|
Post by nebsen on Jul 9, 2018 2:29:06 GMT -5
Starting to rereading Dr Diop's" Civilization or Barbarism" his last great book : I have such great & the utmost respect for Dr. Diop , I 1st read his ground breaking book esp for us African American, Origins Of African Civilization in 1978, which confirmed without a doubt about ancient Kemet ( Egypt)as a African civilization. In this short video in which a interpreter translates about the African origin of Man. DNA was not used as it is today even with all the advancements, he was right on target with only slight adjustments with the new information that we know today in the 21 century. We should never ever forget his contributions to our understanding of Africa's true history !!
|
|
|
Post by zarahan on Jul 10, 2018 20:46:50 GMT -5
Its good you are re-reading, and also it is good to join what he says to updated information. Diop had many things right, and though some of his work is dated, modern research confirms several things that he said. SOme folk forget what Diop said as to the need for continual study, and research, and the importance of good data, and rely too much on rhetoric. or emotional appeals, when a little research would make their arguments stand on surer ground. Diop basically said -- it bothers me when people just take my word for it without verifying the evidence for themselves. -- And folk should update their knowledge and information. Too often some cats are quoting Diop from 1957 as if it applies for all time, forever set in stone, as if nothing has changed since say 1957. Some EUrocentric distorters love to do this do this, so they can set up old strawmen to supposedly "refute." Alas, some who blindly claim to be following Diop without heeding his advice below, or putting in some minimal work reading the info out there, or accurately representing what he says in the context of the info available to him at the time, only play into the hands of the distorters. This is a common pattern out there, the misrepresentation of Diop's work. People should honestly understand its strengths and limitations on balance.
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on Jul 10, 2018 21:29:12 GMT -5
Diop is excellent as is without caveats. Why nobody strew caveats at all the old cats they like to quote?
Absence of Diop in the diet is what led to the current 'AEs are African, we don't know what black is' roorag.
Not reading his Origin in the Delta chapter today's Africana fans fall for the old AE is North African ruse or the newer Sahara pump subterfuge.
No.
Neolithic Sahara and AE are Sudanese and w/o constant rereading of Diop that and other major relevancies (the big picture not the minutae) will be forgotten because face it our kids ain't taught nothing about it unless they go to an African centered school or haphazardly hear bits and pieces of grown folks conversation.
Look, one of the greatest USA libraries has 0 copies of any Diop book to borrow, but how many of Lefskovitz?
Diop was acutely aware of keeping up to speed which is why he didn't do revisions. Knowing time made some his notions obsolete just like every other researcher in every field, Diop would publish a new work assuming intelligent readers of course replace the old with the new. Only a donkey carrying books relies on outdated evidence. Diop would be the first to lick that breying ass into full speed giddy yr ass up into the latest that's out there.
Diop come here quick and bring me that lickin stick
|
|
|
Post by nebsen on Jul 11, 2018 2:41:40 GMT -5
Thanks to you both Zarahan & Al Takruni, both of you make important assessments About Dr. Diop & his work. This is a good bio about Diop that i wanted to post, information that I did not even know about him !
|
|
|
Post by zarahan on Jul 11, 2018 21:32:35 GMT -5
I agree with Takruri that Diop is excellent but there are still caveats to observe due to the dated nature of some of his info, and Diop himself says above people should not take his word for it, but rather study and critique as needed: "a scientific spirit capable of seeing even the weaknesses of our own proofs"This approach raises the overall bar, as he himself says. Within the VERY diverse phenomenon known as "Afrocentrism" (so-called) etc, there has been historical tension between those who follow Diop's more evidentiary/empirical approach, and those who want a more rhetorical/emotional/political approach. Check out one article below on that tension: weblog.liberatormagazine.com/2014/06/past-afrocentricity-reassessing-cheikh.htmlBut we basically I think we can all agree on Diop's general points, and various approaches are not an either/or proposition, but a continuum, with overlaps here and there depending on context and situation. Takruri says: Look, one of the greatest USA libraries has 0 copies of any Diop book to borrow, but how many of Lefskovitz? . Indeed. And that is part of the pattern of misrepresenting Diop's work or sidelining/ignoring it. Lefkowitz's or various other academics "spin" on Diop is given play as the "official" word, while misrepresenting the original. Likewise Martin Bernal's "Black Athena" was given much play and attention, but black scholars who had made some of the same points decades before were ignored. And Bernal himself misrepresented Diop's work on some counts. In the book "Egypt in Africa" 2003, "Afrocentrism" is discussed, but no credible current academic identified as "Afrocentric" is given a slot in the book, yet Martin Bernal is given his own article even though his work deals mostly with Greece/Middle East/Egypt, not Egypt and Africa. Why does he get the slot, and not a guy like van Sertima who has been heavy lifting in the area of Egypt and Africa for years before anyone ever really heard of Bernal? This is not just random bloggers making this point. Reviews of the book by mainstream academic types point out the same thing. How to account for this strange discrepancy?
|
|
|
Post by nebsen on Jul 11, 2018 22:30:42 GMT -5
www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-44797323 Well I did not want to stop the flow of post, but this article by BBC claims the Earliest evidence of humans out side of Africa found in China. If you want to move this please do ,but I felt the article was in keeping with this post. I'm somewhat suspicious of this, I'd like to get others take on this article. The oldest ??
|
|
|
Post by zarahan on Jul 12, 2018 10:32:37 GMT -5
Hmm, basically what they are saying is that various human variants left Africa and ended up in CHina some million of years ago. Yeah, this should be nothing surprising - as they say "Humans left Africa at many times during their history." Keep in mind the difference between various archaic human variants millions of years ago, and ANATOMICALLY MODERN HUMANS (AMHs) which are more directly related to us today. Both came from Africa but while both are part of a hominid lineage, or to oversimplify two-legged upright, tool using type creatures, they are distinct. Check your basic evolution in one of the intro textbooks, or the OOA migration info on the web such as via the Smithsonian, or Natl Geog.
|
|
|
Post by nebsen on Jul 14, 2018 3:07:29 GMT -5
Hmm, basically what they are saying is that various human variants left Africa and ended up in CHina some million of years ago. Yeah, this should be nothing surprising - as they say "Humans left Africa at many times during their history." Keep in mind the difference between various archaic human variants millions of years ago, and ANATOMICALLY MODERN HUMANS (AMHs) which are more directly related to us today. Both came from Africa but while both are part of a hominid lineage, or to oversimplify two-legged upright, tool using type creatures, they are distinct. Check your basic evolution in one of the intro textbooks, or the OOA migration info on the web such as via the Smithsonian, or Natl Geog. Well I know some years back they were talking about a very small hominid , that live in Asia, that was very small creature that was a distant in its size, but it seemed like they still had not collected enough about this evolution. Also , so these Hominids left Africa a million or so years ago & by past all the other lands they had to go through, to than set up in China, to be the oldest out side Africa, kind of suspicious to me ? They are in Africa like gang busters at this time,& this would really give them legitimacy in really taking over Africa! ( a suspicious mind mussing )
|
|
|
Post by zarahan on Jul 15, 2018 22:01:03 GMT -5
LOL yeah, I know what you mean. You have to be suspicious or skeptical with some of these folk, and cross check them, sometimes over a long period to catch various distortions and inconsistencies.
|
|
|
Post by nebsen on Jul 16, 2018 0:55:05 GMT -5
LOL yeah, I know what you mean. You have to be suspicious or skeptical with some of these folk, and cross check them, sometimes over a long period to catch various distortions and inconsistencies. I remember about 6 months or so, I saw an article with painted pictures about China unearthing the oldest known ceramics anywhere,well I looked at this pic & it looked a lots like the propaganda posters they are known for esp when Mao was in power, & even sounded like propaganda . Now the communist party are known for properganda(like the West) . Since China is on the rise I see that they could start colonizing information just as the West did about it's colonies in Africa & elsewhere. They have state backed universities with untold 100's of thousands working in all manner of research, science etc. So they can with ease, doctor information which gives China the edge historically etc. They like the West don't bother about ethics & morals concerning there national narratives . I saw a video of a Asian man who I think d worked at this museum here in the states & some brothers were talking about the Africaness of an Egyptian statue & the people of ancient Egypt being African, the Asian Man corrected them saying Ancient Egypt was Arabic & Egypt was more a Asian invention & not African (they have been just as brainwashed about African history,) it was all caught on tape. So I believe the Chinese know Africa & it's long history of civilization predates there own ,every time I look it's a Chinese saying we are the oldest civilization with a five thousands old history,they know Europeans cant' match there history in age etc. But ancient Kemet can . So they could do exactly what the Europeans did colonize all histories & distort in favor of China, now it's China's turn at historical propaganda , we must be vigilant !
|
|
|
Post by anansi on Jul 16, 2018 8:11:43 GMT -5
Nebsen said:[ saw a video of a Asian man who I think d worked at this museum here in the states & some brothers were talking about the Africaness of an Egyptian statue & the people of ancient Egypt being African, the Asian Man corrected them saying Ancient Egypt was Arabic & Egypt was more a Asian invention & not African (they have been just as brainwashed about African history,) it was all caught on tape. So I believe the Chinese know Africa & it's long history of civilization predates there own ,every time I look it's a Chinese saying we are the oldest civilization with a five thousands old history,they know Europeans cant' match there history in age etc. But ancient Kemet can .,]
The above is very easy to debunk , I hope the brothers did set him right.. with questions like , what did finds at Gilf el kibir signify along with those of Nabta Playa , where was Kemet's first Nome, where was Ta- Seti and it's relationship to a later Kemet as a state, was Kemet biologically,linguistically and culturally African..mind you there are still Africans from biologically descendant folks, that would agree with the Asian fellow, as well as Asians who knows what's up.
|
|
|
Post by zarahan on Jul 16, 2018 20:25:52 GMT -5
YEap- from what I see on the web some Chinese scientists push a bogus propaganda line- they reject the clear findings of science - of Africa being the birthplace of humanity, or of anatomically modern humans having their origin in Africa, and push a "multiregional" format, where a separate species of humanity, unconnected to those dreaded "Africans" (Mao forbid!) arose, and evolved free! free I say! of any "African taint." So some claim ancient Home Erectus evolved separately in Asia, conveniently leaving out that the specimen came from Africa FIRST- that's how they arrived in Asia to begin with. Part of this is spin is Chinese nationalism at work like Nebsen says.
|
|
|
Post by nebsen on Jul 17, 2018 3:06:58 GMT -5
YEap- from what I see on the web some Chinese scientists push a bogus propaganda line- they reject the clear findings of science - of Africa being the birthplace of humanity, or of anatomically modern humans having their origin in Africa, and push a "multiregional" format, where a separate species of humanity, unconnected to those dreaded "Africans" (Mao forbid!) arose, and evolved free! free I say! of any "African taint." So some claim ancient Home Erectus evolved separately in Asia, conveniently leaving out that the specimen came from Africa FIRST- that's how they arrived in Asia to begin with. Part of this is spin is Chinese nationalism at work like Nebsen says. This video has been posted before , I know I posted it a couple of years or so ago.The multiregional theory has a small number of adherents , it's like the old wig party of a by gone era !
|
|
|
Post by nebsen on Jul 17, 2018 3:09:08 GMT -5
Nebsen said:[ saw a video of a Asian man who I think d worked at this museum here in the states & some brothers were talking about the Africaness of an Egyptian statue & the people of ancient Egypt being African, the Asian Man corrected them saying Ancient Egypt was Arabic & Egypt was more a Asian invention & not African (they have been just as brainwashed about African history,) it was all caught on tape. So I believe the Chinese know Africa & it's long history of civilization predates there own ,every time I look it's a Chinese saying we are the oldest civilization with a five thousands old history,they know Europeans cant' match there history in age etc. But ancient Kemet can .,] The above is very easy to debunk , I hope the brothers did set him right.. with questions like , what did finds at Gilf el kibir signify along with those of Nabta Playa , where was Kemet's first Nome, where was Ta- Seti and it's relationship to a later Kemet as a state, was Kemet biologically,linguistically and culturally African..mind you there are still Africans from biologically descendant folks, that would agree with the Asian fellow, as well as Asians who knows what's up. Just found out this Asian guy worked for the Met in NYC ,which makes it even worse , I will see if I can locate the video !
|
|
|
Post by kel on Jul 17, 2018 8:11:32 GMT -5
da Chinese !!!
(hehehe)
stop it.
|
|