken to, but also indicating that the object is within sight and may be pointed to.
Apart from these features, there are some specialities too. The grammatical feature that are revealed, by the use of three or more words in English and in Tamil, is revealed by the use of verb in this language.
Doubling of the verb is commonly seen in Tamil, when a particular action is to be emphasised.
ati ati yena atittaan (beaten violently)
The intensive form in Zulu indicating intensity or quickness of action, is expressed by suffixing - isisa in the place of final vowel of the stem. The dimunitive form of the verb, formed by a reduplication of the stem, indicates a dimunition of the action to do a little.
The reciprocal form of the verb denotes that the action is reciprocated, and is similar to the form expressed in English adjectively by one another. In Zulu the derivative is formed by suffixing -ana in place of the final vowel of the verb form.
Khoisan Languages :- The word Khoisan can be written as Khoy-sa-n and its meaning is as follows.
Khoy People Sa in search of food is an affix to indicate plural.
Hence Khoisan means food searching people. Further the sound of click is often heard where these languages are used, people called these languages as click languages.
Though so many people have conducted researches, C.R. Lepsius, classified these languages in his Standard Alphabet as two main divisions. He not only classified these languages as
1. Hottentot
a. Nama b. Kora
2. Bushman
but also called them Hemittic languages.
Hottentot: The adjectives precede nouns, likewise in Tamil also it happens to. The adjectives do not undergo any change regarding the noun. But the possessive nouns differ from Tamil to certain extent. One speciality which is not to be seen in Tamil is the indicative of gender, both in the first person and second person. The possessive nouns that occur in all the three persons, they accept divisions of gender and numerals as in Tamil, Verbs are so simple. To indicate tense there are different prefixes. Unlike in English and in Tamil, the tense shown in this language are not limited to completed actions, continuing actions, alone, but even in completed actions, the exact time of the completion of the action is revealed by the use of various prefixes.
A structural feature of this (Korana) language is the use of double verb or a series of more than two verbs. The function of one of the verbs-the subsidiary one is to modify the action of the other verb-the principal one with reference to circumstances of time, place, manner, or any other circumstances which may effect the verbal action. In other words, the subsidiary verb is in an adverbial function of the principal verb, In Tamil also this type of feature can be seen.
Bushman Languages: These languages are classified into three groups. Called Northern, Central, and Southern languages, there are the divisions of singular and plural.
In certain languages plurality is revealed by the use of different verbs and in some languages, by the doubling of the singular verbs, which is in tune with Tamil.
mum - stone. mum-si - stones.
The possessive pronouns, occur, before nouns in northern and southern languages in accordance with Tamil, but in the central languages they occur after the noun. In certain languages separate syllables are used to indicate possessiveness. Example:
mha - my father mtail - my mother Certain languages know, no distinction of tense, mood or voice.
Saharan Languages - Kanuri: In many of the languages existing now, even though the nouns occur by the side of adjectives only nouns accept case prepositions. In Tamil also this is the case. But in Kanuri language the nouns do not accept case prepositions but adjectives accept case prepositions.
In this language the commanding verbs, occur both in second person plural and singular which is in concordance with Tamil
But a speciality is that this language shows commanding nature even in first person plural.
Eastern Sudanic Languages: These languages are spoken by more than nine lakhs of people who live in the southern part of Sudan.
In alignment with Tamil, Dinka also has the division of singular and plural. By the modification of the vowels, by the modification of ending and by the tuse of various words plural is shown,
Examples yic - ear yit ears moe man ror men
Lwo Languages: Shilluk: The distinction between singular and plural is noted like in Tamil. This distinction is produced by: affixes, and by the modification of verbs. There is no distinction of genders in this language. Adjective often follows nouns. Though most of adjectives show the distinction between singular and plural without undergoing any change some undergo change with reference to the noun which show the distinction of singular and plural.
Example: Won duong Big house Woti dono Big houses.
Verbs of Shilluk languages are so simple. They show tense and voice. As in Tamil, past tense, present tense and future tense are seen, though there are some minor differences.
Eastern Nilotic Languages: Masai: The nouns of all the three persons can be divided as a first person singular and plural, second person singular and plural and third person singular and plural, which is similar to Tamil. Among them, the third person nouns do not show any distinction between masculine gender and feminine gender.
Central Sudanic Languages Cendu :-~ The adjectives occur preceeding the noun and they are unaffected. We can see the same phenomena in Tarnil also. During formative years of Tamil language there are three demonstratives. These demonstratives do not serve as nouns, but they serve as adjectives. Verbs show subject and passive voice. Verbs of Sudanic language do not show tense as Tamil or English.
General
We met with various stages in African languages, viz- which possess singular, plural; singular, dual, plural; singular, plural and great quantity and singular, plural and small quantity. For Example:- Singular, plural and great quantity are denoted n the Chwana language or Bantu as follows
Cbwana Tamil English n kn aatu lamb
ii - nku aatukaL lambs
ma - nku pala aatukal many lamps
The classification of singular and plural are not to be seen in some of the African languages. But the material is considered as a compound entity and a single unit is deemed a constituent part of it. In certain language the suffixes indicating plurality have a meaning of their own. Example:
Ewe Tamil English
wo avarkaL They
ati maram Tree
ati wo marang~kaL Trees
Gender: In Hottentot languages besides the masculine and feminine genders common gender is also seen. Some of the languages indicate gender in plural condition also while others abandon it.
In some languages, the suffixes denoting the gender have the meaning of male, female, mother, father, men and women etc.
Kanda Tamil English
Se - gwanga ceval cock
na - gwanga petal hen
Verbs: In some languages verbs do not undergo any transformation, while others like Tamil, exhibit grammatical structureslike tense and numerals. Thematic variations effected by various words in Tamil are effected by a single suffix in Wolof.
Wolof Tamil Engilsh
Jeka un eat
lakati ciritu un eat a little
In Tamil there are words which have no meaning of their own which accentuate the characteristics of verbs. Similar phenomena are seen in African languages.
Example: Zo ka ka walk up right
Zo dze dze An assayed and energetic gait.
In Zande language such words are found. But in Bongo language a triplet occurs.
Example: Lan mokonya wakka wakka wakka. (The cloth is very black)
Conclusion: So far we have seen the similarities between the languages of the two groups of people. Further cultural, anthropological and linguistic studies will throw light on the affinities during the early times.
REFERENCE BOOKS:
1, Dr. Agasthiyalingam Aafrica Mozhikal (Tamil) Paari Nilayam, Madrasi. 1974.
2, Dr. Agasthiyalingam Dravida Mozhikal (Tamil) Paari Ni!ayam, Madras-i. 1976.
4.Rt. Robert Caidwell A Comparative Grammar of the Dravidian Languages. University of Madras, 1956.
5.Suggate L. S. Africa, George G. Harrap & Company Ltd., London-Bombay-Sydney. 1920.
Dravidians and Africans 8
The Cultural and Commercial Contacts between Africa and Dravidian India
(With special reference to f he Krishna Legend)
K. P. ARAVAANAN
The Cultural and Commercial contacts between Dravidian India and Africa existed even long before the arrival of Vasco-DaGama (15th Century A. D.) in India. Before Vasco-da-Gama, the sea route between East Africa and South India was familiar to the navigators and merchants of both the continents. Scytax Caryanda, a Greek pilot was the first known mariner to have crossed the Indian Ocean. He sailed on the Indian ocean after crossing the Red sea in 510 B. C. He touched the mouth of the Indus and returned. Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, the earliest extensive work on navigation in the world was written probably by a Greek of Alexandria in 60 A. D. It mentions the trading centers on the African coast and those of the South India coast as well. In about 7500 words length, it explains that the imports into and exports between Damirica (The Tamil Country) Rome, Africa and other countries. Roman gold coins were discovered (A. D. 54-68) in Arikamedu. A hoard of 46 gold coins belonging to Roman kings dating back to B. C. 29 was found in Dharwar district of Karnataka. Both confirm the above Periplus statement. The name of the first sajlor Scytax Caryanda, is mentioned in the Periplus, though the same was written 200 years after him. In 327-26 B.C. Nearchus, famous pilot of Alexander sailed to the Indus and returned.
Indian merchants were very fond of African ivory, iron and gold. Elmas udi wrote in 10th century that Sofala was the land of gold.
He mentions ivory as principal item of export from the land of zanj the negros of East Africa [1.Basil Davidson - Black Mother. P. 166.] This ivory was taken to India and China by way of Yemen in Southern Arabia and were this not the case, there would be an abundance of ivory in the Muslim Countries. For Edrisi, two centuries later, iron was the most valued export of the East African coast.2 [2. Al - Indrisi, T(itah Nuzhat at Mustag fikhtirq at Afaq. trans S.. Maqbul Ahmed quoted by B. Davidson Can we write African History?P 13.]
The iron of Sefala, he thought was much superior to that of India both in quantity and quality; and the Indians were accustomed to make from it the best swords in the world. Along the east coast at the same time city states like, Kilwa have become important in the expanding network of the Indian Ocean trade. Writing in the mid-twelfth century, Edrisi hears that Javanese sailors regularly visit the south Eastern coast of Africa and carry its iron to India. The west coast of India was invariably or mainly in contact with the East Coast of Africa. What was the reason? The worlds valuable metal- gold -, was available only from the South East Coast of Africa. Other areas of Africa were not having enough gold for export to other countries. According to ancient travel-writers, gold was the main item of export from Africa to India. Large quantities of gold must have gone to India from the ports of South East Africa during a period of five to six centuries.
Even today, the African continent accounts for the major quantity in the production of gold. In ancient times, people of Europe and the Islamic world thought that Africa was the richest gold bearing area in the globe. A number of stories also relating to African gold. were current among them. One was that gold grew on trees. Because of that, a number of European and Islamic merchants travelled all the way to Africa in search of gold. Antonio Malfante a commercial traveller was sent by Europ~an to Africa for finding out the sources of gold. He mentions that Indian Traders travelled with interpreters in these regions. According to him these Indians were Christians who adored the cross.3 [3 Madhu Panikkar, K. The serpent and the crescent P. 121]
Basil Davidson, an expert in African study observes:
A probably Bantu speaking polity in Katanga is producing copper on no mean scale and trading in it as well within another hundred years the chiefs of another metal using polity in present Zambia are being buried with gold ornaments-imported from South of the Zambezi. And then, with the middle of the tenth century, we have masudi celebrated description of the kingdom of the warlini somewhere around the lower Zambezi basin, while the gold trade with the Indian ocean traders has undoubtedly begun.4 [4. Basil Davidson, Can we write African History? P. 12]
Archeological, anthropological and linguistic studies also confirm the contacts, and views mentioned above. Gervase, a British pioneer of east coast archaeology discovered a South Indian settlement in the islet of sanje ye-kati, near the some what larger islet of Kilwa-in 1950. He found the undergrowth of the ruins of a settlement of Small oblong house of carefully dressed masonry, grouped round a citadel whose walls still rise to sixteen feet. It is the earliest of the coastal trading settlements so far traced: and its iron using culture may well have been pre-Islamic by several Centuries Southern Arabian, that, or perhaps Southern Indian.
In the same year 1950, Mathew, excavated the another Coral islet called Songo Mhara of Southern Tanganyika (Now called as Thanzania). In this place, he discovered among the beads there one pierced cornelians from India. In Southern from Rhodesia, archaeologists found that there are abundant Stone ruins, objects in gold and other metals, pottery from the East-coast, porcelain from China and beads from India. Indian beads become valuable in this respect, as early as by the 8th century AD.
Indian textiles also were imported from India to Africa. It has been identified in the North Cemestry at Meroe. A kind of water reservoir found in Meroe too must have come from India for it is unknown in Egypt. Both Dravidians and Africans have similar physical appearance and cultural identities. Even blood group indicates one map of blood group distribution, found for Indonesia and just that portion of west Africa were the cultural parallels arefound.5 [6. Ndiaye Cheik Tidians, Centre for Advanced study of bravidian Languages, Annamalai University, South India.] The cowries are used in West Africa as Prashna. These cowries came from the west coast of Southern India. i.e. Kerala. West African jewelry is influenced by South Indian jewelry. According to Flora sliaw, the African Language Fulanie came from India. At present an African scholar is working on the Subject of comparative study on Wolof and Tamil. An Indian Professor identified a number of Linguistic similarities between Dravidian Languages and Senegal Languages.7 [7. Upadhyaya U P. IFAN, University of Dakar, Senegal. I4is article appeared in this book.]
The introduction above, confirms the contacts among Dravidians and Africans. This paper presents a hitherto unnoticed but important one on Indo-African studies.
The Kushites were the most important people in the ancient history of Africa. They were native Africans who settled along the banks of the Nile to the South Egypt. Egyptians called them as Nubians. The relationships between Kushites and Egyptians were not friendly. But Kushites were equally good combatants like the Egyptians. In the ninth century B. C. they themselves founded a state of their own. Napata was their capital city. In 751 B.C., Kushites invaded Egypt and brought it under their control. A Hundred years after, the Assyrian army invaded and defeated both i.e, Egyptians and Kushites. After that, Kushites moved their capital southwards from Napata to MEROE. In Meroe, they founded an iron age civilization.
Up to the middle of the 20th century, the notable civilization of Meroe was unknown. Thirty years back. Reiner, Griffith~ Garstang and one or two others carried on excavations at Meroe. In 1958 Dr. Jean Vercoutter, a distinguished French Egyptologist, continued the excavations of Meroe. The ancient iron civilization of Africans is establised. British archaeologists called Meroe, The Birmingham of Ancient Africa. Basil Davidson, a well known author named it An Athens in Africa. From an Indian
point of view Meroe was A Vrindavan of Krishna. What is the reason to call it so?
In Meroe, archaeologists have found two engravings. These represented their lion-gods, it seems to be of Indian origin. It resembles the Indian God Nara_Simha Murti. (See the photos:Dravidians and Africans). The age of these lion gods engravings is attributed to the first century B. C. to the end of the first century A.D.
In india, the story of the ten births of Vishnu (Dasavtar) might be of a later period. But, the concept of lion-head man god must have been older. It is merged with Hiranyakasipus story. This story is even available in the oldest Indian literary tradition. The story is as follows
Hiranyakaiipu was a very powerful demon king. Thanks to the power be had received from Brahma himself he succeeded in dethroning Indra and exiling the gods from heaven. He proclaimed himself king of the Universe, and forbade worship of anyone but himself.
However his son Prahlada dedicated himself to the worship-of Vishnu, who initiated him into the secrets of his heart. Hirany akasipu, irritated by the sight of his son devoting himself to the cult of a mortal enemy, inflicted on the child a series of cruel tortures in order to wear him away from his worship of Vishnu. But his fervor simply increased, and he began to preach the religion of Vishnu to men and demons.
Hiranyakasipu ordered the death of this unmanageabie missionary. But the sword, poison, fire, wild elephants, and magic incantations failed to harm him, for Prahlada was protected by his god.
Hiranyakasipu once more called his son to him. prahlada with immense gentleness tried again to convince his father of Visnus greatness and omnipresence, but the demon angrily exclaimed
If Vishnu is everywhere, how does it happen that my eyes dont see him ? He pointed one of the pillars in his audience chamber, saying: Is he here fore instance ?
Even when invisible he is present in all things, replied Prahlada softly. Whereupon Hiranykasipu uttered a blasphemy and kicked the pillar, which fell on the floor. Immediately Vishnu emerged from the pillar in the shape of a lion-headed man (in his incarnation as Narasimba) fell upon the demon, and tore him to shreds.8
The worship of Narasimhamorthi was prevalent even before the Christian era. The legend of Hiranyakasipu, is also an old one.
In Sanskrit, Vyaasars Mahaabhaaratam, (4th century B.C.) mentions this legend in its 38th chapter. Bhisinaa narrates the above story to Yuthistraa when he conducted a raja suuya sacrifice. Vyaasars Bharataa gives a thousand names of Vjsh~ti Among those, Narasimha is the 21st name. (Ref. Anusaacana parvam). An Upanishth called after Narasimha is attached with Atharva Veda, Bhagavatham explains this legend in detail. Vj~hnu puranam also follows it. seventh Century poet Maakavj refers this legend in his work namely Sisubaalavathaa
In Tamil, a Cankam anthology called Paripaatal of 2nd century A. D. mentions about this lion-headedman God.
Ceyirtiir ceGkaN celva! NiRpukazp
Pukainta nenjcin, pulainta saantin
PiiruGka laatan palapala piNipada - alantuzi
Malarnta nooykuur kuumbiya nadukkattu
Alarnta pulazoon, taatai aakalain - ikazvoon
Ikazaa nenjcinan aaka, nii ikazaa
NanRaa nadda avan nalmaarbu muyaGki
OnRaa naddavan uRuvarai maarvin
Padimatam caamba otuGki
Innal innarodu idimurasu iyamba
Vedipadaa odituuN tadiyodu
Taditadi palapada vakivaaynta ukirinal
(paripaada: the 4th song. Original in Tamil, here transliterated into English by Loga)
The above song in Paripaatal gives this legend as follows:
Eranyan, enraged on hearing his own son Praising With devotion the Lord Thirumaal (Vishnu), treated him cruelly and
terrified him. Prahalaadan tolerated all, these evil treatments, for, the one who gave these hardships was his own father. But He, (Vishnu) being the savior of the devotees appeared (incarnated as Narasimha with lion headed human god), before Eranyan from within a pillar, by breaking it open and tore open the flesh of Eranyan with sharp nails and killed him.
Cilappathikaaram a Tamil epic (2nd century A.D.) notes this incident as Matankalaay maaratlaay (chapt. 17) (you-lion headed rnan-god-killed your enemy).
Ciivaka Cintaamani, a ninth century epic, mentions the name of Hiranyakasipu (1813). Devotional songs of Vaishnavism (from 5th century onwards) mentions this Narasimhas legend in numerous places. Kallaatam of 11th century, a Saivaite literature, also refers this story. Then a famous poet Kampan (9th century A. D.) narrates this legend in his epic Ramayana in about 175 songs as Eranya Vatai patalam, (A chapter on Eranyas death). After Kampan, a separate small epic called Eranya vatai parani was written in 12th century A.D. In Telugu also Ranganaatha Ramayanaa mentions of this legend. According to it, Eranya was born in the world again as Raavanaa and Narasimha as Rama.
In Badarni (Karnataka) the capital of Chalukyas3 a fine relief of Narasimha is still seen in the verandah of the Vishnu Cave. It is dated exactly 578 A. D [9.Nilakanta Sastri, K. A. A History of South India P. 450 ]
At about the same time, the name Narasimha was common in Tamilnadu. A Pallava king bore the name Narasimha (630-668 A.D.). The death of Hiranyakasipu is featured in a fine sculpture at Ellora.
Even before the christian era, the worship of lion-headed man was in vogue and prevalent all over India. Merchants came to India from Africa, or Indian merchants who were settled in Africa brought the lion god worship which appeared in Meroe. The founders of Meroe, were also in the fore front in the maritime trade of the Indian oceans. In the sixth century B. C. Kushites shifted their capital from Napata to Meroe. Meroe is nearer than Napata to the Indian ocean and India. This is also one of the reasons for their shifting. [10. Basil Davidson - The lost cities of Africa P. 45]
That the Kushites had commercial
contact with India which is not in doubt. The commercial
contacts lead to the cultural contacts also. The worship of the lion god is one among the productions of their contacts with India.
Yet another African tradition also strengthens this above view. In India both in the north and south, the legend of Krishna is common. The birth story of Krishna is in this way according to Indian tradition which is as follows:
Krishna was born at Mathura. His mother was Devaki, a sister of king Kamsa, who killed all her children as soon as they were born, as it had been predicted that he would be assassinated by one of them, particularly the eighth son. Krishna awed his life to a ruse of his parents, who exchanged him for the daughter of a poor cowherd, in order to hide him from his uncles anger. Krishna therefore spent his youth among keepers of herds, in the company of his brother Balarama.
Soon after his birth Krishna was already full of vigour, and some times of extraordinary strengh were in any, and his series of mighty deeds. He overthrew a cart, pulled down two trees together by the roots.
Kamsa tried his level best to kill his sisters son through various ways. But he failed. Some years later, Krishna became a warrior and killed his uncle, Kamsa. Then he ruled the country.
The same Krishna legend is echoed in toto in the African Continent. The legends name is Soni-Ali-Ber. It was narrated by all the story tellers of Africa. African oral tradition keeps this legend in this way:
Soni Au Ber, was the emperor of Songai (Gao). Wandou, a close associate of the emperor came to see His Majesty when Soni Ali Ber informed him, that on the previous night he had the vision of death. The emperor asked Wandou to give the significance of the dream. The royal mascot then talked to the juju and the matter was sent to the big sooth sayer. According to the soothsayer the emperor would be killed and the son of Kassei, (Please compare With Devaki), the sister he loved so much, would succeed him.
The Cabinet then held a meeting as a sequel to which it was made clear that all the young boys of Kassei should be killed. Balama, Justice minister, was in charge of the execution of the decision. The orders of Soni was to be executed during the next ten years.
All of a sudden, the servant of Kessei brought forth a girl and Kassei on the other hand at the same time had a boy. The maid servant of Kassei thought of saving the life of the son of Kassei. As such she proposed to her mistress that they exchanged their children. When the son of Bargou grew up, he wanted to be enlightened of his real mother and father.
A spirit assured him that he would protect him accordingly. The behaviour of the Son of Bargou raised suspicion in Soni Ali Ber.
Balama received an order that he should no longer be with the young man but the plan failed.
Soni AliBer was killed by the son Bargou when feast was on and Askia Mohamed assumed the power. He succeeded his uncle and founded the order of Islam.
The Legend of Krishna, and that of Soni Ali Ber resemble each other as under:
1 Both Kamsa and Soni were rulers.
2 Both had dreams.
3 Both called the sooth sayers.
4 Soothsayers interpretations of the dreams were alike.
5 Both put their sisters in prison
6 Both killed their sisters children
7 The children of both were born in prison
8 The children were male in both the case
9 Male children were replaced by female cbildren
10 The sisters concerned helped by their servant maids
11 Both Kamsa and Soni tried to kill their sisters children in different ways.
12 Both the kings failed in their attempts.
13 The children in both the cases became warriors.
14 The children killed their uncles.
15 The children suceeded their uncles after assassinating them
16 The children in both the cases later on became the leaders of the religions.
Krishna as an incarnation of Vishnu, and the other who espoused the cause of Islam.
If scholars compare the origin of the two legends, they must conclude that the Krisna legend is the older. The earliest reference to Krishna is in Chandogya upanishad (6th century B.C.). In this context, he is mentioned as Krishna Devakiputra, disciple of Ghora Rishj of Angirasa tribe. Keith says that there was a tradition about Krishna as a rishi from the time of the Rigvedic hymns. The other reference to Krisna is in the Mahabharata (4th century B.C.) Krishna is a pivotal character in the epic of Mahabharata and the great war which took place at Kurukshetra about 1000 B.C. Krishna was undoubtedly a Kshatriya warrior of the Yadava clan. The Tamjl epic Silappathikarani (2nd century A.D.) mentions Krishna as Mayavan (The dark one) who plays his flute and sports with milkmaids. His elder brother is Paladeva-(Balarama). Krishnas sweetheart is Pinnai. It further mentions the Kuravai dance, Mayavan playing on the flute, dancing Pinnai and Mayavan on the banks of the river Jamuna. The Greek ambassador at the court of Chandragupta Maurya mentions Krishna as Herakles. Herakles was worshipped by the surasenas, who formed the great Yadava tribe, and who inhabited the banks of the Jamuuna and had Mathura as their capital.
The reference of the Greek traveler will enable the scholar easily to assess, the origin and spread of Krishna legend. Greece, Egypt and other the South European and North African countries are all mediterranean. All these were involved in Indian ocean trade. Therefore1 Kushites the adjacent race of the Mediterranean
region had also a hand. The Krishna and Narasimha legend were imported by Kushites merchants from India. Or, the merchants of India. who travelled and latter settled in Africa, were the originators of the Indian legends and worship in Africa. Both are possible and acceptable.
There are many parallels in the birth legend of Krishna and Jesus Christ. The legend of the birth of a saviour and an incarnation of God, which before the nativity of Christ, seems ultimately to have reached the mediterranean area. The fight of Joseph and Mary with the exodus of Nanda and family with Krishna and Balarama from Gokulam to Vrindavan. Herod is the semilic counterpart of Kamsa. Kamsa ordered the slaughter of the children of Yadavas Similarly, Herod did the massacre of the innocent children of Bethelhem in the hope of destroying the child Jesus.
Spelling his name Chrishna or Cristna, (Christ) the skeptics listed at length the events of his life. What made these events so disturbing is shown in Maurices grateful acceptance of the apologist theory promulgated by Sir William Jones On the Gods of Greece, Italy and India. To return to the more particular consideration of those parts of the life of Creeshna which are above alluded to by Sir William Jones, which have been paralleled with some of the leading events in the life of Christ, and are in fact, considered by Prim as interpolations from the spurious Crospets; mean more particularly his miraculous birth at midnight; the Chorus of Davatas that saluted him with hymns, the divine infant, as soon as born; his being cradled among shepherds, to whom were first made known those stupendous feats that stamped his character with divinity; his being carried away by night and concealed in a region remote from the scene of his birth, from Sear of the tyrant Camsa, whose destroyer it was predicted he would prove, and who, therefore, ordered all the male children born at that period to be slain; his battle, in his infancy with the dire envenomed serpent Calinga and crushing his head with his foot; his miracles in succeeding life; his raising the dead; his descending to Hades, and his return to Vaiconta the proper paradise of Visnu; all these cjrcumstances of similarity would certainly make one to surprise; and upon any other hypothesis than that offered by sir. William Jones, would, at first sights seem very difficult to be solved.
Other difficulties include the name of Crishna, and the general outline of his story, confessedly anterior to the birth of the Christ and probably as old as Homer. [ Brvce Franklin - The wake of the gods - 1963 P. 174, 175]
Dravidian Origin
Another important point must be noted here. Chrisna was Kamsas own sisters son. Soothsayer told Kamsa that his sisters son would kill him and succeed him. After the death of Kamsa, Krishna succeeded to rule the country. This shows the adaptation of matriarchal system .The matriarchal tradition is the special feature of Dravidians or non-Aryans. This system is still in vogue in the Southern part of Tamilnad, Kerala and South Karnataka of Dravidian India. Many ethnic groups of Africa still follow this mother oriented system.
In the fairly recent past and in some places still to-day, a person belongs to the family of his mother. The family regime was matriache. Today still among the Serer of sine (Senegal), a childs first name is followed by the name of his mother. To the people of the village where I was born, I am still Sedar Nyilane i.e. son of Nyilane. This fashion of naming must once have been general and the use of the patronymic brought in later. However this may be among most African people one belongs to one mothers clan.[ Senghor L. S. Senghor proseand Poetry P. 45 ]
The same kind of name is still available in Kerala and Southern part of Tamilnad with a slight variation. Here, the female children only adopted their mothers names as their initials. The matriarchal system is still alive in the name of marumakkal vazhi (sisters son oriented family system). Krishna also belonged to this Dravidian system. He was always described in Indian literature especially in Tamil literature as a black God (Karmeka Vannan). In his book Dravidian Elements in Indian Culture, Gilbert Slater established that God Krisna was originated from Dravidian region. A story was Given by Magasthenes, a Greek traveller to India. supporting this view. According to him, Pandaia ruled (the) the Pandya country, the southern part of India. She was the daughter of Krisna (Herakies) The kingdom was organised into 365 villages; one village had to bring the royal tribute to the treasury every day and if necessary assist the queen in collecting it from defaulters. This view of Magasthenes is confirmed by the epic Silappathikaram also. According to that, in a particular day a certain cowherd family in a suburb of Madura took its turn to supply ghee to the royal Pandyas palace.
Therefore, the origin of Krishna legend is started from Dravidian region and spread in the whole of India. Like the other merger (Karthikeya cult merged with Muruga cult) the Dravidian Mayavan (Black God) was also merged with Vishnu cult. The sailors took the Krishna legend too to the Mediterranean and to the interior African countries as well. The Kushites of Meroe were also influenced by this Krishna cult.
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
Basil Davidson, Guide to African HistoryGeorge Allen and Uswin Ltd. London, 1966.
The Lost Cities of Africa. Little frown and Company, Boston!
Toronto 1959.
Can we write African History, African studies centre,
University of California, Losangeis 90024, 1965.
Black Mother - Victor Goilanex Ltd. 1961
Madhu Panikkar, K. The Serpent and the Grescent - Asia Publishing House, Bombay-i, 1963
Nilakanta Sastri, K. A. A History of South India, Oxford University House, Madras 1966.
Randhawa, M. S. Kangra paintings or Bhagavada Purana, National Museum of India, New Delhi 1960
Senghor, L. S. Senghor Prose and Poetry - Ed. and tr. By John Reed and Clive wake, Oxford University Press, London
1965.
Dravidian and Negro-African
(Ethnic and LinguisticAffinities)
By U.Pupadhyaya Susheela O.Uphadyaya
The language spoken in the Indian sub-continent are classified into four groups. Among these four families of languages, the Dravidian, spoken mainly in South India occupies the second place next to Indo-Aryan sub-branch of the Indo-European family according to the number of speakers it has, but it occupies an equal - if not more important - position because of the contribution made by it to the totality of the literary and cultural heritage of India. Though the native tradition considers all these languages as derived from Sanskrit, modern scholarship has proved a century ago the four literary languages of the South, together with at least a score in the North-West and Assam in the East belong to a distinct linguistic stock different from the other three linguistic families namely Indo-Aryan, Austro-Asiatic and Tibeto-Burman.
From he beginning of the 19th century, modern scholarship began to investigate the structure and parentage of the Dravidian family of languages. In the early decades of the century, William Carey, a missionary from Bengal noted that the languages of South India should be differentiated from the Aryan languages of the North. His opinion was further supported by the great linguists of those days Max Muller, Ellis and Stevenson. The epoch-making work of Bishop Robert Caldwell in 1856 named A Comparative Grammar of the Dravidian languages proved beyond doubt the existence of a separate language family and laid the foundation for a new era of linguistic scholarship in India. He not only proved that these languages belong to a distinct genetic group, but also showed the structure and characteristic features of this family of languages. In spite of the fact that the twentieth century scholarship has modified many of the conclusions arrived at by Caldwell, the monumental work produced by him proves to be an indispensable companion for a modern scholar because of the wealth of information contained in it.
Since then these languages have been considered to belong to a separate stock and the scholars have been interested in penetrating into the origin and antecedents of this linguistic and ethnic group. Were they really the autochthonos or the original inhabitants of India? If not, from where did they come to India? To which other ethnic stock of the world are they to be related? What were they like in their linguistic and cultural habits in the remote past? What is the nature of their contact or confrontation with other linguistic or ethnic groups within and outside India? What was their contribution to the evolution of pan-Indian civilization?
Of the four major ethnic groups of India, the Austrics are believed to be oldest inhabitants. This long-headed and medium sized race is considered to be one of the oldest offshoots of the so-called Mediterranean race, tough on their way from the Mediterranean to India they were much mixed with other peoples and acquired new characteristics. Before the Austrics there were certain Negrito people whose identity and origin is yet to be investigated. Dravidians and Sino-Tibetans came later, the former from the North-West and the latter from the east. Aryans, one of the sub-groups of the Indo-European stock, are the last to enter the sub-continent whose confrontation with the earlier inhabitants is now almost an accepted fact and also recorded in their literature. It is also believed that the composite culture of India is the creation of the incoming Aryans and the already established Dravidians.
The presence of Dravidian languages throughout the length and breath of the sub-continent, e.g. Brahui in Baluchistan and Afghanistan, Kudukh and Malto in the Eastern part of India and the numerous tribal languages spread throughout the hilly regions of Central India proves it beyond doubt that the Dravidians are not simply the inhabitants of South India, but have, at one time occupied the entire region of the sub-continent. The excavations of Harappa and Mohenjo-daro have also brought to light the fact that Dravidian Civilization reigned supreme in the North-Western part of the sub-continent in a period about three to four millennia before the Christian era : a period before what is termed the Aryan invasion of India. These factors have indicated the possibility of the Dravidians having come to India - if at all they came from outside - from the North -Western frontiers.
If this is to be taken for granted, which part of the North-Western region did they come from? Who are the kinsmen of these Dravidians who were left behind or who might have migrated to some other direction? Are they related to the ancient races like Aegean, Sumerian, Caucasion, Finnish, Elamite, Pelasgian, Basque etc? Or to the Proto-Hamitic-Semitic population whose descendents now occupy the North-West Africa and Arabia? Or to the Negro-Africans who are now completely extinct by the onslaughts of other races and hence whose descendents now survive only in India?
Caldwell, the pioneer of Dravidian linguistics is not unaware of the problem of the affiliation of these languages. He has discussed in some length the possible relationship of the Dravidian languages with what he termed Scythian tongues, the numerous languages once spoken in the Middle East region. The idea first expressed by a Danish scholar Rusk was elaborated by Caldwell in considerable detail. The translation of the inscriptions discovered at Behistun in Western Media in the language of the Scythians has thrown some light on the connection of the Dravidian languages with the Scythian group.
[ Note:The cover term Scythian of Caldwell includes the languages like the Finnish, the Turkish, the Mongolian, and the Tungusian families. But the later research has grouped the Finno-Ugric under a separate family and the Turkish, Mogolian, Tunguz and Korean are considered as belonging to the Altaic family.]
Caldwell cites instances like the presence of retroflexes, presence of stop consonants as voiceless in the initial position and as voiced in the medial position of a word, genitive forms ending in na and nina, dative suffixes ikki/ikka, accusative forms ending in un/in, use of relative participles etc. etc. which lead him to conclude: The Pre-Aryan inhabitants of the Deccan should appear, from the evidence furnished by their language alone, in the silence of history, in the absence of ordinary possibilities, to be allied to the tribes that appear to have overspread Europe before the arrival of the Teutons and the Hellenes and even before the arrival of the Celts
Caldwell has also noted that in the vocabulary of certain Dravidian languages, a few Semitic analogies may also be discovered which appeared to him to be of no significance and hence might be due to the contact of the Dravidians with the Semitic people their arrival in India. He also discusses the possibility of some relationship of the Dravidian languages with an African language Bornu and some Australian tongues, but this was not elaborated further due to the lack of information about these languages.
Up to the first few decades of the 20th Century, our sources of information were limited tot eh Dravidian languages and the history of Dravidians in South India. The advances made by the sister-disciplines like Archaeology and Anthropology during the middle of this century with development of the technique of historical reconstruction in Linguistics have thrown a flood of light on the problems connected with Dravidian ethnology
The Indus valley excavations and the interpretation offered by a host of scholars right from Father Heras to modern scholars like Asko Parpola of Scandinavia together with many other excavations conducted in different areas of middle East, Egypt and other Negro-African regions by the bands of English, German and French scholars during the first half of our century have widened the horizons of modern scholarship and directed our thinking about peoples of prehistoric times in an altogether new line. One of its great contributions is to uphold the supremacy of ancient civilizations which led us to believe that the Indo-European and Semitic races are not the only leaders of civilization in the world and numerous tribes spread over the vast continents of Africa, Europe and Asia had their own well-developed civilizations in Pre-Indo_European and Pre-Semitic times. This has not only led the scholars to estimate the contribution of these ancient civilizations in forming the composite cultures of these regions in the post-Christian era, but also focused the attention of the world on the possible links of these ancient civilizations which form the substrata.
Mohenjodaro and Harappa excavations have revealed the existence of well-organized urban civilization in India before the entry of Indo-Aryans. It has been an admitted fact that when Aryans came to India they were like semi-nomads whereas Dravidians at that time formed a settled community of agriculturists and herdsmen. They lived in cities with fortifications and they had many amenities of advanced city life like public bath, drainages etc. Exactly in the same manner Schliemans discovery of Pre-Hellenic Pelasgian sites among the ruins of the old cities of troy in Asia-Minor and in Mycenae in Greece revealed the existence of a highly advanced urban civilization in those regions. Similar Archaelogical excavations conducted in Egypt, Nubia, Ur and many other African, Mediterranean and Middle-eastern regions have proved the existence of advanced city civilizations in the regions from Africa to India.
As a result of these excavations the scholars in the first half of this century tried to link the Ancient Dravidians with the Mediterranean races of he Neolithic era. Nilakantha Sastri and Suniti Kumar Chatterjee the two great authorities on South Indian History and Indian linguistics respectively have demonstrated the identity of the Dravidian race with the Mediterranean races based on anthropological and linguistic evidences. Lahovary has cited a number of linguistic evidences as well as toponymic evidences to prove the racial unity of the Basques, Caucasians and Dravidians. Though not organized systematically Lahovarys work merits a serious consideration because of the wealth of information it contains about some phonetic and morphological features and hundreds of lexical items as well as toponymic items gathered from many ancient languages of the Middle East. He has rightly focused the attention of the scholars on the fruitfulness of toponymic studies in determining historical relations. As he observes In toponymy there can be no questions of cultural or commercial loan-words, nor of fortuitous resemblances, for it is the direct and faithful mirror of the language of the people of a country at a given time and even long outlast it Ramaswamy Aiyar too has noted many similarities between the toponymy of Dravidian India and Persia. Sadasivam has attempted to prove the common parentage of Dravidian and Sumerian languages and Tuttle has cited many lexical and grammatical resemblances between Nubian and Dravidian. Zvelebil attempted to prove that the Dravidians were a highlander folks who lived, sometime around 4000 BC in the rugged mountainous regions of North-East Iran where they were in contact with the Ural_Altaic people and from there they migrated into the Indian Sub-continent and played a leading role in the ethnographic composition of the Indus Valley peoples before they ultimately reached Southern India. McAlpin has cited many lexical and grammatical points to indicate the relationship of the Elamite and Dravidian.
Some French, German and African scholars have also attempted to trace the common heritage of ancient Dravidian India and Negro Africa in culture, language and civilization. As early as 1897 the German ethnologists Frobenius noticed some cultural similarities between Negro Africa and Ancient India. Baumann and Westermann in their monumental work on African ethnology and civilization have noticed the influence of Indian Culture on Neo-Sudanese Culture. Cheik Anta Diop has traced many resemblances between Negro-Africa, Egyptian and Oriental Civilization. Cheik Tidiane NDiaye has shown that many words and expressions denoted by the Indus Valley Script can be related to Dravidian as well as Senegalese languages like Wolof and Pular.
L. Homburger had brought to light for the first time, some phonetic, morphological and lexical parallels between certain African languages and Dravidian languages. Though her studies were limited to a few isolated languages of these groups, they have drawn the attention of the linguists and the statesmen like L.S. Senghor to make a deeper probe into the prehistoric ties of Negro-Dravidian-Mediterranean races which have laid the foundations of civilizations much before the dawn of modern western civilizations. The researches being carried out now at the Institut Fundamental dAfrique Noire of the university of Dakar and the Center of Advanced Study in Linguistics of the Annamali University are expected to provide very strong linguistic evidence to support the hypothesis formed by the ethnologists about the ancient ties of these races which once occupied the entire region from Negro-Africa to south India through the Mediterranean and Middle-East.
Though the present inhabitants of the peninsula India and Negro-Africa have very few common physical characteristics due to mixture with different races, the pre-historic excavations go to prove the racial and cultural unity of these peoples. As Dravidians are considered to have come from the North-West of India and not to be original inhabitants of South India , it is also recognized that the Negroes of Africa are not the original inhabitants of their regions, though they have evolved in that region for a considerable period of time in the history of the continent. It is generally recognized that the Pygmies and Bushmen of the equatorial forests and the Kalahari desert are the survivals of the races which were spread over the whole of Africa before the arrival of Mediterranean peoples in the North and of darker skinned people in the North-East. The brown or black population seems to have invaded Africa from the East and tradition points to the regions east of the upper Niles as being those from which they spread South and West.
It is now generally accepted that in the Neolithic and early metal ages about 8th to 3rd millennia BC, the vast region of Western Asia with its extensions up to Niles and Indus, was occupied by what may be called a blackish race with its local variations like Proto-Mediterranean, Mediterranean and Hamite. This race is characterized by blackish brown complexion, long head, long straight and narrow face etc. The racial features of these peoples are testified not only by anthropological considerations but also by the homogeneity of cultural considerations by the study of their monuments artifacts and tools unearthed in those regions. As Lahovary, points out, the Neolithic Civilizations, which have so profoundly influenced human evolution have had a single origin and a single center of diffusion-- namely the Near est. This region endowed with a good climate and blessed by the river irrigation facilities, contributed much to the evolution of civilizations and it was here that the arts of agriculture, cattle breeding, weaving and pottery developed and later spread into Europe and other regions through migration. It is from this area that Bronze-Age civilization was carried to and spread in Europe before the advent of the Indo-Europeans. A series of migrations in different directions from that center until the break in the development of this civilization, was well testified by the archaeological discoveries. In spite of some local differences like the Prot-Mediterranean type in Egypt and India, Hamitic type in East_Africa and Ibero-insular Mediterranean type from Anatolia to Western India, we can see, on the whole a fundamental racial and cultural unity in all this part of the ancient world which is rightly called the cradle of civilization.
Three principle waves of migrations may be specially noted here. The first of these possessed no common name for metal and introduced Neolithic civilization into Europe together with the ribboned and incised pottery and a little later the painted ware. The second and third series of migrations gave Europe megalithic civilization and that of the first metal and bronze ages. The fourth series of migrations gave writing to Europe.
The fundamental unity of these Pre-Indo-European civilizations spread over this vast area from Dravidian India to Negro-Africa can be observed by the resemblances noticed in anthropological traits, social customs, religious beliefs, artifacts and linguistic features. Though due to pressure or onslaughts of the incoming races like Semites and Indo-Europeans many of them are either completely exterminated or survive in some remote corners in the mainland (like the Basques, Elamites, Caucasians etc), those who had earlier migrated into distant places like India and Africa survived preserving and developing their age-old customs and civilizations. These primitive people contributed a major share in the creation of the composite culture of the later periods with Indo-Europeans and Semitic peoples.
Anthropologists have shown many similarities between the human skeletons unearthed in Dravidian India and the Western regions of Neolithic times. Most of the skeletons found in Mohenjo Daro were very much like those of the megalithic civilizations of the Mediterranean regions. The skeletons found in Sialkot present great analogies with those of the pre-dynastic Egypt and of Mesopotamia. The conclusions arrived at by the Indus valley excavations are further supported by the epoch making discoveries made by the excavations at Jericho, Upper Galilee, Northern Iran, Egypt, Kenya, Tangkanyika and other regions.
The ancient matriarchal system of this civilization is found even today among the Dravidians, especially in Kerala and South Kanara, the Basques of Pyrenees, the Berbers of Sahara and many communities of Negro-Africa, where inheritance is transmitted through women.
The Cult of Serpent
The Cult of Serpent is another prominent feature of Dravidian India, Pre-Hellenistic Mediterranean world and Negro-Africa. Almost every village in Dravidian India, especially the wets coast belt, has what is known as sarpa-kavu or naga bana, a bush or a piece of land surrounded by the thick growth of trees and bushes wherein the stone-idols of serpents are worshipped. This is also associated with a variety of rituals in which we also find, among other things, dialogues between priest possessed by the serpent-god and the devotee. Many of the rituals associated with snake-worship in Africa find their parallels in the practices noticed in the Western Coast of South India. As the dead body of a serpent is cremated in Dravidian India with due funeral rites, it is buried by many Africans tribes with ritual formalities.
Mother-Goddess
Worship of the Mother Goddess is an important religious rite commonly noticed among the followers of this culture and we find this custom practiced throughout this region. The later Indo-European ancestors of the Greeks and Aryans brought with them the worship of the gods who lived in the sky and who were just anthropomorphized forces of nature, In contrast with these heavenly gods the Dravidians, Aegeans and other folks of these regions worshipped primarily the great Mother Goddess residing on the earth. This goddess has a male counterpart who is a passive figure. The concept of Shakti and Shiva in India grew out of this Dravidian belief. It is worth noting here that she is considered as Black Goddess (kali) in India as well as the Pre-Hellenistic Greece. She is the source of all life and also the goddess of death. Some of the Sumerian rituals relating to the marriage of the Mother Goddess with the Moon g=god find their parallels in the temple rituals of South India especially in the marriage of the Mother Goddess with Shiva. The god Nyame of the Ashanti and other peoples of West Africa is considered to be female, the great mother who gives life to all and is symbolized by the moon. The name Great Mother is one of the epithets given to the supreme being in African regions. Murugan, the god of mountains, the son of the mother goddess is a prominent and typical deity of the Dravidian India. It is interesting to note that at least twenty-five tribes in East Africa worship Murugu as supreme god, and like the Dravidian god Murugan, the African Murungu resides in the sacred mountains.
During the first millennium BC, the cult of the mother goddess gradually lost its primacy in the Mediterranean regions and in the Middle East under the influence of religious transcendentalism and of the patriarchal culture of the Semitic and Indo-European peoples. Dravidian India and Northern Africa, comparatively less affected by these influences, have kept these ancient beliefs with some local modifications. Even today, in almost all villages of Southern India a form of the mother goddess is worshipped as a village deity and she is specially worshipped to ward off evil spirits and contagious diseases or epidemic and the rituals associated with this worship do not bear any influence of the Aryan customs and the Brahmanical ways of worship. The word amma used to refer this village goddess as well as the disease of small-pox etc caused or cured by her will have its parallel in the same word amma used by the Dogons of the French Sudan. As in Dravidian India, altars are built in those parts of African also for sacrifice and communal worship for the deity amma.
It is worth noting the contrast between the patriarchal system and the male gods of the later Indo-European culture and the matriarchal system and the mother goddess of the ancient cultures of this region.
The offering of hair by women for fulfilling a vow to god and the practices of offering a maiden to the service of gods in temples ( the so-called sacred prostitution or Devadasi System) are some of the rituals noticed in Ancient South Indian temples, Middle East and the Mediterranean areas. Similarly the worship of tress -- fig, oak, or peepul - to fulfil a vow or to get boon , is also a common practice in Dravidian India, Mediterranean and African regions.
It is also believed that the cult of animism originated in Ancient Babylonia and made its way to Sub-Saharan Africa via the Carthaginian Civilization which called it the cult of Astarte. This cult was later on introduced to South America by African slaves. It is likely that some of the above mentioned beliefs common to Dravidian and Negro-Africans originated from the same source.
The practice of placing the dead body in terra cotta jars was current in Ancient South India, especially in the regions of Pondichery even up to the late iron Age. A similar practice was brought to light by the excavations in Mesopotamia and the Mediterranean regions. It may be noticed here that resurrection is an important belief of the religions of this area and the departed soul will come back in course of time. The jar is perhaps believed to be womb of the mother goddess.
It is perhaps this belief in resurrection that led to ancestor worship. As in the case with Dravidian India, the Ancestral spirits play a prominent role in African and Mediterranean thought. The practice of offering sacrifice to ancestors at regular intervals is noticed in almost all African tribes from South Africa to Sahara. The Ancestors are believed to have survived death and to be living in a spiritual world, but still taking a lively interest in the affairs of their families. The Ancestors who have not received proper burial or funeral rites become ghosts and wander between this world and the next, causing considerable harm to the members of the family. But those who are properly buried according to accepting rituals attain divinity and rank with other gods and look after their descendents on the earth.
The common features noticed in the areas of religious and social customs find their parallel in art and architecture also. As early as 1918, James Hornett noticed similarities existing between the South Indian boat designs and the Ancient boat designs of the Nile and Mesopotamia. He observed that before splitting off from the original stock the Dravidians living around Mesopotamia borrowed or invented the circular coracle and the reed raft. Coomarasamy has noticed that the ancient ritual and decorative designs of the Aegeans and the Dravidians are very much alike. In the technique dying, jewellery and in the making of metal weapons the West African Peuls and the Dravidians show remarkable resemblances. The Gonds of Central India, a Dravidian tribe, even now erect the houses similar to those erected by the Gallas of Somaliland.
Archaeologists have also noticed resemblances between the megalithic structures, tombs and monuments of the Dravidian regions and the Mediterranean regions. The objects found in the Megalithic monuments of Hyderabad are similar to the objects discovered in the Egyptian regions belonging to the second dynasty. The ornaments of gold discovered in the tombs of Adichanallur of Dravidian India resemble those discovered in Enkomi, Cyprus and the surrounding regions of the Bronze Age. Nilakanta Sastri hs shown the existence of numerous analogues between certain types of pre-historic tombs of pre-dynastic Egypt and South India as well as between the Stone urn burials of South India and Syria. The bronze bowels discovered in Nigiris (South India) show remarkable resemblances to those found in Ur (Sumer) of the third millennium BC and Assyria.
The art of making pottery with various designs on it, one of the achievements of the Paleolithic period, also aids us in discovering the possible relationship of these ancient races. Many archaeologists have noted resemblances between the pottery designs of Dravidian India and the Mediterranean regions)
In this vast territory of great civilizations, we can distinguish at least three important linguistic types. Of these three the Indo-European an inflectional type is evidently brought by the later conquerors of these regions. Hittite is the only one which is now considered to be related to the Indo-European family. The other ancient languages which show agglutinative and inflectional tendencies may be considered as belonging to two separate families. Of these two, the proto-Semitic forms the upper layer. Other languages which show an agglutinating tendency with invariable roots using chains of detachable suffixes belong to the still earlier inhabitants of this region who founded the earliest civilizations.
It is perhaps due to the pressure of the Semitic stock that the earlier inhabitants speaking these agglutinative languages were dispersed from this area and went in eastern directions towards India and in Western directions towards Africa. The speakers of the Dravidian languages and the Negro-African languages represent these branches and hence continue to retain many of their original linguistic features in these remote areas. Other peoples of the same stock, who remained in their own regions were either completely assimilated to the conquering race or partially assimilated (like Hamites) and thus lost their linguistic heritage, or took refuge in distant mountain regions of the Caucasus, Pyrenees etc, preserving their languages like Caucasian, Basque and other languages which are now termed Asiatic languages.
Linguistic resemblances noticed among the Dravidians, Negro-African, Basque, Caucasian, Elamie, Sumerian, Nubian, Scythian and a host of other languages of this area go to prove this fact. It is true that certain points of resemblance may be noticed between Hamito-Semitic languages and the above-mentioned languages also. But these resemblances only lead us to postulate the impact of the Hamitic-Semitic languages on these languages due to socio-cultural contacts and hence mutual borrowing must have taken place. If the composite culture of India is the creation of the already settled Dravidians and the incoming Aryans, and the Greek culture is the creation of the earlier inhabitants like Aegeans and the incoming Greeks, the composite culture of Negro-Africa may also be considered as the creation of the already settled Negroes and the the incoming Semites and Hamites. Due to such cultural contact, conflict, coexistence and fusion, linguistic borrowing also might have taken place to a very large extent.
Linguitic similarities noticed among different language groups are to be considered as due to any one of the following (i) accidental similarity in certain vocabulary items, (ii) typological similarity due to parallel phonetic, morphological or syntactic structures, (iii) areal similarity due to convergence in linguistic features on account of geographical contiguity and mutual inflow of communication through a considerable period of time, and (iv) resemblance due to genetic relation because of their having developed from the same source. Since the resemblance noticed among the Dravidian, Negro-African and other ancient languages of the Near and Middle East are so numerous the first possibility is ruled out. The second possibility is also ruled as the resemblances are not typological alone but are also in the root elements relating to vocabulary items and grammatical structure. Since the languages under consideration are separated by geographical boundaries the third possibility is automatically ruled out. We are left with no other alternative but to accept the fourth possibility namely the genetic relationship. Since the languages share not only lexical and grammatical features but also display sound correspondences as described in the following pages our assumptions about common heritage is very much strengthened.
If the linguistic evidences go to strengthen the assumptions made by the anthropological and archaeological studies, the common parentage of the Dravidians, Negro-Africans and other ancient races of these region can be proved with convincing evidence.
It will be of interest to postulate that even after the original stock was dispersed in different directions towards India and Africa the member communities maintained contacts with one another through sea-route. After the Indus Valley Civilization of Dravidians was destroyed by the incoming Aryans or the natural calamities as believed by some the Dravidian Speakers must have come towards the south along the western coast. The maritime front of the Indus Civilization is well known. The great Dravidian Kings of South India had maritime relations with Mesopotamia, Arabia, Egypt and East Africa. They had excellent trade relations with the countries across the Arabian sea. Egyptian merchants were in the habit of trading on the Indian Ocean. The archaeological excavations conducted on the Arabian Coast, the Persian Gulf and other regions go to prove this fact.
One of the generals of Alexander the Great travelled through these coasts and recorded the presence of foreign traders in those regions. The fact that the burnt bricks were used both by the architect of Mohenjo Daro and those of the Egypt of the first dynasty is evidence of the mutual contact or the common origin of these peoples. The presence of a few Kannada words and sentences in a Greek play preserved in an Egyptian papyrus of the second century AD, further strengthens our assumptions. It is interesting to note that when Vasco da Gama reached Mombasa he found Indians already settled there and it was an Indian pilot who took him to Goa. The contributions made by the Dravidian immigrants in evolving the New Sudanic Civilization is rightly acknowledged by great historians like Baumann.
The examples of phonetic, morphological and lexical parallels between the Dravidian languages and the Senegalese languages like Wolof, Serer, Pular ( Fulani) and Joola (Dyola) and hints about sound correspondences presented in the following pages are based on the observations made during the course of about a years field wok carried out in Senegal with a view to making a comparative study of the Dravidian languages and the above-mentioned four languages belonging to the West-Atlantic sub-group of the Niger-Congko family.
The present study is not without its obvious limitations. First of all it is based on preliminary observations and a detailed study is being made. Many of the observations made now are subject to modifications after further analysis. The purpose of this preliminary report is only to indicate the possibilities and the fruitfulness of a detailed study which is being made now. It must also be noticed here that many pre-requisites are yet to be fulfilled before the parentage of the different groups of languages can be ascertained. Reconstruction of the Prot-Language of the hundreds of Negro-African languages based on systemic synchronic descriptions and the methods of reconstruction - which will be the work of reconstructed proto-language is to be compared with the reconstructed proto-language of the Dravidian family. Though linguists have made some progress in reconstructing the Ancient Dravidian speech forms, practically no work of any significance is available so far for a bewildering variety of the Negro-African languages of this vast area. Any result obtained until that time is only tentative and subject to modifications. But however, it is hoped that the efforts now being made may certainly contribute towards that goal and stimulate further efforts in this direction to make a deeper probe into the subject.
For such ancient languages with poor documentation o written record, separated by geographical boundaries and having independent course of development or evolution over some millennia, any attempt to find rigid equivalences is bound to be met with failures. Or, within the frame-work of comparative linguistics, to what extend a regular sound correspondence can be set up or strict morphological parallels can be utilized and validated in the case of languages separated by such a long geographical and temporal gap is also a point open to dispute. It is only a rough approximation of general tendencies in their phonetic and morphological behavior that can be aimed at, at this stage of our understanding of these languages, which may help us to postulate the relationship and the original source of these linguistic features. Linguistic laws are not irrefutable because of the various disturbing factors.
During the course of their survival and evolution over some millennia, many losses and innovations might have taken place due to contact, borrowing, independent development etc. It is with this caution that the broad tendencies noticed among these languages specially in their phonetic, morphological and lexical elements are presented in the following pages. Syntactic features are not taken into consideration in this study because the order of the constituent elements is more free in the higher stage of construction in the immediate constituent hierarchy and the order of constituents is more susceptible to change due to areal convergence and hence may not prove to be a useful tool in determining genetic relationship.
Agglutinating tendency, absence of grammatical gender, absence of inner vowel-change, use of post-positions or prepositions instead of flexion are some of the prominent features in which the Negro-African and Dravidian languages differ from the Indo-European and Hamito-Semitic group. Other features shared both by the Negro-African and Dravidian are : a simple system of five basic vowels with short-long contrast, vowel harmony, absence of initial clusters of consonants, abundance of geminated consonants, distinction of inclusive and exclusive pronouns in the first person plural, absence of the degree of comparison for adjectives, lack of adjectives and adverbs as distinct morphological categories, consonant alternation or nominal increments noticed among the nouns of different classes, distinction of completed action and incomplete action among verbal paradigms as against specific tense distinctions, two separate sets of paradigms for declarative and negative forms of verbs, use of reduplicated forms fro emphasis etc. At the same time, the Negro-African languages also show some marked differences from the Dravidian languages especially in their baffling noun-classification system, consonant alternation, wealth of derived forms to modify the sense of verbs, use of wide variety of personal terminations for verbs etc.
[ Abbreviations used for language names:
Sn.= Senegalese languages. NA = Angro-African Land=gauges Dr. = Dravidian languages PDr. = Proto-Dravidian MDr. = Modern Dravidian SDr. = South Dravidian CDr. = Central Dravidian. W. = Wolof P. = Pulaar(Fulani) S. = Serer. J. = Joola(Dyola) Ta. = Tamil Ma. = Malayalam Ko. = Kota To. = Toda Ka. = Kannada KoD. = KoDagu Tu. = Tulu Te. = Telugu Kol. = Kolamai Nk. = Naiki Pa. = Parji Ga. = Gadaba Go. Gondi Konda. = Konda Kui. = Kui Mal. = Malto Br. = Brahui Bas. = Basque Su. = Sumerian Cau. = Caucasus Ber. = Berber]
Both Sn. And Dr. have a system of five basic vowels with a three-fold distinction of tongue-height (high, mid and low), a three-fold distinction of tongue-position (front, central and back), a two-fold distinction of lip rounding (rounded and unrounded), and a two=fold distinction of duration (short and long)
I u ii uu
e o ee oo
a aa
Some languages belonging to both these groups have developed slightly lower or higher counterparts like I, E, U -- -- -- (Note: could not type for lack phonetic symbols) . These sounds are noticed at phonetic level in some languages whereas in some other languages either some of them or all of them attained phonemic status. With very slight modifications this basic system can be noticed in all languages belonging to Sn. And Dr. group. All these can occur as short or long in all positions of a word and pronounced evenly. Neither word-stress nor pitch is a phonologically distinct feature in these two groups of languages.
Though we assign six series of stop consonants for PDr., only five, namely bilabial, dental, retroflex, palatal and velar form a perfect system. Alveolar R in Dr. has a limited occurrence and it is restricted to certain positions only. Though the distinction between voiced and voiceless stops was at phonetic level only in PDr., almost all modern Dravidian languages have this distinction at phonemic level also. We find approximately a similar system in Sn. With the exception that in the place of dental and retroflex series, Sn. Have a single tip-alveolar series, which, to the ear of a Dravidian speaker sound more like the retroflex of Dr. Implosives stops --(?), d and y noticed in certain Sn. Languages like Pular and Serer must be later innovations. Both Sn. And Dr. do not also employ a wide variety of fricatives. As MDr. Developed some fricatives like s, s and h, Sn. Too developed f,x and h. Of these, some may perhaps be considered as due to Semitic borrowings while some like f may be due to borrowing as well as developments from primitive sounds like P. The two important features in which Sn. and Dr. together form a group as opposed to hamito-Semitic and Indo-European are the (i) absence of aspirated stop consonants and (ii) relatively little use of stops and fricatives in post-velaric regions.
Like Dr., Sn. too have a series of nasal corresponding to all stop consonants and the abundance of these nasals (including n like its counterpart in Malayalam even in word initial position) resemble Dravidian tendency. A more or less similar system of vovwels and consonants is noted for the ancient languages of the Mediterranean and Middle East regions also, especially Basque, Ligurian, Sumerian etc. The only exception is the Caucasion group which displays a wide variety of consonants different from the systems noted above.
The syllable pattern of Dr. and Sn. show many resemblances. We have in both the systems a greater tendency towards open syllables and avoidance of non-identical consonant clusters. Generally the accent falls on initial syllable of a word in both these groups. Since only a few languages of the Niger-Congo family bear phonologically significant tones it is doubtful whether it is to be attributed to the proto language of this family. Hiatus is avoided and prothetic vowels or the vowel glides are employed. Initial clusters of consonants are absent in both these groups. The sole exception is the presence of some nasalized stops in the initial position in Sn. as well as the entire Niger-Congo group. It is likely that they might have developed from an earlier cluster by the loss of preceding vowel or due to later innovations.
Abundance of medial geminated consonants is a popular phenomenon noticed in Dr. and Sn. It is due ti their preference for open syllables that the final consonants are very rare in these languages. As opposed to Indo-European and Hamito-Semitic the verbal roots in Dr. have a vocalic ending. According Meinhof Proto-Bantu roots have all a vocalic ending. Nubian too has this tendency. Though we find some liquids and nasals in the word-final position in some Dr. languages, many languages of this group have a tendency to add a vocalic release at that end. We have also come across a good number of cases with consonantal endings in Sn. But two points deserve special mention here. First of all, the exact nature of the single stop consonants in the final position is not clear. The contrast between voiced and voiceless stop consonant in the final position is neutralized in many cases. It occurs as voiceless when followed by another vowel. When a slightly geminated, aspirated or tense consonant occurs in the final position a vocalic release can be noticed, in which case it is considered as geminated. This may lead us to postulate that originally these languages might have had a greater tendency towards vowel-ending words.
Vowel harmony in some form or other is a tendency noticed in the phonology of the Negro-African, Dravidian and many other ancient languages of the Mediterranean and the other regions of West Asia. In Te. the final u or i of many suffixes like dative, accusative, pronominal etc. depends on the stem-final vowel preceding it; e.g. tammuni-ki, to the brother qurramuna-ku to the horse; kottina-nu I struck unti-ni I was. The stem-final i is assimilated to the following u of the plural suffix lu ; e.g katti knife kattu-lu knives. The enunciative vowel u or i in many Dr. languages depends on the vowel in the preceding syllable; e.g. Tu. and- I yes, undu this, Ta. kotu to give, pati to lie down etc. In NA languages vowel-harmony is noticed in the case of the respective tongue-heights of the vowels in consecutive syllables. Greenberg suggests that relative height is basic to all African systems of vowel harmony. Hence the vowels can be divided into two mutually exclusive sets like higher and lower or tense and lax, and the vowel is assimilated to the following or preceding vowels. (Notes: the examples omitted because lack of relevant phonetic symbols)
Some prominent sound correspondences may be noted here. Alternation b & v is noted in Dr. e.g. Ta. v and Ka. b. W. b corresponds to Dr. b & v in a number of cases;
e.g W. baaram finger, Ka. Beral; T. viral; W. biig evening; Ka. Bayqu; Ta. vayku; W. biir belly, pregnancy ; Ka.basaru, Ta. vayiRu, Ma. Vayaru, Tu. Banji; W. benn one Ta. (wo_onRu; W.bey tocultivate, cultivation, Ka. Bele, Ta. viLay, Ma. Vila; W. bunt door, Ka. Baagilu, Ta. vaacal; W. bant stick, Ka. Badige, Tu. Badu, Ta. vati; W. bind to write , Ka. Bare, Ta. vari etc.
W. f & Dr. p.
e.g. W. fukk ten, Ta. ma. Patti, Te. Padi, Tu. Patti; W. fekk to find , Ta. piti to hold, Ka. Pidi, Tu. Patti; W. fab to pick up , Kui.pebga, Kod. Pori, Ta. perukka, Tu. Peji; W. fen to tell lie, Tu.pani to tell, Ta. peecu; W. fog to shake , Ta. pandi,; W. feex fresh, cool, Tu. Paji.
W. f & Dr. c/t/k.
W. juroom five, Par. Cem, Go. Sayyum, Kui. Singi; W. jaan snake, Ta. cereal, Ka. Keere; W. jiit scoprpion, Ta. Ma. TeeL, Ka. Ceel; W. jaay to sell;, jar to cost, Ta. celavu, Ma. Celka; W. jam to piere, Ta. ceruku, Ma. Cerutu, Ka. Cuccu.
W. & Dr. k
W. xar sheep , Ka. Kuri, Ta. Ma. Kori, Kod. Koi; W. xeer rock , Ta. Ma. Kal stone, Ka. Kallu, Br. Khal, Pa. Kel; W. xenx red, Ka. Tu. Kempu, Br. Khiisum; W. xerem salt, Ka. Kaar pungent, saltiest, hot Br. Khareen bitter; W. xetti to tear, Ta. Kati to cut, Ma. Katikka, Te. Kaatu, Br. Gat; W. xarit friend, Ta. KeeLanm Ka. Keleyea, geleya; W. xuuge hunch-back, Ta. Ma. Kuuna, Ka. Guuna; W. xam to know, Ta. Kal to ;earn, Ka. Kali; W. xaar to wait, Ta. Kaay, Ka. Kayyu; W. xel heart, Ma. Karai, Ka. Karalu; W. xur valley;, Ta. Kuri, To. Kos; W. xaj dog, te. Kukka. Also note: S. xoox head, Kur, kukk, Mal. Kuku.
Though Dr. does not display any system of noun classification similar to the one noticed in NA, some traces of such a system can be imagined for Dr. because of the augment apparing after nouns before case-suffixes and post-positions are added. Special mention may be made of the augment Ta. Ma. tt, Te. ti ti. Ka. d etc. occurring after non-human nouns ending in a, augment n in most of Dr. languages after human nouns ending in a etc. e.g. Ta. mara-tt-ai the tree(acc), Ka. Mara-d-a trees. Consomnant alternation when the membership of a root is changed into adifferent class or when suffixes are added may be noticed in instances like Ka. oodu to run, oota running, race kodu, to give, kottano he gave, biilu to fall, bidd fallen participle. In Sn. languages in general and S. and P. in particular the system of consonant alternation is highly developed, e.g. P. modo ara I came, eden ngara we come, hoore head, koye heads, S. gar to come o ngara they came, bind to write o pind ale writng;, xon todie, o kon ohe dead; and W. bind to write , mbind writing; garab tree , ngarab bush.
Demonstrative bases in Sn. and Dr. show striking resemblances as can be seen from the following table. These are prefixed to the elements indicating person, place, manner etc in Dr. whereas they are suffixed in the case of Sn.
[* The Dr. u is still in usage among Ceylon Tamils. Tolkappiyam and Cankam literature mention this u - Editor]
The following participial and abstract noun formative suffixes of Sn. Corresponds to Dr. suffixes of similar signification.
P. -o past participial and -oowa agentive; J. -a agentive, Dr. -a, ava, e.g P. windudu written, windoowo writer, janginoowa teacher, J. leb to talk, allaba talkative, tep to build , ateba builder, Ka. Bareda written baredava one who wrote etc.
W. aay and J.ay abstract noun formative and Dr. ay. Ta. Ay K. e etc, e.g. W. baax good, baaxaay goodness;, rafet be beautiful, raftetaay beauty, gudda be lomg , kudday length; J. apala friend bapalay friendship, leb to tak mulebay scandal; Ka. Hiri big , elder hirime greatness, Ta. Nal good, nanmay goodness
W. it, iit abstract noun formative suffix and Ka. ita, ta . e.g W. deg to cut degit sharpness, des to remain desit residue, Ka. hari to cut, harita sharpness, kuni to dnace, kunita dance.
W. kaay and P. iki formative suffix and Ka. ike e.g. W. faj to nurse fajukaay hospital, ate to judge, attekeay tribunal , bind to write bindukaay instrument for writing, pen , P. and to knoe, andiki knowledge;, wind to write , bindiki writng, yar to drink , jarki drinking, Ka. Haasu to spread haastike bed, aalu to rule, aalike domination, rule.
P. past tense suffix i finished action corresponds to Dr. I, it/id past tense suffix and i past participial suffix, e.g. P. a wari he came a andi he knew o tuuri he vomited and Ma. pooyi, went Ka. maadi having done .
W. wul, ul negative suffix and J. ul suffix for negative derivation for verbs; correspond to Dr. al, il, illa etc, and P. a, ata nef=gative suffix corresponds to Dr. a, ate, ade, ada negative participial/ gerundial suffix. E.g. W. bey to cultivate, beyul negative, indi to bring indiwul did not bring; J. kik to stich, kikul to unstich, gadul to unhook, fehlul to untie; Old ta. Nill al-an he will not stand, Ka. Nill-alla does not stand. P. war to come warata not coming , ta. Var to come, varaata not coming, Tu. Bori to milk, boriyada dont milk; Old Ma. Ceyyaa I will not do and P. mi andi I knew mi andaa I do not know , Ka. Maadu to do, maada ;he may not do.
W. al/l imperative suffix corresponds to Dr. ali, la, le , alaam imperative/permissive, e.g W. bindal write, indil bring Tu. barela write , barele write, (pl) Ka. bareyali let . . . . . write, Ta. varalaam may come
Many pronouns and pronominal elements in verbal constructions (like personal suffixes) in the two groups of languages contain common elements, e.g. W. man I naa I. P.sg; Ka. naan I ne/nu I.p.sg.; W. yew you, ya II.p.sg., nga II.p/sg, ngeen IIp.pl. J. aw, nu you g., Tu. iiyou, Ta. niinga you nga IIp.hon., sg.; W.meen he, nae III p.sg., P. omo he J. e he, Ta. avan he etc.
J. e, ere reflexive suffix and P. o to form middle voice (with reflexive meaning) correspond to Dr. o, onu, ollu, kollu etc , e.g. J. buj to kill bujere to kill oneself; P. laata to become , laato to become, middle voice; Ka. Oodu to read oodika read oneself; Tu. Bare to write bareyonu write oneself.
Both Dr. and Sn. Employ reduplication of these bases to emphasize meaning or to modify the sense in a similar manner. E.g. J. fan more fanfan very much; funak day funako-funak every day; W. xam to know, xam-xam knowledge; siin region of Sine, siin-siin native of Sime; gam to hurt, gaam-gaam wound; Ka. Beega quick, beega beega veru quick, maadi having done, maadi-maadi having done again again , ondu one ondondu one each .
A few sample lexical items from the basic vocabulary list are given below. The numbers at the end denote the corresponding entries of the Dravidian Etymological Dictionary by Burrow and Emeneau.
In Pular and Serer entries the slash separates singular and plural forms.
Nature, Flora and Fauna
Village, settlement. P. wuro, Ta. Ma. Nk. uur id. Ka. Tu. Te. uuru id. Br. ura id. 643, Su. uru id.
Mountain, rock. P. haayre, Ka. hare rock, Kuwi. hooru id. 2356
Valley, pit. W. xur, S. xulub id. Ta. Ma. kuri id. Tu. quri id. Pa. kurub id. 1511.
Stone W. xeer, Ta. Ma. kal id. To. kas id. Ka. kallu id. Pa. kal id. Br.khal id. 1511
Mud ,clay W. ban, Ta. Ma. maN id. Ka. mannu id. Ta. mannu id. 3517.
Cloud , water (i) W. niir cloud , Ta. Ma. niir water, ka. Ta. niiru id. Br. Diir id 3057. (ii) W. ndox water P.ndiiyam id. Br. diir id. Ta. Ma. niir id. 3057.
Stream W. wel, J. kal id. Te. velli id. Ko. kolli id. 4529, 1777.
Dawn W. fajarm, S. fajar id. Ta. pular, pularcci id. Ma. pularuka id. Te. pulva id. 3531
Day-time , warmth W. beceg, Ka. beccaqe id.
Evening . W. W. biiq, Ka. bayqu id. Tu. bayya id. Ta, Ma. Vaiku id. Te. veequ id . 4570
Snake (i) fangool/ pangool , Ta. Ma. paampu id. Te. paamu id. Pa. baam id. Ko.paab id. To. poob id 3361. (ii) W. jaan id. P.njaawa id. Pa. jeeri id. Go. seeri id. Ko.jeeringga id . 2314.
Spider W. jargon, P. njabale id. Ta. jaadajeeda, Tu. jaadye id.
Lizard P. pallardi, ta. Ma. Palli , 3294
Scorpian W. jeit Ta. Ma. teeL id. Ka. Tu. ceel id.
Tortoise (i) P. amere/ame Ta. aamai id. Ma. aama id. Ka. aamaa id. Tu. eeme id 4282 (ii) J. ekub id. Kur. ekka id. Mal. eke id. 660
II. Household and Agriculture
House, hut (i) P. galle J. elun id. Te. illu id. Ta. il id. Tu. ill id. Nk. ella id. 420. Bas. ili id. Nu. il (ii) W. ker id. Ta. kuti kuticai id. Ko. kurji id. Kui. kuuri id. Tu. kotta hut 1713. Br. Kur id.
Door P. baafal W. bunt id. Ka. baagil id. Ta. vaacal, vaayil id. Ma. vaatil id. Te. vaakili id. 4386.
Corner W. kon S. koon id. Ta. koonai id. Ka. kone id. Ma. Konna id. 1808
Pestle. P. unugal Ta. ulakkai id. Ma. ulaka id. Ka. onake id . 580
Pot W. paana metal pot Ta. paanai eathern pot , Ma. pane id. Ka. bane id. Kod. paani id. Tu. paani id. 3394
Charcoal W. kerin P. kaata id. Ta. Ma. kari id. Ka. Tu. kari id. Ta. karu black 1073
Smoke W. saxaar, J. fakor id. Ta. Ma. pukai id. Ka. Kod. poge id. Te. poga id. Nk. pog id. 3483
Salt W. xoron Ta. kaar to be saltish, pungent, kaaram id. Ma. kaaram id. Ka. kaara id. Te. kaaru salt Br. Khareen bitter 1227
Clarified butter S. new Ta. Ma. Ka. Tu. ney id. Pa. nev id. Go. In id. Kui niiju id. Kuwi niiyu id 3104
Cultivation W. bey to cultivate mbey cultivation ambey crop Tu. bey to cultivate benni cultivation bule crop Ka. bele crop to grow Ta. vilay id. 4473, 4464
Manure J. aroka Ta. eru id. To. Eruvu id. Ka. erubu, eeru id. 696
Net W. mbaal S. mbaal id. J. mabal id. Ka. bale id. Ta. valai id. Ma. Vala id. Ga. Valla id. 4326
Boat raft W. gal Ta. kool, koola id. Ka. kool id. Te. koolamu id. Pa. kulla id 1853
Rice W. eeb Ta. Ma. cooru cooked rice 2360
Millot W. suuna, P. sunna id. Kol. sonna id. Kuwi. zoona id. To. joona id. Pa. jenne id. Go. jonaa id. 2359.
III Kinship Terms and Body Parts.
Person J.an S. kin id. W. nit id. Ta. Ma. Ka. aan person, male , an masculine suffix 342.
Mother W. yaay, S. yaay id. J. inaay id. Ta. aay, yaay, naay, taay id. Ka. aavi, taavi id. Ga. Aava id. Mal. avva id. 308, 53
Father W. baay, P. baaba id. S. baab id. J. ampa id. Ka. appa id. Ta. appan id. Te. appa id. Go. aapa id. 133 Su. ab id. Cau. ab id.
Child J. anil/kunil Ma. kunnu, kunci id. Ko. kuni id. Kod. kunni id. 1371.
Husband J. ata Ta. attaan husband, maternal uncles son man of eminence sisters husband 121
Grandfather W. maammaat great grand-father maam greandfather P. maamiraado id. S. maamkor id. Ta. maama uncle a term of address to eladers muuttaar aged persons mutu aged, old Ka. mudimi id. 4057
Maiden W.janx, J. ajana id. W. jeeg married woman Tu. jeevn maiden 2311.
Friend W. xarit S. kuud id. Ma. kuuraan id. Ka. keleyan 1577, 1678.
Body W. yaram S. cer id. Ta. uru id. uruvam id. To. urp id. Kol. urp id 566.
Head (i) S. xoox J. fu-ko id. Kur. kukk id. Mal. kuku id. 1358. (ii) W. bapp id. Te. burra id. Ka. burude id. 3553. Bas. Buru id. (iii) P. hoore id. Ka. hore head-load hour to carry on head.
Lip W. tun P. tondu id. Ta. Ka. titi Go. tote id. Kui. Tooda id. 2698
Eye-lash J. kamoy/umay Ta. imay id. Ka. Tu. ime id. 2097.
Ear J. kaos Br. khaf id. Ka. kivi id. Tu. kebi id. Kur. khebda id. 1645.
Neck P. geenul S. goddul id. Te. gontu id. Ka. gantalu id. 1428
Hand (i) J. kangen, kaban S. kand id. Ta. Ma. Ka. kay 1681
Finger W. baaram, Ka. beral id. Ta. Ma. viral id. Ko. bera id. 4436
Heart W. xol J. xoor id. Ko. karl id. Ma. karal, kari id. Ka. karul id. 1070
Blood W. deret Br. Ditar id. Go. nattur id. Te. netturu id. Ka. nettaru id. 3106.
Belly W. biir Go. piir id. Ko. viir id. Ta. vayiRu id. Ka. basaru id. 4299.
Leg P. kovngal Ta. Ma. Kaal id. Ka. kaalu id. Na. kaalu id. Tu. kaari id. 1238.
Skin P. nguru/guri Ta. uri, urivai id. Ma. Uri id 561.
IV Verbs of Common Action etc
Eat , lick W. an eat naam lick P. naam eat S. naam id. Ta. Ma. un eat nakkulick, Ka. unnu eat nakku lick Te. naaku id. Pa. neek id. Kui. Naaka id. Ka. nanju id. 516, 2945, 2956
Drink P. var S. var id. J. raan id. Ta. paruku id. Ma. parukuka id. Tu. par id. 3279.
Come P. ar , wara S. gari id. J. rin id. Ta. varu id. Ma. Varuka id. Ka. baru id. Br. Bar id. Mal. hare id. 4311.
Say W. ne Ta. en id. Ma. ennuka id. Ka. en id. Ta. an id. Mal. anc id. Kur. aannaao id. 737.
Learn J. kaliken Ka. kali id. Tu. kalpu id. Ta. Ma. Kal id. 1090.
Beget , give birth to W. jur J. eron id. Ta. peru id. Ma. peruka id. Ka. per id. Kod. per id. 3622.
Die W. saay to die used for kings death. P. sooyta id. Ka. saay id. Tu. say id. Ta. caay id. Ma. caaka id. Ga. say id. Kui. Saava id. 2002.
Hope P. kori Ta. kooru id. Ma. kooruta id. Ka. Ta. kooru id. Ga. koor id. 1848
Want, desire W. begg Ka. beeku id. Tu. boodu id. Ta. veenum id. 4548.
Spill, vomit W. tuur, P. tuur id. Ka. Te. tuuru id. Ta. tuppu id. Te. tuppukku id. 2795, 2725.
Steal J. kuut S. kuud thief Ka. kadi to steal, kalla theirf Ta. kal to steal To. Kol id. Tu. kalu id. 1156.
Milk P. bir, Tu. bori id. Br. Bir id.
End, finish W. muji Ta. Ma. Muti id. Ka. muqi id. Ma. Motiyuka id. Ko. murc id. Te. muudu id. 4031.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Rasol and Calypso, commendations and props to both of you for your wonderful and much needed display of TRUE scholarship! Something which is much needed in this board.
I've said it before and I'll say it agiain, scholarship in the form of wishful thinking and loose, faulty research is what Eurocentrics even Aryanist Nazis have practiced. 'Afrocentrics' like Winters are no different. Posted by basicbows (Member # 10371) on :
I agree you should read it. It will show that these people made a lot of comments about my work, but they presented no linguistic evidence in support of their claims.
I invite you to read the thread and post here any linguistic evidence and lexical examples they presented to falsify my arguments.
.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:I agree you should read it. It will show that these people made a lot of comments about my work, but they presented no linguistic evidence in support of their claims.
Don't have time to read all that, but a cursory review shows that they do present linguistic evidence, and in doing so, seem dismissive of your claims.
That doesn't make them right and you wrong per se...but, you do resemble the following remarks:
quote: Just to keep the record straight and spend some spare time, let's go through Mr. Winters' "Sumerian evidence":
- bir does not mean "to heat", but "to scatter, disperse".
- there is no "bur" meaning "to free", there are several "bur", but meaning "(stone) bowl", "food offering", and others attested in few texts, and whose meaning is very obscure.
- bun doesn't mean "to blow", but "nose" and "breath".
- his "baba-a" (actually ba-ba-a), meaning "old man" is a hapax legomenon, attested ONLY in one syllabic vocabulary from Ugarit (AS 16: 36, ba-ba-a = pur-$u-mu).
- bar does not mean "town", but "outside, side, back, edge, etc.", and there is other bar meaning "liver", but no town, no town.
I could go on, and on, and on for ever ("manus" is munus; he ignores the "numbers" of the signs, so "ruler" is bara2, not "bara"; "eye" is igi in Sumerian --his "ini, en" is obviously Semitic, cf. Akkadian i:nu, e:nu, etc., etc., etc...). Most of the words (almost all) in Mr. Winters' "Sumerian" column happen not to exist, are absolutely wrong, or mean completely different things.
I'd like to be very respectful and there is nothing personal in this, but Mr. Winters' list illustrates *nothing* but the fact that he doesn't know Sumerian at all, and his "methodology" is anything but methodology.
Moreover, I do not understand his mixing terms concerning ethnicity, race (whatever that is), and language, as in "Black African Languages". Somali is an East Cushitic language (concretely, Lowland East Cushitic), like Oromo, Bayso, Boni, etc. East Cushitic languages belong to the Afroasiatic macro-family. I'm afraid, Mr. Winters is far from being familiar with any scholarship on Cushitic (Ehret, Diakonoff, Dolgopolskij, Gragg, etc.).
Furthermore, the way he uses the term "Manding" is misleading, and against all the current stuff about Mande studies (Dwyer, Mukarovsky, Welmers, De Wolf, etc.). I dare suggest he should look at two very basic overviews:
D. J. Dwyer. "Mande". In _The Niger-Congo Languages_, ed. J. Bendor-Samuel. Pp. 47-65. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 1989.
P. P. De Wolf. "Das Niger-Congo (ohne Bantu)". In _Die Sprachen Afrikas_, ed. B. Heine et al. Pp. 45-76. Hamburg: Helmut Buske, 1981.
I'm sorry if I sound rude, and I have no intention of hurting Mr. Winters' feelings --I'm sure he is a respectable and decent person. However, it is rather disappointing when someone tries to present that kind of marginal and amateurish stuff as a sort of "scientific truth".
------------------------ Gonzalo Rubio Near Eastern Studies Johns Hopkins University [log in to unmask] ------------------------
Back to: Top of message | Previous page | Main HISTLING page Powered by LISTSERV(R) CataList - online list
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^^ROTFLH
Well...
What do you expect?!!
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Rubio is a liar the words I claimed were Sumerian were Sumerian. He acknowledges that I was correct in saying baba-a meant old man, manus/munus was correct, and bara (bara2) equaled ruler. Bar does mean town and in eye. He admitted in the paper that some words are only attested in a few texts or have obscure meanings. Because he was working on his PhD at the time many members of the list believed Rubio was telling the truth but he is a liar. He knows that new Sumerian words are discovered every day. Each Sumerian researcher has deciphered new text and provided meaning for Sumerian words that are not known by all researchers. He tried to use this fact to discredit my work.
Back in the 1990s there was no way to show the words mentioned in the post below were Sumerian from an on-line source. Now we have John A. Hallorans Sumerian Lexicon, where you can go and see the authentic Sumerian words on-line:
You can go to this site and look at bun2 and you will see that it means blow just as I said. Rubio says that bir meant to scatter, disperse;, but in reality it does mean heat, check out bir9 to blaze, flame up. He also said that bur, did not have the meaning to free, this was also a lie , bur2 means to open, release, loosen.
As you can see , when Rubio claimed that the words in my Sumerian list happen not to exist, are absolutely wrong, or mean completely different things was a pure lie. When he says that I dont know Sumerian he was also lying
I have been practicing comparative linguistics for over twenty years. Most of my publications, including the piece comparing Japanese and the Mande languages were published in refereed journals. I have been studying Sumerian for over twenty years so I know Sumerian. Knowing Sumerian and the Dravidian family of languages I don't have to lie about anything.
Rubio claimed that his attack was not personal. This was also a lie. We had had many debates on the former ANE list, and I always showed he was wrong, just as I have done in this post.
quote: Rasol quote:
I agree you should read it. It will show that these people made a lot of comments about my work, but they presented no linguistic evidence in support of their claims.
Don't have time to read all that, but a cursory review shows that they do present linguistic evidence, and in doing so, seem dismissive of your claims.
That doesn't make them right and you wrong per se...but, you do resemble the following remarks: quote:
Just to keep the record straight and spend some spare time, let's go through Mr. Winters' "Sumerian evidence":
- bir does not mean "to heat", but "to scatter, disperse".
- there is no "bur" meaning "to free", there are several "bur", but meaning "(stone) bowl", "food offering", and others attested in few texts, and whose meaning is very obscure.
- bun doesn't mean "to blow", but "nose" and "breath".
- his "baba-a" (actually ba-ba-a), meaning "old man" is a hapax legomenon, attested ONLY in one syllabic vocabulary from Ugarit (AS 16: 36, ba-ba-a = pur-$u-mu).
- bar does not mean "town", but "outside, side, back, edge, etc.", and there is other bar meaning "liver", but no town, no town.
I could go on, and on, and on for ever ("manus" is munus; he ignores the "numbers" of the signs, so "ruler" is bara2, not "bara"; "eye" is igi in Sumerian --his "ini, en" is obviously Semitic, cf. Akkadian i:nu, e:nu, etc., etc., etc...). Most of the words (almost all) in Mr. Winters' "Sumerian" column happen not to exist, are absolutely wrong, or mean completely different things.
I'd like to be very respectful and there is nothing personal in this, but Mr. Winters' list illustrates *nothing* but the fact that he doesn't know Sumerian at all, and his "methodology" is anything but methodology.
Moreover, I do not understand his mixing terms concerning ethnicity, race (whatever that is), and language, as in "Black African Languages". Somali is an East Cushitic language (concretely, Lowland East Cushitic), like Oromo, Bayso, Boni, etc. East Cushitic languages belong to the Afroasiatic macro-family. I'm afraid, Mr. Winters is far from being familiar with any scholarship on Cushitic (Ehret, Diakonoff, Dolgopolskij, Gragg, etc.).
Furthermore, the way he uses the term "Manding" is misleading, and against all the current stuff about Mande studies (Dwyer, Mukarovsky, Welmers, De Wolf, etc.). I dare suggest he should look at two very basic overviews:
D. J. Dwyer. "Mande". In _The Niger-Congo Languages_, ed. J. Bendor-Samuel. Pp. 47-65. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 1989.
P. P. De Wolf. "Das Niger-Congo (ohne Bantu)". In _Die Sprachen Afrikas_, ed. B. Heine et al. Pp. 45-76. Hamburg: Helmut Buske, 1981.
I'm sorry if I sound rude, and I have no intention of hurting Mr. Winters' feelings --I'm sure he is a respectable and decent person. However, it is rather disappointing when someone tries to present that kind of marginal and amateurish stuff as a sort of "scientific truth".
------------------------ Gonzalo Rubio Near Eastern Studies Johns Hopkins University [log in to unmask] ------------------------
Back to: Top of message | Previous page | Main HISTLING page Powered by LISTSERV(R) CataList - online list
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Mr. WInters,
I think the problem here is that some of your work may be credible, but it doesnt represent the OVERWHELMING evidence that you make it out to be. The linquistic similarities may or may not be coincidental, but without genetic, anthropological and archeaological evidence, how can you maintain your position that linguistics ALONE is enough to prove a connection. That is the problem. You have to look at all the disciplines and if they ALL support the same theory, then it must be right, but if only one does, albeit loosely, but the others dont, then either it is an invalid theory or more work needs to be done in the other disciplines to turn up evidence to support it.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
DougM
quote:
I think the problem here is that some of your work may be credible, but it doesnt represent the OVERWHELMING evidence that you make it out to be. The linquistic similarities may or may not be coincidental, but without genetic, anthropological and archeaological evidence, how can you maintain your position that linguistics ALONE is enough to prove a connection. That is the problem. You have to look at all the disciplines and if they ALL support the same theory, then it must be right, but if only one does, albeit loosely, but the others dont, then either it is an invalid theory or more work needs to be done in the other disciplines to turn up evidence to support it.
All of my research includes anthropological, archaeological evidence in support of my linguistic research. If you read the articles posted by some of the Dravidian scholars who claim an African-Dravidian connection you will see that they also use all three disciplines of study to make it clear Dravidians and Africans are related.
Sure I earned a BA in History and Social Science, and an MA in Social Science,with a minor in linguistics, but this is not how I learned to do Afrocentric social science research. I had to learn my craft by reading J.A. Rogers and DuBois and examining how they studied the ancient history of African and Black people. These researchers taught me two things: 1) learn foriegn languages so you can read the primary text and 2) you have to mine the various disciplines to find out the truth behind ancient Black History. If you read the work of DuBois: The Negro and The World and Africa; and J.A. Rogers' Sex and Race, you see that Blacks founded many civilizations around the world.
You guys believe that when I discuss an issue I am standing alone. This is untrue.
My research is based upon the research of giants DuBois, Diop and J.A. Rogers. I don't discuss an issue because I am playing games, I discuss an issue so that I can spread the truth about ancient world history of Black/African people.
Posted by Calypso (Member # 8587) on :
quote:New testament - John 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
Dr. Winters we all hold DuBois, Diop and Rogers in the highest esteem. All of humanity owes a debt of gratitude to them for their work in fighting against the prevalent distortions regarding people of color in general and black people in particular. The thing you fail to understand is that these men did their work with the best evidence available to them at the time. With the passage of time our knowledge of prehistory, archaeology, anthropology linguistics, and genetics has grown tremendously. DuBois, Diop and Rogers are giants; towering intellects whose reputations and stature require no defense. They're best honored by those who carry on their good work, such as Kieta.
Stop being Afrocentric Dr. Winters: it's just another intellectual tarpit. Use your proven energy and ability to be an advocate for the truth - no matter where it may lead.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
I think the interests of African people around the world are best served by having more SCIENTISTS who can do the WORK of archaeology, anthropology and genetics DIRECTLY as opposed to borrowing bits and pieces from everyone elses work. No only does it keep you from taking on the mistakes that may be presented by others, but it makes YOU the expert, especially if you do the work with the zeal and determination of people like Diop and others. It also reverses the idea that BLACKS cannot exceed as SCIENTISTS, since that is TOO hard for them. Linquistics is an important branch of study no doubt, but it is a shame there are no African SCIENTISTS you can work with to provide the multidisciplinary approach to African history that is desperately needed. My point is that just being a WRITER with a more HUMANITIES background is not going to CUT IT in today's world, where the Eurocentric camp has retreated to an entrenched institutionalized position in academia and education and will ONLY be removed through SOLID, CONSISTENT, and OVERWHELMING PRIMARY research by archaeologists, anthropologists, geneticists and linguists. You cant win a war with bullets but no gun.........
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:It also reverses the idea that BLACKS cannot exceed as SCIENTISTS, since that is TOO hard for them.
I agree that this is very important.
quote: Linquistics is an important branch of study no doubt, but it is a shame there are no African SCIENTISTS you can work with to provide the multidisciplinary approach to African history that is desperately needed.
For example: Doctor Ricky Kittles, Co-Director of Molecular Genetics, at Howard has founded a firm called African Ancestry dedicated to studying the biological history of people of African descent.
This kind of work is important, and it's a shame when supposed African scholars ridicule science, simply because they don't understand it. The contemporary Black scientists are out there
quote:My point is that just being a WRITER with a more HUMANITIES background is not going to CUT IT in today's world,
The one point Winters demonstrate is that a disregard for science leads to much time wasted in the pursuit of utterly bogus hypothesis. Dr. Winters path leads to a dead end.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Rasol
quote:
The one point Winters demonstrate is that a disregard for science leads to much time wasted in the pursuit of utterly bogus hypothesis. Dr. Winters path leads to a dead end.
Rasol you must be tripping. My research has not led to a dead end.
I am quite happy about my contribution to the study of world history. I am sometimes amazed by the fact that a black kid from 47th and Prairie in Chicago has made a tremendous contributions to the study of world history.
At DuSable High School I decided I wanted to teach Afrocentric history. Much of this came from my Afrocentric teachers and the book The Man Who Cried I am that I read back in 1967-68. This book had a tremendous effect on me it talked about the similarities between Chinese and African civilizations and the possible information we could find about the history of African people among the archives of people living along the Indian Ocean.
Since this time I have been able to decipher Meroitic, Linear A writing of Crete, Indus Valley, Mande inscriptions found in the Americas and Proto-Sumerian writing.
As a result of my decipherment of the Olmec writing I have been able to popularize the use of the actual Olmec name: Xi by many people writing about the Olmecs on the Web. Other Web pages mention my decipherment of Olmec positively.
In relation to my work on the Proto-Saharans: the Dravidian, Elamite,Mande, Sumerian and Dravidian people has led to many other authors refering to this people in their books and articles. Alain Anselin has popularized my identification of the Fertile African Crescent (the Highland regions of Middle Africa)in his books on African and Egyptian civilization.
In relation to Dravidian studies I have been able to firmly establish a link between the Dravidians and the Indus Valley Civilization. In addition, I have began to develop information on the Paleo-Dravido-African culture and civilization.
Here you belittle my Dravido-African studies, but the study of connections between Africans and Dravidians as I pointed out in posting articles on this theme at this site written by Dravidian speaking people is normal science. And in relation to my Dravidian studies I am a frequent contributor to Dravidian linguistic journals.
I have written numerous articles published in volume 1, of the Dravidian Encyclopaedea on Dravidian history and extra-Indian relations with other people based on my linguistic research. And several scholars are writing confirmatory research articles of my research regarding Dravido-African relations. For eample, R. Balakrishnan just wrote a very interesting article: African roots of the Dravidian-speaking Tribes: A Case study in Onomastics, International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, 34(1):153-202.
Here I have only discussed a part of my research into Ancient history. I have not even discussed my accomplishments in Educational Psychology, Comparative Education and Education generally. I also helped write the Social Studies Standards for the Chicago Public Schools and guide World History Lesson plans used by teachers in Chicago.What a life of scholarship.
The above makes it clear that my research is neither bogus or reached a dead end. Your problem is that you can't take advise.
I know many people disagree with my research, but I still try to teach the truth. Hore has tried to get you to understand that you are misusing genetic research. His comments are hurtful, but they reflect the status quo in relation to African studies.
I did not like the fact that I could not include Afrocentric material in the lesson plans but it was agreed by the committee working on guided lesson plans that we had to teach only that which was supported by the Academie. This is a fact of life.
Hore is trying to get you to understand that if you presented your work at a Conference, making some of the claims you make on this forum you would be highly criticized. This results from the fact that genetic data can only tell connections/relationships between people, not the times they separated or expanded into an area. This is why some people first entering this forum would think you were Afrocentrists, which you are not.
Finally, I don't ridicule science I teach research methods every term. I have also guided a number of people in their Masters projects, and set on the Committees of students working on their PhDs. As a result, science and research is my passion. If I was not careful in my research do you really think I would have around 200 articles published?
.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Rasol [QUOTE]
... I did not like the fact that I could not include Afrocentric material in the lesson plans but it was agreed by the committee working on guided lesson plans that we had to teach only that which was supported by the Academie. This is a fact of life.
Hore is trying to get you to understand that if you presented your work at a Conference, making some of the claims you make on this forum you would be highly criticized. This results from the fact that genetic data can only tell connections/relationships between people, not the times they separated or expanded into an area. This is why some people first entering this forum would think you were Afrocentrists, which you are not.
Finally, I don't ridicule science I teach research methods every term. I have also guided a number of people in their Masters projects, and set on the Committees of students working on their PhDs. As a result, science and research is my passion. If I was not careful in my research do you really think I would have around 200 articles published?
.
First, what is your GOAL if you ACCEPT the status quo? What is the point? Your OBJECTIVE is to DESTROY the status quo especially if its based on the DISTORTION and DESTRUCTION of black accomplishments in history. THAT is the problem with the "Afrocentric" approach, since it is PIGEONHOLED as solely a FEEL GOOD version of history, DEVOID of any REAL science and credible FACTS. Secondly, since most of your work has NOTHING to do with the origins of the ancient Egyptians or the way Africa was the basis of Egyptian culture, it would be hard for you to present your OWN RESEARCH as an EXPERT in the field. If you are not acknowledged as an EXPERT in the fields of archaeology, anthropology or genetics, then OF COURSE academia will NOT LISTEN TO YOU. Having a degree in one of those fields is a BASIC ticket to entry into the realms of discourse required for CHANGING the distortions of African history. THAT is why DIOP is such a recognized force, because he became an acknowledged EXPERT WITHIN the western ACADEMIC system, aquiring degrees and doing PRIMARY research on the subject at hand.
There is nothing wrong with wanting to explore the links between ancient Africa and India, but to expect LINGUISTICS ALONE to be enough to have those ideas ACCEPTED within ACADEMIA is ludicrous. It is NOT about ACCEPTING whatever ACADEMIA puts forward, with all the inherent distortion, bias and propaganda. It is about presenting OVERWHELMING evidence based on SOLID RESEARCH and SCIENCE so that academia has NO CHOICE but to admit to the FACTS of history and stop the DISTORTION of African achievements in history. Therefore, if that is not your goal and what you are trying to do is promote Afrocentrism as a separate but somehwat unequal version of "official" history as told in school history books, then you are WORKING BACKWARDS. TRUTH IS TRUTH, there is NO SEPARATION. If you dont HAVE the TRUTH or your research is SUSPECT then you have NO BASIS to stand on. Which then means you are working AGAINST the cause of African achievements in history because you are SEGREGATING yourself and ALLOWING the establishment to belittle the truth of African history as nothing more than the dreams and fantasies of Afrocentric scholars, whose work is full of flaws and without any scientific merit. In otherwords, you are playing step and fetchit for the master.... (a buffoon).
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Doug M
quote:
There is nothing wrong with wanting to explore the links between ancient Africa and India, but to expect LINGUISTICS ALONE to be enough to have those ideas ACCEPTED within ACADEMIA is ludicrous. It is NOT about ACCEPTING whatever ACADEMIA puts forward, with all the inherent distortion, bias and propaganda. It is about presenting OVERWHELMING evidence based on SOLID RESEARCH and SCIENCE so that academia has NO CHOICE but to admit to the FACTS of history and stop the DISTORTION of African achievements in history. Therefore, if that is not your goal and what you are trying to do is promote Afrocentrism as a separate but somehwat unequal version of "official" history as told in school history books, then you are WORKING BACKWARDS. TRUTH IS TRUTH, there is NO SEPARATION. If you dont HAVE the TRUTH or your research is SUSPECT then you have NO BASIS to stand on. Which then means you are working AGAINST the cause of African achievements in history because you are SEGREGATING yourself and ALLOWING the establishment to belittle the truth of African history as nothing more than the dreams and fantasies of Afrocentric scholars, whose work is full of flaws and without any scientific merit. In otherwords, you are playing step and fetchit for the master.... (a buffoon).
The first thing you have to understand about professional "Afrocentric" researchers is that they are not waiting for Academia to accept the TRUTH that Black and African people have a ancient history.
If you study the literature Carter G. Woodson and W.E.B. DuBois' work was never accepted by the Academie, eventhough they both attended Harvard. Diop graduated from the finest university in Paris, but his work is not accepted by the Academie. Did they waste their time witing for it to be accepted no. They knew the truth and they taught it.
Afrocentric research is my hobby--not my vocation anymore. When I was young like you I thought I could change the world. But over the years I found that eventhough I worked with many teachers who claimed they wanted to teach the TRUTH, I found they were just happy wearing African garb--they were afraid of the truth.
Luckily I fell in love with a wonderful women when I was in High School who later honored me by becoming my wife. Over the years she taught me the "Female Principle", i.e., you need money to survive, because dreams won't pay the bills or feed you. I am glad I learned this lesson because it has kept me from becoming bitter like most Black scholars who struggle to write the history of their people and are then abandoned.
As a result, as a teacher and professor I am a team player. If I am paid to complete a particular task I will complete it in accordance with the demands of my supervisor, dean or department chairman.
I am no fanatic, I lack the muscles I had back when I played football, so I can no longer live off my good looks. My wife likes to travel, and spend money--so do I. Therefore if I am asked to write a Social Science Curriculum for a school district I will write it to meet their specifications.
I promise you that if you continue to believe that your research will change the ideas of the majority of Blacks and whites about African people and their history you will be a broken and bitter old man. If you are waiting for the Eurocentric scholars to enbrace your studies you will have a sad awakening.
If you want to be a successful advocate of the Truth of African and ancient Black History you have to study what happened to other scholars who worked in this field before you.
CHAPTER 32: FRATRICIDE, JEALOUSY AND AFROCENTRICITY
"I Loved New York then, it was a hotbed of intellectual activity. Black intellectuals were actually respected then. A black intellectual is a freak today. White folks don't recognize them and black folks, well, black folks don't even know black intellectuals exist".
These words by John Jackson were said in 1982, from his apartment in a Nursing Home in Chicago. They highlight the disappointment and loneliness most "true" African-American Afrocentrists experience as a result of years of disappointment and disillusionment.
Jackson had come to Chicago to teach at Northeastern Illinois University's Center for Inner City Studies in Chicago. The Kemitic Institute is located at the Center for Inner City Studies. He claims he was fired by the so-called "elders" who manage the Kemitic Institute, because he was an erudite scholar who blasted both the "communists" and "pseudo-Black Nationalists" at the Kemitic Institute. This mistreatment of Jackson, a true scholar was not new to Afrocentric scholars.
James Spady in his essay on the life and times of Drusilla Dunjee Houston mentions Houston's discussion with an established black historian about her work in which she recalled that:
"I remember in the beginning of my work, for I believe in counsel, I wrote to one of these characters being paid a salary to encourage the advancement of Negro history, and receiving a grafty, fearful, letter shooing me off from an association banded supposedly to advise and encourage students of Negro History".
Historically, most African American Afrocentrists have not been formerly trained and/or are not affiliated with a university, this results from the fact that most black elites are anti-black or feel inferior to white scholars. This has resulted from the fact that "black elites" for the most part are non- nationalistic. W.E.B. DuBois observed that the upper-class black is almost never nationalistic:
"He has never planned or thought of a Negro state, or a Negro school. This solution has always been a thought up-surging from the masses,because of pressure which they could not withstand and which compelled a racial institution or chaos. Continually such institutions [aimed at providing African-Americans with pride] were founded and developed but this took place against the advise and best thought of the intelligentsia".
Carter G. Woodson believed that the failure of black American elites to initiate consistent and aggressive academic competition with whites resulted from their feelings of inferiority, participation in the mental enslavement of blacks and general miseducation. Woodson wrote that:
"...[T]he Negro's mind has been all but perfectly enslaved in that he has been trained to think what is desired of him. The "highly educated" Negroes do not like to hear anything uttered against this procedure because they make their living in this way, and they feel that they must defend the system. Few mis-educated Negroes ever act otherwise; and , if they so express t themselves, they are easily crushed by the large majority to the contrary so that the procession may move on without interruption."
There is also self-hate among African -American scholars. This self-hate among many African-American scholars is highlighted by the fact that they only recognize black scholars whose work has been published by Europeans. As a result many educated blacks fail to respect black scholars who are not associated with a University, or used their own money to buy their way into the Afrocentric field by publishing their own book(s), and attending every conference they can. Many of these researchers are looking for "white recognition" and fail to really love their race.
Woodson has made it clear that these scholars need to learn to love themselves. He wrote that:
"If the "highly educated" Negro would forget most of his untried theories taught him in school, if he could see through the propaganda which has been instilled into his mind under the pretext of education , if he would fall in love with his own people and begin to sacrifice for their uplift--if the "highly educated" Negro would do these things, he could solve some of the problems now confronting the race".
The hate and disrespect blacks show Afrocentric scholars in their attempts to "up life the race" and inspire them to greatness is quite disappointing and has left many of these scholars lonely and bitter. According to John Jackson, Dr. Nathan Huggins a great African American scholar of the 1930"s committed suicide in 1940, out of frustration that comes from trying to help black people. Jackson observed that:
"I tell you black people are just a bunch of contented slaves who would rather sit around collecting food stamps and go to some idiotic Church on Sunday then to struggle for dignity".
Zora Neale Hurston, was often admonished for being too nationalistic by her peers. Alice Walker, has noted that:
"Zora's pride in black people was so pronounced in the ersatz of black twenties that it made other blacks suspicious and perhaps uncomfortable;after all they were still infatuated with things European--everything European."
Although Hurston was the author of two books on African-American folklore, four novels, fifty essays and short stories, she was never offered a position at one of the Negro Colleges, and she died a common maid.
There is a double standard in the black community. Whites who write about blacks, or sign like blacks are lionized. African- Americans on the other hand, who write about the greatness of blacks are vilified and in many cases their research is not respected, because many blacks don't believe that African- Americans scholars are as capable as white scholars. John Jackson noted that:
"J.A. Rogers told me one time that he was sorry as hell that he took up the cudgel for black people. The more you try to help, he told me the more they try to hurt you.And now I see that he was absolutely right. Look what black people did to Marcus Garvey! Garvey wanted to uplift the masses, but most black folk especially black leadership, want to exploit the masses. Even most of the masses themselves, if [they] ever got a chance to exploit their own peers they could do it without a moment's hesitation".
Since the late 19th century when Booker T. Washington, described the relationship of blacks, as crabs in a barrel, i.e., blacks try to keep one another from advancing, due to jealousy. Because of jealousy many African-Americans refuse to respect other African-Americans. As a result, unless the white establishment publishes an African-American's work or gives an African-American a professional job; every other black believes s/he knows just as much as every other black person. This is especially true in the Afrocentric history field, where the same people who read this literature--want to write it! This is sad because it leaves very few individuals around to just read Afrocentric literature just for enlightenment.
Harold Cruse argues that today's "black intellectuals" are less productive than the group between 1930-1960, because this group is self-centered and products of the "Me" generation. This self-centeredness has limited the effects of Afrocentric re- search on World History. The selfishness, false pride and conceit, of many Afrocentric scholars I have known over the past two decades, indicates that some members of this group are trying to find his or her place in the Sun, rather than strengthen the Afrocentric field of research as suggested by Cheikh Anta Diop in his lectures and writings. We find that these scholars fail to work together. A case in point is the aborted founding of the African Civilization Research Association (ACRA), back in the 1970's.
There is much mistrust and jealousy among Afrocentric scholars and unnecessary back stabbing. For instance in June 1978, Ivan van Sertima of Reutgers University, the Northeastern Illinois University's Center for Inner City Studies mob: Jake Carruthers, Hunter Adams, Conrad Worrill, Ann Whitteker; Roger Oden , Larry Crowe and Djaal Williams and Clyde Ahmad Winters composed an Ad Hoc Planning Committee to organize the ACRA and a journal on ancient African civilization.
This organization failed to get off the ground because the staff at the center for Inner City Studies mob, felt that Ivan van Sertima had failed to acknowledge the work of Harold Lawrence in his book They Came Before Columbus . They also felt that Ivan was only using afrocentrists to acquire wealth, and a following among other blacks.
Sertima, felt that Jake Carruthers was foot dragging on the journal so he decided to publish the journal on his own after we told him how to incorporate such a journal and gave him the name for the journal: Journal of African Civilization. As a result of this disagreement between Sertima and Carruthers , the followers of these two groups rarely seriously worked together to strengthen afrocentric research after this point.
This fight over the control of the Journal of African Civilization led to our inability to found ACRA in 1979. But after C. A. Winters told Sertima, the topics for the future issues of the JAC, the journal was published. But in recent years, the JAC has not been published due to the desire of Sertima to ride the fence, and be both an closet afrocentrist's and "establishment" researcher.
With the effective halt in the publication of basic afrocentric research , at a time when the afrocentric curriculum is becoming accepted at many secondary schools has allowed reactionary eurocentric forces to mount a successful attack on afrocentrism . This led one columnist for a local newspaper in Chicago to lament: "When young thinkers like the great Mr. D'Souza himself a front-man for right wing causes and a "scholar" especially useful since he is a person of "color" (he is an Asian-American of Indian descent) can rail against black studies...[and] the blackness of ancient Egypt, where are the scholars who have their Egyptology down and their Diop sure.... But where is the scribe? Where is the wisdom of this Age? Where are the leaders? The thinkers. Well from the University we shall find no direction".
Personally I have tried to work with other afrocentric researchers , but, so far, they always turn out to be self- centered egotistical glory seekers. Often they will use my research and not even acknowledge my contribution in a footnote. On the other hand , I have also done research with white scholars like Alexjandro von Wuthenau and Vamos-Toth Bator, who mention my research and publicize my findings.
Because I can read many languages and get directly at the basic research material dealing with blacks in any part of the world I have been the first scholar since J.A. Rogers and John Jackson, to fully discuss the full heritage of blacks in China, Europe and the Americas. Many blacks do not want to believe the information I have found on black people throughout history around the world because it was not discussed first by Europeans.
As a result I have found that other afrocentric scholars will read my papers and write their own papers based on my research and not even put my papers in their reference section or footnotes. Many afrocentric researchers are back-stabbers and two-faced. In 1982, for example, when I deciphered some Maya inscriptions , Ivan van Sertima, refused to publish them because his friend Berry Fell, disagreed with my interpretations . As a result of this action by Sertima, I gave up my associate editorship of the JAC and I refused to give Sertima anymore ideas for future issues of the JAC.
I have also worked with black people who try to pretend they are "nationalist" to the public, but behind the scenes they are sell-outs. Many blacks , like Sertima, are very willing to cooperate with white supremacist forces working under the guise of "liberalism".
The American system of education affects both the so-called "Uncle Tom", and "Nationalist" blacks ,because both fail to respect competent African-American researchers. Woodson wrote, "The same education which inspires and stimulates the oppressor with the thought that he is everything worthwhile depresses and crushes at the same time the spark of genius in the African American by making him feel that his race does not amount to much and never will measure up to the standards of others".
Even though these words were written over 60 years ago, they still ring true. For example,even though Leo Hansberry had taught African history for years at Howard University, it took him 25 years to get tenure. And in 1959, when the Ford foundation established an African Studies program at Howard, Hansberry was excluded from the faculty. This is an indication of the lack of respect that some blacks in authority show researchers into their African heritage.
African-American scholars as a rule fear competition with white scholars, due to a lack of confidence. As a result, except for this Primer, most afrocentric research is based on research conducted 100 years ago. Moreover, even though Diop called on researchers to use his research as a springboard to other research topics, except for French speaking West Africans, black scholars have failed to expand on his research. This failure to pursue well organized study of afrocentric themes has allowed the eurocentrists to deny the validity of Diop's research in the United States, without any scholarly struggle from the afrocentric "establishment" like the Kemitic Institute in Chicago.
In summary,,jealousy, envy and arrogance has made it difficult for us to fully illuminate the greatness of classical African civilizations. This chapter is written with the hope that we will learn from the past disrespect shown Zora Neale Hurston, J.A. Rogers and others. For afrocentricity to be fully implemented we must put aside our desire for individual fame,and work for the greater good. The greater good in this case is the careful documentation of our past so our children can have the knowledge and self-respect necessary to meet any challenges that with meet throughout their life.
As a result, I could care less if any Eurocentric scholar (Black, White, Indian ,etc.) agrees with my research or not. I know it is founded on valid and reliable research
Posted by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
This sounds like you guys want to 'promote' black and African history. Is history something we promote or something we study?
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Hore
quote: This sounds like you guys want to 'promote' black and African history. Is history something we promote or something we study?
History is both. I was trained to teach Social Studies. Back in the 1970's I learned that you must teach history with passion because everyone should love their nation.
I learned at this time that you promote history because it provides the students and citizens the heroes they can emulate so as to become confident individuals who can truely take advantage of the opportunities (even the limited opportunities available to Afro Americans) found in the United States.
You study history because you learn the mistakes and successes made by others. This knowledge base can help guide your life in a productive fashion.
.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
If you look at your POST you AGREE with what I am saying:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Historically, most African American Afrocentrists have not been formerly trained and/or are not affiliated with a university, this results from the fact that most black elites are anti-black or feel inferior to white scholars. This has resulted from the fact that "black elites" for the most part are non- nationalistic. W.E.B. DuBois observed that the upper-class black is almost never nationalistic:
"He has never planned or thought of a Negro state, or a Negro school. This solution has always been a thought up-surging from the masses,because of pressure which they could not withstand and which compelled a racial institution or chaos. Continually such institutions [aimed at providing African-Americans with pride] were founded and developed but this took place against the advise and best thought of the intelligentsia".
Carter G. Woodson believed that the failure of black American elites to initiate consistent and aggressive academic competition with whites resulted from their feelings of inferiority, participation in the mental enslavement of blacks and general miseducation. Woodson wrote that:
"...[T]he Negro's mind has been all but perfectly enslaved in that he has been trained to think what is desired of him. The "highly educated" Negroes do not like to hear anything uttered against this procedure because they make their living in this way, and they feel that they must defend the system. Few mis-educated Negroes ever act otherwise; and , if they so express themselves, they are easily crushed by the large majority to the contrary so that the procession may move on without interruption." ...
Therefore, according to this quote, for which you gave no author, blacks feel inferior to whites in "real" academic areas such as science and math. They dont want to compete with whites so they dont enter scientific fields due to an inferiority complex. All well and good, but how has Afrocentrism CHANGED this situation? How has Afrocentrism, based on PURE liberal arts, writing ABOUT the problem from a poetic, emotional or historical perspective going to PROMOTE SCIENTIFIC achievement in ALL ASPECTS of African endeavors, including history? The fact that there are so many African Studies programs shows that the problem is not so much spreading African Studies, but DEFINING African Studies as MORE than just a LIBERAL ARTS curriculum. African Studies SHOULD be an UMBRELLA term that covers Archaeology, Antrhopology, Genetics, Biology, Geology, Minerology, Chemistry, Agriculture, and Linguistics. Not only do these disciplines allow Africans to discover their own roots, but it gives them the tools to build towards the FUTURE. All of these disciplines must be USED to uncover the TRUTH about African history, as opposed to creating another crop of linguist/poets/artists who CANNOT do PRIMARY research in the field to uncover the genetic, archaeological, biological, anthropological and linguistic history of ALL Africans. THAT is why so many African Studies majors HAVE NO IMPACT on the TRUE study of African history and culture, because they dont have the skills in those fields that require the HARD WORK and SCIENCE to produce the facts that can be used as a basis for spreading the TRUTH. Since many of the African Studies departments around the nation are a result of BLACK STUDENT protests in the 60's and 70's, the blame is not a simple of self hate and jealousy. The issue is that these PROGRAMS which are a result of the efforts of black peoples DONT STRESS MATH AND SCIENCE. If you think that blacks are AVOIDING CONFRONTING Europeans in the KEY disciplines of science, then why INSTITUTIONALIZE that avoidance in liberal arts programs that are DEVOID of any SERIOUS scientific study?
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Hore
quote: This sounds like you guys want to 'promote' black and African history. Is history something we promote or something we study?
History is both. I was trained to teach Social Studies. Back in the 1970's I learned that you must teach history with passion because everyone should love their nation.
I learned at this time that you promote history because it provides the students and citizens the heroes they can emulate so as to become confident individuals who can truely take advantage of the opportunities (even the limited opportunities available to Afro Americans) found in the United States.
You study history because you learn the mistakes and successes made by others. This knowledge base can help guide your life in a productive fashion.
.
Most history is biased and used as PROPAGANDA to promote a love for the nation one lives in. For an African American who has been abused by a nation to promote TEACHING a history of that nation that DENIES and DISTORTS the history of Africans in that country is ridiculous. If you want to be HONEST, the TRUE story of history TOLD from an AFRICAN perpective would teach HATE for most nations, especially European nations, NOT love, because of all the injustice done to African peoples by those NATIONS.
Posted by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
There is no African perspective.
Doug , would you teach that black Africans were in the slave selling business up to their ears?
Would you teach the barbarity they displayed toward each other for centuries before the Europeans arrived?
Would you foolow Bill Cosby's lead and teach them that for everything the white man has done to them they have done ten times more to abuse themselves?
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
DougM
quote:
The fact that there are so many African Studies programs shows that the problem is not so much spreading African Studies, but DEFINING African Studies as MORE than just a LIBERAL ARTS curriculum. African Studies SHOULD be an UMBRELLA term that covers Archaeology, Antrhopology, Genetics, Biology, Geology, Minerology, Chemistry, Agriculture, and Linguistics.
You asked what has Afrocentrism done. One thing it has done is encourage rseearchers who call themselves Afrocentric scholars to be well prepared in their research studies, attend and present papers at Conferences that promote Afrocentric historical themes, and have the confidence to publish articles and books in their fields that challenge the status quo.
You are absolutely correct African/African-American Studies should teach more subjects in its department than taught today.
Afrocentrism is not taught in any African/ African-American studies program in the United States, that I know of. These Departments of African/African-American studies are concerned with teaching about the Afro-American history and the West African Kingdoms.
If you research the backgrounds of Afrocentric scholars like DuBois, Woodson and etc., who attended university, and eventhough J.A. Rogers and John Jackson were self taught, these scholars were well trained in their discipline of study. These scholars did not just study Atlantic Slavery and the West African Kingdoms, they studied the history of Blacks throughout the world.
Today there are more professional Anthropologists , linguists, archaeologists etc., in the U.S. and Africa than anytime in history. We also have a great number of Black Scientists. many of these professionals have tenure and don't fear losing their jobs. But they don't use their knowledge to conduct research from an African Centered Perspective.
You can't blame the African/African American Studies Departments for the failure of these Blacks to engage Africalogical research. They are doing the same thing today they did in the 1930's as reported DuBois:
"He has never planned or thought of a Negro state, or a Negro school. This solution has always been a thought up-surging from the masses,because of pressure which they could not withstand and which compelled a racial institution or chaos. Continually such institutions [aimed at providing African-Americans with pride] were founded and developed but this took place against the advise and best thought of the intelligentsia".
This is what happened in the 1970's we protested and won African-American Studies programs, but the people who got the jobs were upper class Blacks who played no role in the protest. As a result these programs have become stagnant and produce little research.
Woodson has made it clear that these scholars need to learn to love themselves. He wrote that:
"If the "highly educated" Negro would forget most of his untried theories taught him in school, if he could see through the propaganda which has been instilled into his mind under the pretext of education , if he would fall in love with his own people and begin to sacrifice for their uplift--if the "highly educated" Negro would do these things, he could solve some of the problems now confronting the race".
Woodson's words have not lost their significance. You can not make someone love a field a study if it is not in their heart.
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
DougM
quote: Most history is biased and used as PROPAGANDA to promote a love for the nation one lives in. For an African American who has been abused by a nation to promote TEACHING a history of that nation that DENIES and DISTORTS the history of Africans in that country is ridiculous. If you want to be HONEST, the TRUE story of history TOLD from an AFRICAN perpective would teach HATE for most nations, especially European nations, NOT love, because of all the injustice done to African peoples by those NATIONS.
Sorry Doug this is not the Afro American way. Because of the Church, most Blacks believe in forgiving their enemies and therefore are not going to teach hate of the white man and of other nations.
If African Americans were going to start this hate for other nations because of what happened to us we would hate ourselves. We would hate ourselves because it was our African brothers that sold us into slavery and cold-heartedly drove us to the Coast and sold us to the European Slave traders.
It is a fact that no white man was allowed to gather slaves after the Portuguese became established at Elmina. African Kings regulated the African slave trade in Africa, and sold us into slavery.
When Gates did his mounmental documentary on Africa he talked to many of these slave traders. They had no remorse, and would probably do it again for a few pieces of silver or an IPOD.
I see nothing wrong with teaching our people to love the United States of America. It is our home. Granted we are not welcome here but--it still is home.
Why am I going to teach my children and your children to hate America when this is our home. Granted people can come from any nation and make it in America. But you can not go anywhere else and make it without family contacts wealth and etc.
Don't forget just about everyone of the Black radicals that left the United States in 1960's and 1970's eventually came home to America, some of them even faced jail time. This tells you something about America our home.
I follow the advise of the old African American pop tune: Love the One you With.
.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: Clyde, Depends on what you mean by roots. If you go back far enough my family came here from Germany. I do not consider myself German in any way and at this point do not think I have German roots. I suppose in some distant genetic sense I am realted to them but its meaningless at this point. I am much closer to southern blacks culturally than I am to modern Germans. You have to be careful when you start talking about 'roots' in that respect.
Actually Hore, for the record, the blacks of India are NOT of recent African descent and genetically are no more African than other Eurasians-- Europeans and East Asians!!
That said, Winter's notions of Indian civilization being African fly right out the window.
quote: This sounds like you guys want to 'promote' black and African history. Is history something we promote or something we study?
It should be BOTH! All people should learn history and promote it to others who do not know about it, and this is in regards to ALL history whether African, Asian, or European. Peoples from all regions of the globe have produced cultures and made contributions to history, as humans and citizens of the same globe we should share that history now more than ever with the increase of globalism.
quote: There is no African perspective.
Is there no European perspective then, or an Asian one??
quote:Doug , would you teach that black Africans were in the slave selling business up to their ears?
Actually black African societies were not slave societies and their transactions in slaves were not as great as those of Arabs or even Europeans during the Middle Ages.
quote:Would you teach the barbarity they displayed toward each other for centuries before the Europeans arrived?
And exactly what "barbarity" was this you speak of?? That some African groups had conflicts and waged war between each other is nothing peculiar to them but is something shared by other societies in the world, particularly the more 'developed' societies such as Europeans! So what "barbarity" do you refer to??
quote:Would you follow Bill Cosby's lead and teach them that for everything the white man has done to them they have done ten times more to abuse themselves?
True, but I think even Bill Cosby would agree that a white guy like you is simply relieving himself of all blame and instead is using the tired, old, worn out excuse of the "white man's burden" that should have died out by the end of the European Imperialsim age... Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: DougM
quote: Most history is biased and used as PROPAGANDA to promote a love for the nation one lives in. For an African American who has been abused by a nation to promote TEACHING a history of that nation that DENIES and DISTORTS the history of Africans in that country is ridiculous. If you want to be HONEST, the TRUE story of history TOLD from an AFRICAN perpective would teach HATE for most nations, especially European nations, NOT love, because of all the injustice done to African peoples by those NATIONS.
Sorry Doug this is not the Afro American way. Because of the Church, most Blacks believe in forgiving their enemies and therefore are not going to teach hate of the white man and of other nations.
If African Americans were going to start this hate for other nations because of what happened to us we would hate ourselves. We would hate ourselves because it was our African brothers that sold us into slavery and cold-heartedly drove us to the Coast and sold us to the European Slave traders.
It is a fact that no white man was allowed to gather slaves after the Portuguese became established at Elmina. African Kings regulated the African slave trade in Africa, and sold us into slavery.
When Gates did his mounmental documentary on Africa he talked to many of these slave traders. They had no remorse, and would probably do it again for a few pieces of silver or an IPOD.
I see nothing wrong with teaching our people to love the United States of America. It is our home. Granted we are not welcome here but--it still is home.
Why am I going to teach my children and your children to hate America when this is our home. Granted people can come from any nation and make it in America. But you can not go anywhere else and make it without family contacts wealth and etc.
Don't forget just about everyone of the Black radicals that left the United States in 1960's and 1970's eventually came home to America, some of them even faced jail time. This tells you something about America our home.
I follow the advise of the old African American pop tune: Love the One you With.
.
In summation, love TRUTH, love JUSTICE and love FREEDOM. Where you are at is irrelevant if those principles are foremost in your consciousness. It is not about hate being an all encompassing emotion but the NATURAL reaction to OPPRESSION. There is a DIFFERENCE between "loving thy enemies" as stated in the bible and LOVING OPPRESSION. Totally two separate concepts, but guess which one Africans seem to follow? Dont use the bible as an excuse for self abuse or denial. Especially when that SAME bible was written by people who REGULARLY DISREGARDED the same precepts that Africans try so hard to EMULATE. THAT fact in itself should tell you that the so-called righteousness of Africans is a result of the brainwashing by the oppressor. The goal being to bring about a PASSIVE population that would NOT resist OPPRESSION. Therefore, accepting OPPRESSION does NOT make someone a good person. What happened to FIGHTING for justice and RESISTING evil and those who practice it? Isnt THAT also in the bible? Therefore, dont take parts of the bible as if that is the ONLY approach to dealing with oppression, because that is only what has been TAUGHT to you.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Way over Winter's head as usual! ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
, so rendering your hypothesis effectly non falsifiable and hence - non scientific from the start.![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
I've said it before and I'll say it agiain, scholarship in the form of wishful thinking and loose, faulty research is what Eurocentrics even Aryanist Nazis have practiced. 'Afrocentrics' like Winters are no different. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
