|
Post by nebsen on Nov 5, 2011 18:38:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by zarahan on Aug 4, 2012 20:54:10 GMT -5
I question the claim in the article:
"The Garamantes relied heavily on labour from sub-Saharan Africa, in the shape of slaves, to underpin their civilisation. Indeed, it is believed that they traded slaves as a commodity in exchange for the luxury goods that they imported in return."
Other data over at ES suggests the Garamentes were black themselves. This point is notable so there is no false impression of "Middle Eastern" civilizers using "black slave labor". Where have we heard that before? It all sounds too pat. And how much was "slave labor"? The article does not say. Was it "slave labor" or taxed free labor as in ancient Egypt responsible for the bulk of construction? Khadaffi may be gone but there is no guarantee that those who take his place will not perpetrate the same old distortions re African diversity and bio-history.
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on Aug 5, 2012 6:57:46 GMT -5
I question the claim in the article: "The Garamantes relied heavily on labour from sub-Saharan Africa, in the shape of slaves, to underpin their civilisation. Indeed, it is believed that they traded slaves as a commodity in exchange for the luxury goods that they imported in return." Other data over at ES suggests the Garamentes were black themselves. This point is notable so there is no false impression of "Middle Eastern" civilizers using "black slave labor". Where have we heard that before? It all sounds too pat. And how much was "slave labor"? The article does not say. Was it "slave labor" or taxed free labor as in ancient Egypt responsible for the bulk of construction? Khadaffi may be gone but there is no guarantee that those who take his place will not perpetrate the same old distortions re African diversity and bio-history. Right from the start in the very 2nd sentence of the article the writer establishes the Garamante as a black African civilization. He thus understands blacks were in supra-Saharan North Africa. the black African civilisation that flourished for more than 1,500 years within what are now Libya's borders
Any idea otherwise is introduced by yourself in assuming that only sub-Saharans can be black and African or that the so-called Middle East had anything to do with it. Slavery in ancient times was not the result of colour. The kingdoms of Ghana, Mali, and Songhay traded black Africans like themselves into northern slavery just as did the Garamante whom Greco-Latin texts tell was were also enslaved as indeed each and every people known to the Romans including fellow Romans were indeed among the enslaved. It appears by dialectic you and not the artilce writer has placed the thoughts in readers' heads that Garamantes were not black, Middle Easterners had something to do with their civilization, and only so-called sub-Saharans are black. This may be inadvertant and unintentional yet it is the result. Sure, question the role of slavery in "Garamantia" but why go and spread, perpetuate, and keep alive old myths by introducing them where they were never brought up? PS We have a very popular (~7000 hit) Garamante thread right here at ESR The Forgotten Garamante Kingdom
|
|
|
Post by zarahan on Aug 8, 2012 2:00:18 GMT -5
OK fair enough, but you are missing some things. Right off the bat in the 2nd para he mentions "black" civilization- and the context of the article is that this same black civ was neglected under the Khadaffi regime. It is the author who "introduces" race in word and context right up front. The notion that the issue appears out of thin air is patently false. And the notion that I think "only" sub-Saharans "can be black" is laughable.
As for any issue of ethnicity, note it is the author who introduces it first, but it is not going to go away soon. In his Golden Age of the Moors, VanSertima tackles the issue of their ethnicity directly. In another book, (The Sahara by Eamonn Gearon, 2011), their ethnicity is again brought up, and they are compared to "black tribal" Nubians. It is perfectly legit to mention the issue, as indeed other book authors have, as late as 2011. And on ES, which I mentioned above are over 12 threads that indirectly or directly mention the issue. One is as recent as last year and is entitled "Garamantes non MEtric traits" and directly brings up the issue of ethnicity, and non metric studies thereby, with several follow on posts on pros and cons of said analysis for group comparisons. In fact you yoself chipped in on that thread. The issue is thus hardly a "mysterious" figment that somehow doesnt exist until it is "introduced" by me. I think it is you are who "reading too much" into it - as if the mere mention of the issue is somehow "old myth" or "dangerous", or that the article was some sort of pristine construct until the issue was "introduced". To the contrary. It is there from the beginning.
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on Aug 8, 2012 11:24:47 GMT -5
Thanks for getting back to me Zarahan. I think you know I respect your knowledge, research skills, and presentations. I am just mindful of your dialectic specifically in your first post to this thread. Also I would hope you critique my writings where ever you find it neccessary. I cannot learn and improve without critical response.
The Garamante's ethnicity is just that, Garamante. Ethnicity is neither race nor skin colour but "peoplehood."
Can you show me where the writer mentions any thing about the Middle-East? If not, then it is you that introduces that concept and a first-timer is getting that idea into their head from you not the article's writer.
Many erroneous concepts exist. They could easily fade into non-existance where they belong if only they weren't dredged up in places that obviously discount them by letting the sleeping dog lie. In this instance the writer doesn't even appear to know anything about a Mid-East origin of Garamante people technology or culture because where earlier writeups bring up the Mid East in relation to foggaras this journalist does not. He leaves it as a Garamante technical acheivement.
When they need refutation, as in critiquing an author who espouses or promotes them, of course the task is to demolish nonsense. But why introduce nonsense where it is not present?
That said, I am a proponent of a history of Africa that is positive. By dialectic, the myths are reduced to faded memory by not always calling them to mind and thus keeping them alive.
Maybe this'll serve as an example. It's well known that the Romans held Europeans in low esteem, especially those of the British Isles. Yet when reading histories of those peoples I don't see their historians always saying over and over again or basing what they write constantly harking "It is not true we were savages without culture before the Romans."
Writing a positive non-protest history etc of African peoples instead of a negative protest literature against Euro assumptions is something I learned to try to do from the teachings of Haki Madhubuti particularly two of his books From Plan to Planet and The Book of Life. If you can't find them in a library there's a reason why. Please purchase them. They are well worth the money if you can find them. I also recommend Enemies, the Clash of Races. I feel at least the first two books should be required reading for all students of Black and African studies whether they specialize in histories or cultures.
One of the challenges you raised intrigues me. That being the issue of the whereabouts of Garamantia's slaves. Were the bulk of them from south of the Sahara or were they just as Saharan as the Garamantes themselves? Also what of people from north of the Sahara Mediterranean islands and its north and east shores? I can't imagine they too were not bought by Garamantesm or exchanged.
PS that journalist is certainly in error if he thinks the US/NATO backed regime currently trying to govern Libya is going to do anything like promote Garamantia as an African black accomplishment.
No fear, like you said, that's well in hand on ES and surfers worldwide are being influenced, yes, even future academicians in whose generation it will be universally acknowledged mainstream.
|
|
|
Post by zarahan on Aug 8, 2012 13:26:17 GMT -5
OK, what you say makes sense and would make me mindful to see the other side of restoring African history to its rightful place- not always in opposition to a damaging Eurocentrism but on its own positive terms. Maybe it could be said that in this area not only is the iron hammer of Shango needed, but the fruitful acacia tree as well. Fair enough, I can take that to heart, and will modify my future Reloaded posts to reflect that balance. I will indeed check out Haki Madhubuti's books. I have seen some of his writings but haven't gone thru anything book length. On the slaves, I wish the writer would have provided more detail, re "sub-Saharan" slaves. It was a comment so breezily made, that it sparked my (perhaps too sensitive) suspicions. No doubt the Gramantes took captives in their raids and like everyone else of the era, traded them here and there. But like you say, there would be a number of "Mediterranean" types in there as well, since the Garamantes clashed with Rome and other kingdoms on the Medit littoral. WHy does he highlight the sub-Saharan end abut not the Medit end? I have heard of Herodotus' "Ethiopian troglydytes" and have seen some spin the text to invoke a picture of long trains of black slaves in service to Garamantes, just as they used to invoke the image of "Nubian" slaves laboring like plantation hands in Egypt as if that was the total picture. I will have to recheck the main Gara thread and van Sertima again The book "The Sahara a cultural history" (pp41-45) speaks of Garamantes growth requiring large numbers of slaves to dig more water tunnels, and how the site in Garama, yielded a whopping 120,000 graves, also quoting an archaeologist saying that the town represented "the first time in history that a non-riverine area of the Sahara.. had produced an urban society" and "The graves also yielded a wealth of Nubian artefacts, suggesting significant contact between the Garamantes and black tribes of eastern Sahara." ALso says that the Garamantes raided as far north as Carthage, and Roman coastal settlements in their intermittent war with Rome, so Medit slaves must have been in the mix definitely. books.google.com/books?id=TKh_21ZERH4C&pg=PA42&lpg=PA42&dq=garamantes+slavery&source=bl&ots=5RhaK7p6CA&sig=EWkxfxJMnABCTQ4vWGfuvq4j7_4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=IawiUJHbNof68QSTyoDgBA&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=garamantes%20slavery&f=falseInteresting, the book claims that Libyan leader Khadaffi -- "drew inspiration from the Garamantes when he inaugurated the so-called Great Man-made River Project. This engineering deat in the desert which extracts water at a rate of 230 million cubic feet per day, should be a source of worry for the country's future rather than the blessing it was trumpeted as. So Khadaffi could be seen as taking inspiration, but also as an environmental destroyer of the old sites. I would not be surprised if in some of his speeches Khadaffi touted and talked up the Garamantes. He must have at least played lip service. So a second question could then arise: Did Khadaffi indeed "neglect" the Garamantes as the writer claims? It makes a good narrative- the evil Khadaffi slighting black civilization- but I wonder now about the framing of the issue like that in the article.
|
|
|
Post by maiherpra on Feb 19, 2013 4:00:59 GMT -5
Did they make use of war elephants?
|
|
jari
Scribe
Posts: 289
|
Post by jari on Feb 21, 2013 13:30:14 GMT -5
I think the Problem Zarahan has and I is that everytime so called "SSA" is mentioned in historical discourse slavery is always a primary note. Now I don't have a problem with that off the bat, as historically slavery was practiced in Africa as it was all around the Ancient World, but its rather funny that when I open up books on the ancient Brits and Celts I don't see SLAVERY SLAVERY SLAVERY esp. same with the Slavs, Caucasians, and Eastern Europeans considering they very root of "Slavery" comes from the fact of their extensive use as slaves historically. Also what about the Millions of Northern/Western and Southern Europes enslaved in Andalus and North Africa, not even a peep, so much so White American writers have taken this to task and shed light on the subject. The question is why is slavery so important to historians when it comes to Africa but not with Europeans and others. I question the claim in the article: "The Garamantes relied heavily on labour from sub-Saharan Africa, in the shape of slaves, to underpin their civilisation. Indeed, it is believed that they traded slaves as a commodity in exchange for the luxury goods that they imported in return." Other data over at ES suggests the Garamentes were black themselves. This point is notable so there is no false impression of "Middle Eastern" civilizers using "black slave labor". Where have we heard that before? It all sounds too pat. And how much was "slave labor"? The article does not say. Was it "slave labor" or taxed free labor as in ancient Egypt responsible for the bulk of construction? Khadaffi may be gone but there is no guarantee that those who take his place will not perpetrate the same old distortions re African diversity and bio-history. Right from the start in the very 2nd sentence of the article the writer establishes the Garamante as a black African civilization. He thus understands blacks were in supra-Saharan North Africa. the black African civilisation that flourished for more than 1,500 years within what are now Libya's borders
Any idea otherwise is introduced by yourself in assuming that only sub-Saharans can be black and African or that the so-called Middle East had anything to do with it. Slavery in ancient times was not the result of colour. The kingdoms of Ghana, Mali, and Songhay traded black Africans like themselves into northern slavery just as did the Garamante whom Greco-Latin texts tell was were also enslaved as indeed each and every people known to the Romans including fellow Romans were indeed among the enslaved. It appears by dialectic you and not the artilce writer has placed the thoughts in readers' heads that Garamantes were not black, Middle Easterners had something to do with their civilization, and only so-called sub-Saharans are black. This may be inadvertant and unintentional yet it is the result. Sure, question the role of slavery in "Garamantia" but why go and spread, perpetuate, and keep alive old myths by introducing them where they were never brought up? PS We have a very popular (~7000 hit) Garamante thread right here at ESR The Forgotten Garamante Kingdom
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on Feb 22, 2013 14:03:14 GMT -5
Cmon man, we all know the answer to that. Fear Control ArrestDevelopment Shame The real question is why do the vast majority of our people fall for the okey doke and go on to perpetuate all that. Can I speak plainly? As a people we are not a people. We have no collective just a loose set of individuals. We do not struggle, we think the struggle is finished. But if I can point out the most important factor we do not control the education of our children We do not have in place a credible "parochial school system" as other peoples have made to ensure their children identify and work toward aspirations beneficial to their group. The GodComplex inherant in nearly all our people make excuses for our group failures that the Y man is all powerful and can quash whatever we try to do when in fact we simply do not pull together in struggle over generations to effect any goal except individual self-betterment. This speaks to the widespread political corruption on the continent too. In New York city as a prime example you can see business city blocks dominated by particular ethnies all except African descendants and other minor black peoples of the world. And when you find one of the first things an ethny sets up, an ethnic restaurant, who do you find in there? Only that particular ethny or whites. Meanwhile blacks are putting the owners' children of those Chinese or Italian or etc restaurants through college. Can the average diasporan black more than two generations removed from Africa even name one continental dish less lone go out and buy it from a distinct African ethny restaurant? Do our people even really like each other? But I don't like to dwell on these things. It's good to see Anansi successfully doing the restaurant/culture thing in Japan. The struggle continues only if we continue to struggle. I think the Problem Zarahan has and I is that everytime so called "SSA" is mentioned in historical discourse slavery is always a primary note. Now I don't have a problem with that off the bat, as historically slavery was practiced in Africa as it was all around the Ancient World, but its rather funny that when I open up books on the ancient Brits and Celts I don't see SLAVERY SLAVERY SLAVERY esp. same with the Slavs, Caucasians, and Eastern Europeans considering they very root of "Slavery" comes from the fact of their extensive use as slaves historically. Also what about the Millions of Northern/Western and Southern Europes enslaved in Andalus and North Africa, not even a peep, so much so White American writers have taken this to task and shed light on the subject. The question is why is slavery so important to historians when it comes to Africa but not with Europeans and others.Right from the start in the very 2nd sentence of the article the writer establishes the Garamante as a black African civilization. He thus understands blacks were in supra-Saharan North Africa. the black African civilisation that flourished for more than 1,500 years within what are now Libya's borders
Any idea otherwise is introduced by yourself in assuming that only sub-Saharans can be black and African or that the so-called Middle East had anything to do with it. Slavery in ancient times was not the result of colour. The kingdoms of Ghana, Mali, and Songhay traded black Africans like themselves into northern slavery just as did the Garamante whom Greco-Latin texts tell was were also enslaved as indeed each and every people known to the Romans including fellow Romans were indeed among the enslaved. It appears by dialectic you and not the artilce writer has placed the thoughts in readers' heads that Garamantes were not black, Middle Easterners had something to do with their civilization, and only so-called sub-Saharans are black. This may be inadvertant and unintentional yet it is the result. Sure, question the role of slavery in "Garamantia" but why go and spread, perpetuate, and keep alive old myths by introducing them where they were never brought up? PS We have a very popular (~7000 hit) Garamante thread right here at ESR The Forgotten Garamante Kingdom
|
|
|
Post by azrur on Oct 12, 2013 17:58:25 GMT -5
what is the evidence that the garamantes were black? i wouldnt think there would be much about them at all the first thing i saw when i look at them in google images is this picture from the egyptsearch here is how a Roman historian described another Libyan tribe "Of all who scorching Afric's sun endure, None like the swarthy Psyllians are secure: With healing gifts and privileges graced, Well in the land of serpents were they placed: Truce with the dreadful tyrant death they have, And border safely on his realm the grave" so wouldnt they be more similar to this
than this?
|
|
|
Post by Son of Ra on Nov 11, 2013 21:01:27 GMT -5
The Garamantes are most likely ancestors of the Tuaregs. So yeah...They're "black".
|
|
|
Post by azrur on Nov 16, 2013 22:33:36 GMT -5
tuareg
|
|
|
Post by asante on Nov 17, 2013 0:43:58 GMT -5
Yep they too were black.
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Nov 17, 2013 1:48:07 GMT -5
tuareg ....I see black people.....
|
|
|
Post by azrur on Nov 17, 2013 2:40:39 GMT -5
tuareg ....I see black people..... i do too but its not just black people there are light skinned too
|
|