|
Post by Charlie Bass on Apr 24, 2010 15:13:38 GMT -5
What is Black? There is no such thing as Black. It's a modern concept used to institutionalize racism. Black isn't really a biological concept, but to be proper ancient Egyptians were Africans.
|
|
|
Post by djehuti on Apr 24, 2010 18:11:06 GMT -5
What is Black? There is no such thing as Black. It's a modern concept used to institutionalize racism. This makes no sense. 'Black' is a social label based on description of very dark skin color. Of course very dark skin color exists, so the label 'black' is used as convenient descriptive. What does not exist however is 'race'. So how is 'black' used to validate 'race' let alone institutionalized racism?? What about 'white'? Do you think the use of 'white' is racist as well??
|
|
|
Post by egyptianplanet on Apr 24, 2010 21:04:25 GMT -5
What is Black? There is no such thing as Black. It's a modern concept used to institutionalize racism. This makes no sense. 'Black' is a social label based on description of very dark skin color. Of course very dark skin color exists, so the label 'black' is used as convenient descriptive. What does not exist however is 'race'. So how is 'black' used to validate 'race' let alone institutionalized racism?? What about 'white'? Do you think the use of 'white' is racist as well?? You clearly didn't understand what I said. The idea of Black, White, Brown and Yellow is a modern construct and nothing more. You say it's used for descriptive analysis in a very informal sense, however this does nothing more than narrow your view of the diversity of humans and Africans in general. The reason why color is such an issue is due to colonialism and European imperialism. Whenever you use the term Black/White/Brown/Yellow you feed into the terms used by Europeans to give a very narrow and single-minded view. Is a European living in Johannesberg any more Black/White than an African American living in America?
|
|
|
Post by homeylu on Apr 24, 2010 23:49:25 GMT -5
^^ Welcome to the board Egyptianplanet, good to have one with an alternative viewpoint amongst our ranks.
Several people like to dismiss the term 'Caucasian' or 'caucasoid', but rarely do you hear the same negation applied when use of the term 'Black' or 'negroid' is administered. You just made a very valid point, in that the very same people who created the term 'Caucasian' are the same ones that created the term 'Black'; Both constructions of a modern racial era.
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on Apr 25, 2010 10:14:35 GMT -5
[glow=red,2,300]A NOTE FROM MODERATOR[/glow]
DJ - We don't go for profanity here nor ad hominem.
TruthCentric - If you circumvent the profanity eraser again you will be banned for 30 days.
To all - we intend to maintain a friendly environment inviting in its appeal to the socially responsible.
|
|
|
Post by egyptianplanet on Apr 25, 2010 16:40:11 GMT -5
^^ Welcome to the board Egyptianplanet, good to have one with an alternative viewpoint amongst our ranks. Several people like to dismiss the term 'Caucasian' or 'caucasoid', but rarely do you hear the same negation applied when use of the term 'Black' or 'negroid' is administered. You just made a very valid point, in that the very same people who created the term 'Caucasian' are the same ones that created the term 'Black'; Both constructions of a modern racial era. Absolutely. When we see what the ancients refer to themselves, it is not this narrow minded view with which we burden ourselves with. If you use the term White/Black/Caucasian/Negro in an academic debate with a modern scholar, they will be downright indignant. In a lecture given by Keita, he refused to use any of those terms above. If we want to get closer to the truth, we must use a more scientific approach rather than some sort of falsified modern approach that appears to have emotional investment. Being subjective will always triumph over being biased.
|
|
|
Post by doctorisscientia on Apr 28, 2010 19:38:30 GMT -5
You do not know what is being taught at Chinese universities or is being discussed amongst Chinese scholars.. I have presented this innovative Afrocentric stuff to them just to see their reaction, as well as, to put them on notice of what is being disseminated in African American circles. They are not at all pleased. You see, Chinese are aware (and have been for some yrs now) of African Americans and their social issues and gripes; claiming to be AE. Chinese could care less but now they do, thanks to people like you. I hate hypocrites, most so called "Afrocentric" deal and study cultures and civilizations inside the African continent and/or near by African affiliated locations, i.e. Southwest Asia and Mediterranean, etc. The small fringe, like what another poster has already stated prier, represents a small and largly isolated group with no major influence in regard to scholarship. Eurocentrics have mush more POWER and INFLUENCE on science and history, so mush that many people choose to avoid critizing them, even when they assume ludcris positions on theories and ideas that are not supported by science and archeology. For example... 1)"Europeans" brought civilization to Eastern China, i.e. traditional China, via Western China in Central Asia. Debunkings -First, the early populations of the Tarim Basin in Eastern China have been vertified to be of mixed ancestry, as are all modern Central Asians. -These Tarim mummies and peoples were not of Celtic or European descent, as suggested by many eurocentrics (amateur and professional alike), but of mixed Southwest/South and Eastern Asian descent. -The East Asian component, as it is today, became the most prominant. 2)Grouping many divergent and unrelated people into one "European" group in order to skew genetic results, claim ownership of exotix civilizations and cultures, and basically white washing the world. -It's only in America where Afghans are considered "white", while Pakistanians are labeled as Asians. 3)Purposing that "white" Central Asian migrants, i.e. these migrants would not have been European or white but brown...duh, brought civilization to India. Debunkings -Pre-Indo-european civilization precedes those that came after wards. -The Aryan "invasion" is coming under attack, since the genetic components of the Indian sub-continent due not show massive social differences. 3)Native Americans were of partial European descent. 4)North Africans are of predomiant European extraction. 5)Making up for lack of culture, Europeans outside the glories of ancient Rome and Greece try to lash onto the accomplishments of these early "Europeans" in order to make up for lost time. The Romans and Greeks would be shocked at the situation of the modern world, the "Barbarians" are in control and they're descendents and the mighty Ethiopians are in oppression... BIG SHOCK. Debunkings - Roman and Greeco civilization, Greece more than Rome, has stronger cultural ties to Southwest Asia then it does to the rest of Europe, for exampe Anatolia and Syria. -Greeks and most Italians are more genetically related to Southwest Asians then they are to other Europeans; for example, the genetic distance between a Tuscan and a Greek and a Palestinian is MUSH shorter then the distance between the former two and Northern and Western Europeans, i.e. Nordes. -Western "Civilization" not only copied the work of the their oppressors, i.e. the Greeks and the Romans, they also borrowed and adopted the concepts and ideas from various non-european peoples, i.e. African Moors, Central Asians, and Southwestian Muslims. And so many other marvelous lies and bull, that continue to represent the Eurocentric state of mind. note: So called WEstern civilization is only 500 years or so old. The Western Sudanic, i.e. West Africa, civilization in relation to the Tichitt-Walata and Tagant civilization was present as a complex for several thousand years, a little less then 5,000 years. The Nile Valey Civilization lasted for nearly the same time, likely even more. And, the Eri-Ethiopian civilization lasted for even longer, into the 20th century. The Southeast African and Southern complex for about 2,000 years. etc. There's no reason for us to claim other civilizations, it's you who needs some soal seeking. ....................................... The only civilizations in Europe were that of Southern/Southeast European extraction, 3 civilizations in total, i.e. Roman, Greek, and Southeast Mediterranean. It wasn't untill the Carolingian dynasty in the 9th century(Azania and Ghana were already several centuries old), which was a greatly inferior version of Western Rome, that we see "civilization" in Europe outside the Greeco-Roman world. Western civilization is a renactment of the accomplishments of the ancient southern European cultures.
|
|
|
Post by doctorisscientia on Apr 28, 2010 19:41:55 GMT -5
LOL, never mind... I quess Rome may have been just as "eastern" or "Southwest Asian" as Greece.
About 800 BC, in central Italy, a mysterious culture flourished.
These people, called the Etruscans, are today regarded as the real founders of Rome.
The Romans were first a subject people of the Etruscans and later their conquerors.
Some Greeks held that the Etruscans were a branch of the Pelasgians, aboriginal inhabitants of the Aegean region.
The Pelasgians may have been the Sea People who around 1200 B.C. invaded the Egyptian Empire.
It was discovered that most of the languages of Europe belonged to one big language family called Indo-European but Etruscan was not one of them. The technology of DNA analysis has been applied to the question of origins.
A study published in the April 2007 issue of The American Journal of Human Genetics reports finding eleven lineages of mitochondrial DNA in Tuscany that have not been found elsewhere in Europe but do occur in the Near East.
In the Etruscan ruins there are craft objects from Greece, North Africa, southern France and Iberia.
|
|
|
Post by clydewin98 on Apr 28, 2010 23:14:59 GMT -5
I have presented this innovative Afrocentric stuff to them just to see their reaction, as well as, to put them on notice of what is being disseminated in African American circles. They are not at all pleased. You see, Chinese are aware (and have been for some yrs now) of African Americans and their social issues and gripes; claiming to be AE. Chinese could care less but now they do, thanks to people like you. I hate hypocrites, most so called "Afrocentric" deal and study cultures and civilizations inside the African continent and/or near by African affiliated locations, i.e. Southwest Asia and Mediterranean, etc. The small fringe, like what another poster has already stated prier, represents a small and largly isolated group with no major influence in regard to scholarship.. You don’t know what you are talking about. The study of the history of Blacks in Asia and Europe is normal social science for Afrocentric, or Afro-American scholars. Study of this area is not “fringe” Edward Blyden (1869) also used classical sources to discuss the ancient history of African people. In his work he not only discussed the evidence for Blacks in West Asia and Egypt, he also discussed the role of Blacks in ancient America (Blyden, 1869, 78). By 1883, africalogical researchers began to publish book on African American history. W. Williams (1883) wrote the first textbook on African American history. In the History of the Negro Race in America, Dr. Williams provided the schema for all future africalogical history text. Dr. Williams (1883) confirmed the classical traditions for Blacks founding civilization in both Africa (Egypt, Ethiopia) and West Asia. In addition, to confirming the "Ancient Model" of history, Dr. Williams (1883) also mentioned the presence of Blacks in Indo-China and the Malay Peninsula. A decade later R.L. Perry (1893) also presented evidence to confirm the classical traditions of Blacks founding Egypt, Greece and the Mesopotamian civilization. He also provided empirical evidence for the role of Blacks in Phoenicia, thus increasing the scope of the ASAH paradigms. Pauline E. Hopkins (1905) added further articulation of the ASAH paradigms of the application of these paradigms in understanding the role of Blacks in West Asia and Africa. Hopkins (1905) provided further confirmation of the role of Blacks in Southeast Asia, and expanded the scope of africalogical research to China (1905). This review of the 19th century africalogical social scientific research indicate confirmation of the "Ancient Model" for the early history of Blacks. We also see a movement away from self-published africalogical research, and publication of research, and the publication of research articles on afrocentric themes, to the publication of textbooks. G.W. Parker greatly expanded the ASAH paradigm for classical study by providing a focused study of the role of blacks in Greece. Parker (1917) identified these ancient Afro-Greeks as Pelasgians. He also used linguistics to illustrate that the names of many Greek heroes betrayed there African, not Indo-European origin. In addition, Parker gave us the most detailed discussion of Blacks in India up to his time (Parker, 1918). The second major confirmation for the "Ancient Model" of history was made by DuBois (1965,1970). In the Negro published in 1915, DuBois explained the African presence in Egypt and ancient Kush and a comprehensive analysis of the West African empires. W.E.B. DuBois (1924) also firmly placed the presence of Blacks in America as a legitimate research area for africalogical researchers. In The Gift of Black Folks, discussed the Black presence in ancient America, including European references to Pre-Columbian Blacks, and the influence of Africans on the Amerindian religions (DuBois,1924). The confirmation of this paradigm was made by ( Clegg, 1975; Lawrence, 1962; Thompson, 1975; Winters, 1981\1982) In The World and Africa, DuBois (1965) provides a full explanation of the role of Blacks in the early world. He explains the history of Blacks in China and India (pp.176-200); Blacks in Europe(the Pre-Indo-European Greeks and during the Dark Age of Greece), and Asia Minor (pp. 115-127), and the Egyptian foundation of Grecian thought (pp. 125-126). As you can see Afro-Americans have log recognized the African role in the rise of civilizations outside Africa, Reference: Blyden, E.W. ( January, 1869). The Negro in ancient history. Methodist Quarterly Review, 71-93. Blyden, E.W. (1887). Christianity, Islam and the Negro Race. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. _____________. (1890). The African Problem and the method for its solution. Washington, D.C.: Gibson Brothers. _______________.(1905). West Africa before Europe. London:C.M. Phillips. DuBois, W.E.B. (1924). The Gift of Black Folks. Boston. DuBois, W.E.B. (1970). The Negro. New York: Oxford University Press. DuBois, W.E.B. (1965). The world and Africa. New York : International Publishers Co., Inc. Hopkins, P.E. (1905). A Primer of Facts pertaining to the early greatness of the african race and the possibility of restoration by its descendants-with epilogue. Cambridge: P.E. Hopkins & Com. Parker,G.W. (1917) . "The African Origin of Grecian Civilization ".Journal of Negro History, 2(3):334-344. ___________. (1981). The Children of the Sun. Baltimore,Md.: Black Classic Press. Perry, R.L. (1893). The Cushite. Brooklyn: The Literary Union. Williams, G.W. (1869). History of the Negro Race in America. New York: G.P. Putnam
|
|
|
Post by clydewin98 on Apr 28, 2010 23:24:16 GMT -5
LOL, never mind... I quess Rome may have been just as "eastern" or "Southwest Asian" as Greece. About 800 BC, in central Italy, a mysterious culture flourished. These people, called the Etruscans, are today regarded as the real founders of Rome. The Romans were first a subject people of the Etruscans and later their conquerors. Some Greeks held that the Etruscans were a branch of the Pelasgians, aboriginal inhabitants of the Aegean region. The Pelasgians may have been the Sea People who around 1200 B.C. invaded the Egyptian Empire. It was discovered that most of the languages of Europe belonged to one big language family called Indo-European but Etruscan was not one of them. The technology of DNA analysis has been applied to the question of origins. A study published in the April 2007 issue of The American Journal of Human Genetics reports finding eleven lineages of mitochondrial DNA in Tuscany that have not been found elsewhere in Europe but do occur in the Near East. In the Etruscan ruins there are craft objects from Greece, North Africa, southern France and Iberia. The present inhabitants of Tuscany has nothing to do with the Etruscans, There is no relationship between Tuscans and Etruscans www.pnas.org/content/103/21/8012.fullThe Pelagians were not People of the Sea, they were Africans. The Greeks often called the first inhabitants of Greece Pelasgians. The Greek writers claimed that Pelasgus, the great ancestor of the Pelasgians was the first man. The Pelasgians were a combination of diverse Black tribes which included the Achaeans , Kadmeans, and Leleges. The Garamantes were also often called Pelasgians by some classical writers. Strabo said "that the Pelasgi, as indeed the most ancient nation, were diffused through all Greece, and especially among the Aeolians". The city of Argo was founded by Phoroneus, the father of Pelasgus, Iasus and Agenor. It was these folks who divided the Peloponnese between them. Herodotus referred to the Pelasgians as "venerable ancestors". He said that the first Athenians "they were Pelasgi, the later possessing the country now designed Hellas". The Pelasgian founding of Athens is also noted by Plutarch in Theseus 12, and Ovid in Metamorphosis vii.402ff. According to Herodotus vii.91, the Pelasgians also founded Thebes in Europe. Pausanias, noted that "The Arcadians make mention of Pelasgus as the first person who existed in their country. From this king the whole region took the name Pilasgia". Hopper noted that the Pelasgians founded Attica. The Black immigrants from Canaan were also settled in the Aegean at Argolis. They called themselves the "Sons of Abas". Many of the Melampodes later took part of Argolis away from the Canaanites. The earliest Greek alphabet was made by the Pelasgians, it was lost and later reintroduced by Kadmus to Boeotia. Another Pelasgian, Evander of Arcadia introduced writing to the Italians. This script was used to make the first fifteen characters of the Latin script according to Pliny and Plutarch.
|
|
|
Post by imhotep06 on Apr 29, 2010 1:59:57 GMT -5
Greetings Dr. Winters. I am looking in your 1883 source for George Washington Williams and am trying to find the general spot where he would be talking about the founding of ancient cultures by Africans and can't seem to find it. Can you point me in the right direction? Thanks in advance.
|
|
|
Post by clydewin98 on Apr 29, 2010 10:32:47 GMT -5
Greetings Dr. Winters. I am looking in your 1883 source for George Washington Williams and am trying to find the general spot where he would be talking about the founding of ancient cultures by Africans and can't seem to find it. Can you point me in the right direction? Thanks in advance. I checked the book out years ago I don't have the publication in front of me now so I can't give the page numbers. In relation to Egypt and Mesopotamia, he followed the Biblical mention of the children of Ham, as a lead in to his discussion of these ancient civilizations. This is referred to as the Ancient Model of History began by the Classical writers. He may not have used the term African per se, but discussion of the Hamitic and Kushite people in the 19th Century signified African populations. Check out Chapter 1, in his book here: books.google.com/books?id=64APAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA459&lpg=RA1-PA459&dq=Williams,+G.W.+(1869).+History+of+the+Negro+Race+in+America.&source=bl&ots=D2cJz7sQcS&sig=V9uDRxyYhDqD4WD1xSn18RIKGSI&hl=en&ei=7qbZS8_hGo_WM5iZiHc&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false . .
|
|
|
Post by azrur on Jan 4, 2014 19:20:19 GMT -5
the same reason you wouldn't like euro centering
|
|
|
Post by zarahan on Feb 17, 2014 1:47:49 GMT -5
Here is what one conservative mainstream Egyptologist, Donald Redford has to say- noting that given the European obsession with race and color, then the ancient Egyptians, can be quite reasonably called black. Above and beyond the social race label however is the weight of skeletal, DNA, cranial and cultural data showing that said Egyptians are indeed indigenous tropical Africans. This data does not depend on American "race" labels, but if social labels are to be used, the bottom line is the same. Redford it should be also be mentioned, is on record as criticizing some Afrocentric claims. [/b] QUOTE: "The race and origins of the Ancient Egyptians have been a source of considerable debate. Scholars in the late and early 20th centuries rejected any considerations of the Egyptians as black Africans by defining the Egyptians either as non-African (i.e Near Easterners or Indo-Aryan), or as members of a separate brown (as opposed to a black) race, or as a mixture of lighter-skinned peoples with black Africans. In the later half of the 20th century, Afrocentric scholars have countered this Eurocentric and often racist perspective by characterizing the Egyptians as black and African....."
"Physical anthropologists are increasingly concluding that racial definitions are the culturally defined product of selective perception and should be replaced in biological terms by the study of populations and clines. Consequently, any characterization of race of the ancient Egyptians depend on modern cultural definitions, not on scientific study. Thus, by modern American standards it is reasonable to characterize the Egyptians as `blacks' [i.e in a social sense] while acknowledging the scientific evidence for the physical diversity of Africans." --Source: Donald Redford (2001) The Oxford encyclopedia of ancient Egypt, Volume 3. Oxford University Press. p. 27-28 Again note: Redford is a conservative Egyptologist who has criticized "Afrocentrism" but even he finds it reasonable to call the ancient Egyptians black in a social sense. The only thing I would add, is that it is equally valid to call them indigenous tropical Africans, for that is what they are based on DNA, cranial, skeletal, dental and cultural data. Indigenous tropical Africans, based on Western race categories are deemed 'black.' People can use whatever labels they want- same bottom line. And here is what Redford has to say on cultural data, which links ancient Egyptians with so-called "black Africa.." Indeed Redford says they were of African origin.. "The evidence also points to linkages to other northeast African peoples, not coincidentally approximating the modern range of languages closely related to Egyptian in the Afro-Asiatic group (formerly called Hamito-Semetic). These linguistic similarities place ancient Egyptian in a close relationship with languages spoken today as far west as Chad, and as far south as Somalia.
Archaeological evidence also strongly supports an African origin. A widespread northeastern African cultural assemblage, including distinctive multiple barbed harpoons and pottery decorated with dotted wavy line patterns, appears during the early Neolithic (also known as the Aqualithic, a reference to the mild climate of the Sahara at this time). Saharan and Sudanese rock art from this time resembles early Egyptian iconography. Strong connections between Nubian (Sudanese) and Egyptian material culture continue in later Neolithic Badarian culture of Upper Egypt. Similarities include black-topped wares, vessels with characteristic ripple-burnished surfaces, a special tulip-shaped vessel with incised and white-filled decoration, palettes, and harpoons...
Other ancient Egyptian practices show strong similarities to modern African cultures including divine kingship, the use of headrests, body art, circumcision, and male coming-of-age rituals, all suggesting an African substratum or foundation for Egyptian civilization.." [/i] -- Source: Donald Redford (2001) The Oxford encyclopedia of ancient Egypt, Volume 3. Oxford University Press. p.28 Again, no matter how people slice it- same bottom line...
|
|
|
Post by azrur on Feb 17, 2014 22:35:41 GMT -5
|
|