|
Post by africurious on Dec 16, 2011 11:25:31 GMT -5
I find it curious that the study doesnt mention european immigration of the late 1800s as a possible contribution to decline in % of afro-argentines. It seems an obvious contributing factor to me. Argentina, like many latin american countries, had a gov't policy of attracting europeans to settle in order to whiten the country and thereby uplift it (their view). This policy was probably most successful in argentina, brazil and maybe cuba. The Argentine pop was small before the conquista and even during colonial times. It grew tremendously with the massive european immigrantion of the late 1800s. According to an argentine statistical institute, the argentine pop grew around 400% between 1869 and 1914. Heavy immigration from europe began around the 1870s and continued into the early decades of the 1900s. How is it not obvious to these researchers that this was a major contribution to the "disappearance" of afro-argentines?
An interesting bit I just came across from a paper I found on the net (http://www.calstatela.edu/faculty/asolomi/images/Afro-ArgReview.pdf) is that in 1869 26.1% of argentines were registered as afro-argentines and by 1895 that declined to 1.8%. The author suggests this decline was from ppl reclassifying themselves, but no doubt much of that decline was real.
|
|
|
Post by africurious on Nov 22, 2011 11:07:32 GMT -5
Whaaat??!! He wouldn't share his works with them? Jeez, man, that's messed up. The irony is that while he was not sharing his work, he difficulty publishing a paper because it "favored the negro too much" according to Rogers. Smh. I read the Maghan Keita link. It goes with my impression that Snowden dears not say the egyptians were black but admits they had a large "nubian" component and this nubian component was influential. Yea he toed the line for fear of being ostracized by his Euro American colleagues,a saying in Japan the nail that sticks it's head out gets beaten down. Yea, i'm familiar with that saying. Very good metaphor.
|
|
|
Post by africurious on Nov 22, 2011 11:03:43 GMT -5
Anansi, i've heard many jamaican's, including scholars, say the above i.e. jamaica was a dumping ground for most uncontrollabe slaves. I've never heard any good evidence backing this up. The only thing they cite are the many slave rebellions in JA, which doesn't mean a thing. There are many diff factors that go into rebellions that are unrelated to supposed inherent rebelliousness of a people. Has anyone questioned why would JA purposely take or allow entry of rebellious slaves when the slave owning population had many rich ppl and therefore could chose slaves as they pleased? In fact Barbadoes and JA have a quite similar slave profile because both were controlled by Britain for a long time and received slaves primarily from the british west india company. The Bajan planters used to say that bajan slaves were well trained and would never rebel, citing that they had no rebellions. Lo and behold, close to the end of slavery Barbadoes had one of the biggest slave rebellions. There goes that theory. The view you state seems to serve 2 purposes in jamaican thought: 1.It is used as an explanation of the high violence in jamaica. Jamaicans are an inherently violent ppl just look at all those rebellions during slavery. 2.It's a source of pride because it means Jamaicans fought an outrageously repressive system and do not take **it from anyone. What say you, anansi? I would have to go over many of the books I read to see if it was indeed a generalization or fact . Both points one and two the answer is yes the most slave rebellions in history at-least in the western hemisphere ,rebellious attitude got passed down from generation to generation entering the people folk and pop culture remember the dance called the Bogle.. and who in Jamaica does not want Maroon ancestry? Yea man, can't forget that dance. Indeed, every jacan would like such ancestry and for good reason.
|
|
|
Post by africurious on Nov 21, 2011 16:05:34 GMT -5
Actually Jamaica and perhaps the W.I in general were seasoning stations at some era of the slave trade, and also Jamaica has the honor of being the dumping ground for the most rebellious slaves, that is if a slave on the main land proved to be particularly uncontrollable they would deport him/her to Jamaica..will post more on the subject. Anansi, i've heard many jamaican's, including scholars, say the above i.e. jamaica was a dumping ground for most uncontrollabe slaves. I've never heard any good evidence backing this up. The only thing they cite are the many slave rebellions in JA, which doesn't mean a thing. There are many diff factors that go into rebellions that are unrelated to supposed inherent rebelliousness of a people. Has anyone questioned why would JA purposely take or allow entry of rebellious slaves when the slave owning population had many rich ppl and therefore could chose slaves as they pleased? In fact Barbadoes and JA have a quite similar slave profile because both were controlled by Britain for a long time and received slaves primarily from the british west india company. The Bajan planters used to say that bajan slaves were well trained and would never rebel, citing that they had no rebellions. Lo and behold, close to the end of slavery Barbadoes had one of the biggest slave rebellions. There goes that theory. The view you state seems to serve 2 purposes in jamaican thought: 1.It is used as an explanation of the high violence in jamaica. Jamaicans are an inherently violent ppl just look at all those rebellions during slavery. 2.It's a source of pride because it means Jamaicans fought an outrageously repressive system and do not take **it from anyone. What say you, anansi?
|
|
|
Post by africurious on Nov 21, 2011 15:16:07 GMT -5
Interesting!! Tx for posting.
|
|
|
Post by africurious on Nov 21, 2011 15:01:53 GMT -5
The main pt that many things attributed to muslim invention came from others is spot on, but this thread seems anti-islamic. Often these claims are made by ppl in the west because they're familiar with these inventions primarily from the islamic areas so they wrongly assume muslim invention. It has nothing to do with being apologetic to islam. The tone of this thread has a shade of anti-islam to it. I bet Jari thinks christianity was some great boon to africa unlike islam, right? C'mon, let's try to be objective.
|
|
|
Post by africurious on Nov 21, 2011 14:30:59 GMT -5
Snowden is great for Graeco-Latin texts and art. Beyond that and he goes out of bounds as far as anthropology. We do owe him a lot despite his hang ups and fears and wanting to be the "only one" refusing to collaborate with people like fellow Howardian Hansberry leave alone JA Rogers, even going so far as to not share his work with them or allow them to read any of his non-published finds for their works. WEB Du Bois The World and Africa: an inquiry into the part which Africa has played in world historyNew York: Viking Press, 1947 p. x He would like to be the first and only coloured classicist. Fact is, he was neither alone nor first. In spite of his crankiness towards black writers on Egyptology we find Snowden slippery as a wet reptile on their colour and designation by contemporaneous north Mediterraneans, see Maghan Keita's view starting @ books.google.com/books?id=fnylq8hkVbYC&pg=PA131&lpg=PA131Whaaat??!! He wouldn't share his works with them? Jeez, man, that's messed up. The irony is that while he was not sharing his work, he difficulty publishing a paper because it "favored the negro too much" according to Rogers. Smh. I read the Maghan Keita link. It goes with my impression that Snowden dears not say the egyptians were black but admits they had a large "nubian" component and this nubian component was influential.
|
|
|
Post by africurious on Nov 21, 2011 12:21:11 GMT -5
Africurious, It has been more than a few years since I've read "Black Athena" which a close friend lent me his two volumes. It was truly a ground breaking, earth moving book coming from a Euro American who I believe is also part Jewish. Academia was quit upset with Mr. Bernal esp. the classical departments around the globe. How dare he even suggest that the ancient Egyptians be Black Africans, even in part. If I remember correctly, he was saying that the ancient Egyptians were Afro/Asiatics in part because of the ties that the ancient Egyptians had with the Phoenicians & Anatolia regions including Palestine ? By him being a professor of Linguistics he based his theory on common words & branches of language groups he found in the region including of course Greece . According to Bernal the physical studies of AE's wasn't clear on their ethnic affiliation so I guess he himself wasn't clear. And I'm sure he had a prob coming to grips with ppl mainly painted brown as being african since ppl often think that africans must be literally black or else they're "mixed". Furthermore, the kushites and other "nubians" are painted mostly black and often with diff facial features so this must be a "racial" difference musn't it? And he says he doubts AE's looked like "west africans"--he's apparently referring to the "true negro" view of africans here. No big surprise as most ppl outside of africa (including african descendants) often think of africans in this way. In fact, he says his views are more akin to those of dubois and mazrui, both of whom he says saw egyptians as "mixed". He's not an anthropologist and didn't use any anthropological arguments in his work so I'm not as bothered as i would be otherwise. Yea, his book created quite the firestorm. ;D
|
|
|
Post by africurious on Nov 19, 2011 16:27:51 GMT -5
Tx Nebsen. I'll try to watch between today and next weekend.
|
|
|
Post by africurious on Nov 19, 2011 16:19:45 GMT -5
Africurious, Strangely enough I just started rereading Poe's book" Black Spark White Fire"the other day. I never got the impression that Poe was confused over the racial make up of the Egyptian. In fact on page 369 Chapter10 titled, " The Children Of Ham" he explains the Hamitic theory quit well & how it somewhat devolved into this mixed race concept. Poe was explaining Snowden's position on the matter,not his own as far as Poe is concern it's enough that they were culturally and biologically African,a position I share because once you start down that road you get into all kinds of ridiculous shadism about how much black is black is reddish brown black is a sallow completion black if one has recent African genetic stuff and self I.D as such,It is enough for me that the "Kemites" I.D not only their lands but themselves as BLK despite variations on skin tone not unlike any modern black metropolis. Nebsen, you may be right on that. I may've confused Poe's views a bit with other writers, especially Bernal (who def was not clear in what he thought despite his book's titles). Anansi, yea, i agree that the AE's were clearly african and that is enough. What degree of darkness is not important.
|
|
|
Post by africurious on Nov 19, 2011 13:24:00 GMT -5
Yea, I read Poe's book. Like a lot of ppl Poe sees brown ppl on drawn on walls in africa and thinks they must be "mixed". Also, since there is a lot of debate about it he prob sees classifying them as "mixed" as the middle road (an arbitrary middle ground that doesn't bring anyone closer to the ancient reality). Martin Bernal seems to do a similar thing. Poe's book was good.
Maybe that whole "mixed" view that Poe thinks Snowden had explains some of Snowden's writings. But, he would've still been discriminated against regardless of mixing so why support the ideological underpinnings of that discrimination? He probably could've done some amazing work (aside from and greater than what he accomplished) if he weren't so brainwashed. Good thing there were others who knew better.
|
|
|
Post by africurious on Nov 18, 2011 23:49:35 GMT -5
Tx Anansi. The info here is vast and varied. Just wish I had more time to soak up more of it. Glad fi si a yaad man contributing to some'n like this.
|
|
|
Post by africurious on Nov 18, 2011 23:36:13 GMT -5
I meant to say "not well known" above instead of "well known". I corrected it. Yea Nebsen I've wanted to watch this series for a while and have never gotten to it. I checked out the link you posted above and came across this related video below of palo mayombe in cuba. About 30secs to a min in the video you can see a kalunga sign drawn on a wall in the background. The african culture is still strong there. I hope to visit one day soon. www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nvJVK-u4Tg&feature=youtube_gdata_player
|
|
|
Post by africurious on Nov 18, 2011 15:02:24 GMT -5
Yea, i was wondering how much of it is the "era" he is from. But, if Diop refused to accept racist nonsense even subtle ones decades before him then why couldn't he? Even W.E.B Dubois and Rogers before Diop didn't toe the line. Then again, their careers weren't in classics. Also, he continued with this stuff till up to the 90s. Didn't he ever come across anything contradicting his thoughts in that time? He couldn't see the argumental trickeries and mental gymnastics used by classicists and that he himself used?
It seems like he was well-trained i.e. yes he believes "negroes" are equal to all other ppl but accepts european cultural superiorty and european standards for everything (and further cannot seem to identify racism unless it's obvious or nearly so). I've come across many ppl like this. I've read stuff by ppl like this too. Supposedly they are trying to uplift blacks but all they do is try to make them as european-like as possible, this includes culture and looks too wherever possible. This seemed to be especially so after slavery in a number of countries in the americas as shown in writings by some leading blacks of the time. Heck, i'm sure some blacks now know of such ppl in their families.
Not necessarily trying to convince anyone of the above but since I don't know ppl who I can discuss this with I do it on this forum.
|
|
|
Post by africurious on Nov 18, 2011 14:42:41 GMT -5
Anyone with anything new to add to this thread in terms of any novel insights?
The criticism of the term "black-head" was good. It always sounded weird to me, like it was an awkward translation. Also, i'd point out that one has to be careful with using dictionaries of ancient languages as well because they too can suffer from the same faults as translations.
Also, i think a good point some posters have made here is that ppl seem to be using the term "black" in 2 senses: 1.as a literal skin color 2.as the racial term that is commonly used in the US. Those are 2 diff things and I think most of us here would agree that black or dark skin does not = african or recent african. The same goes for other things like dolicocephaly, as pointed out by takruri.
Anyone with any genetics info on iraq and iran and the implications for a suggested recent african origin for mesopotamians? From the bit I know, the genetic data may not be clear since many recent africans entered the area in the arab invasion (and after). And many recent africans were prob already in the area since at least the 3rd millenium when the semitic Akkadian language is attested. Does anyone know of any archaelogical finds that can date the arrrival of these semites in the area?
|
|