Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Why do many separate the history of Egypt and the rest of Africa?

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 3 2005 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Well actually the African history you get in the US is more related to the slave trade and occurs the later freedom from slavery.

I had not clue who was Martin Luther king until I came to the US, the only brush of slavery was that it started with Portugal and it was brought to the new world by them to the Islands, then spreading to North American and the central America.

Second we cover more of the European and middle east Because we are of Spanish decent and been a predominant Catholic we cover also the history of the crusades in more detail than here in the US.

No offense but I had not complain of US history teaching while my children were in the Department of Defense Schools system.

But when they started regular school I was very disappointed at the quality of teaching in schools.

When I was in school I have to cover not only the subjects of my ancestry coming from Europe but also the history of the ancient civilizations in the Americas.

And on top of that we have to covered the History of the US of American and its politics all in one class.

Yes we have some history to learn and it was plenty.

I am glad I love history that much.




posted on May, 3 2005 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
I've thought about this for a while, but my interest recently peaked, now that I have taken an intro archaeology class. The textbooks I have focused a lot on the ancient Greco-Roman cultures, but ancient cultures of the Near East were also covered. The very fact that Egypt was included was good, but also a bit confusing. Nevertheless, my problem isn't with this class; it's with the trend, in both the media and academia, to separate ancient Egypt from the rest of ancient Africa.

Sadly, the biggest reason for this I can see is racism. Now, I am not saying that Egypt was a black African civilization only; anyone who does say this is a fool. Based on the geography of Egypt, the people undoubtedly came from various reasons. But, I also think it is equally foolish to assume that there were no black African Egyptians.

I base my opinion on what I have learned on the subject and on artifacts and artwork I have seen from Egypt. It's funny to me that it is accepted that the Greeks and Romans were a group of different people from the same region, but this view is overlooked and scarcely mentioned when it comes to the Egyptians.


Well the history of Greece and Rome for example is also separated from the history of Europe. The Galic and German tribes are only mentioned when they fight with Greeks,Romans or Carthagians. You must understand that Egypt WAS SEPARATED from Africa. The ancient civilizations(except thoso ones east from Babylonia) were Mediterranean and were separated from the other world. The sea gained as conection between the nations and the ancient travelers and merchants almost never traveled into the interior. How many ancient travelers were in Nigeria, Germany or Scandinavia? Very few. So that's the reason why is Egyptian culture separated from the rest of Africa. The truth is - they were not influencing themselves much.


Now, I am not saying that Egypt was a black African civilization only; anyone who does say this is a fool. Based on the geography of Egypt, the people undoubtedly came from various reasons. But, I also think it is equally foolish to assume that there were no black African Egyptians.

Why they should be black Egyptians? Because Egypt is in Africa? Look at todays Egypt - they are still in Africa but the population is not considered to be black (BTW they are descendants form ancient Egypt so it looks like there were really very few black people). The blacks in Egyptian history are always mentioned as "Nubians" or "Kushans" and it is clear that Egyptians considered them to be distinct race.



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 11:53 AM
link   
I've enjoyed reading all the posts on this thread. The topic has evolved to cover a lot of fascinating tangential issues.
I'm personally of the opinion that Egyptians are AFRICANS, if that is the correct term for indigenous peoples of that continent, as Egypt is geographically just as much in Africa as Libya, Morocco or the Sudan. I would for that same reason exclude the Boers of South Africa.
However, once the Boers have occupied that area for 1,000 years, who knows?
The discussion has not to my mind been racist, as we are ultimately talking about the movements of 'peoples' over the millenia.
Much of what we question is no doubt still buried beneath the sands of the upper and lower Nile.
I look forward to further education on this topic.



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 12:23 PM
link   
I agree with you, is more than plenty of evidence to support the fact that ancient Egiptians were Afrikans.

Egypt is located and has been located in African since the beginning of time that is a fact. The problems is with the publishers of history, that controlled the writings of the history of Africa for so long they were white.

People argue that they are Arabs but the fact is that Arabs invaded Egypt in the 7th Century AD, long after the ancient civilization of Egypt was almost faded away.

Arabs never had any conection to ancient Egypt. You have to stay away from western historians and line up with the African historians that knows their history better.

Almost all West African people has their ancient roots traced to the northeast and nile valley.

Many can not even see past their veil on racism and imagine that ancient Egyptian has a common link to Africans.

We have Evidence from Physical Anthropology that shows that the ancient Egyptians have features that were of Negroid people similar to Black Nubians and other races.

Melanin Dosage test to test the pigmentation of ancient mummies.

Osteological evidence that shows racial groups.

Evidence from blood types that matches the populations of western africa.

Their own accounts of how Egyptians picture themselves and how the saw themselves, their language and heroglyph tells the story.

Divine Epithets

Evidence in the bible.

Cultural unity with the rest of africa.

Linguistic Unity with souther and western Africa.

Testimony of Classical Greeks and Roman Authors.

Also no all africans have flat noses and wide features.

Check my links provided on other post for more information.



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Okay (putting on the grad student anthropologist hat, here) -- the reason Egypt was included was two-fold... its influence was great on the Middle East (and it was a province of Rome) -- BUT -- more importantly is the impact of Napoleon and Romanticism and the Age of Reason on making it such a prominent and popular culture.

Egypt was sort of a backwater until Napoleon got it into his head that he wanted to travel down there and go on a grand conquest and secure the monuments as the Emperor of the world. Because Napoleon was so interested, it became the fasionable thing in the drawing rooms and salons of Europe, and suddenly there was a huge demand for anything Egyptian. People started claiming to be descendants of royal Egyptians and clairvoyants would "channel" ancient Egyptian lives for people. This also started the fad for Secret Societies.

In any case, all this interest led to treasure hunters running down to Egypt and collecting collectabes for the wealthy -- which, as you may know from class, was the start of museums and modern archaeology and modern anthropology.

So, it was a Mediterranean country (which often translates to Middle East in many folks' minds), its culture was derived from and was a source of culture in the whole Middle East, it was an important trade center in the area, and there's a wealth of material on it. Because it was a Roman colony, you have a wealth of Roman (and Greek) material there, including important burials, coffins, libraries, and so forth.

Indeed, Alexandria was said to be more Greek than Egyptian.

So that's why... it's not "location, location, location" -- it's "location, culture, culture."

Nothing racist about it.



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Okay (putting on the grad student anthropologist hat, here) -- the reason Egypt was included was two-fold... its influence was great on the Middle East (and it was a province of Rome) -- BUT -- more importantly is the impact of Napoleon and Romanticism and the Age of Reason on making it such a prominent and popular culture.

Egypt was sort of a backwater until Napoleon got it into his head that he wanted to travel down there and go on a grand conquest and secure the monuments as the Emperor of the world. Because Napoleon was so interested, it became the fasionable thing in the drawing rooms and salons of Europe, and suddenly there was a huge demand for anything Egyptian. People started claiming to be descendants of royal Egyptians and clairvoyants would "channel" ancient Egyptian lives for people. This also started the fad for Secret Societies.

In any case, all this interest led to treasure hunters running down to Egypt and collecting collectabes for the wealthy -- which, as you may know from class, was the start of museums and modern archaeology and modern anthropology.

So, it was a Mediterranean country (which often translates to Middle East in many folks' minds), its culture was derived from and was a source of culture in the whole Middle East, it was an important trade center in the area, and there's a wealth of material on it. Because it was a Roman colony, you have a wealth of Roman (and Greek) material there, including important burials, coffins, libraries, and so forth.

Indeed, Alexandria was said to be more Greek than Egyptian.

So that's why... it's not "location, location, location" -- it's "location, culture, culture."

Nothing racist about it.



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Basically comes down to European diffusionism having a huge impact in every aspect of our lives.

A good read to this is J. M. Blaut's Colonizer's Model of the World



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
Okay (putting on the grad student anthropologist hat, here) -- the reason Egypt was included was two-fold... its influence was great on the Middle East (and it was a province of Rome) -- BUT -- more importantly is the impact of Napoleon and Romanticism and the Age of Reason on making it such a prominent and popular culture.

Egypt was sort of a backwater until Napoleon got it into his head that he wanted to travel down there and go on a grand conquest and secure the monuments as the Emperor of the world. Because Napoleon was so interested, it became the fasionable thing in the drawing rooms and salons of Europe, and suddenly there was a huge demand for anything Egyptian. People started claiming to be descendants of royal Egyptians and clairvoyants would "channel" ancient Egyptian lives for people. This also started the fad for Secret Societies.

In any case, all this interest led to treasure hunters running down to Egypt and collecting collectabes for the wealthy -- which, as you may know from class, was the start of museums and modern archaeology and modern anthropology.

So, it was a Mediterranean country (which often translates to Middle East in many folks' minds), its culture was derived from and was a source of culture in the whole Middle East, it was an important trade center in the area, and there's a wealth of material on it. Because it was a Roman colony, you have a wealth of Roman (and Greek) material there, including important burials, coffins, libraries, and so forth.

Indeed, Alexandria was said to be more Greek than Egyptian.

So that's why... it's not "location, location, location" -- it's "location, culture, culture."

Nothing racist about it.


Egypt was a backwater until Napoleon???



My bad, but that's the most ridiculous thing I've read here in a while. You seem to have put your grad student hat on backwards (it looks krunk, though
). Sure, Rome conquered Egypt, no doubt; what you're leaving out is that this was well after the Egyptian empire was in decline.

And, before Rome took it, Greece was influenced by the Egyptians, back when Rome wasn't a republic, much less an empire. And yes, the artifacts with mixed cultural features show influence, but in the opposite direction that you suggested.

And, since everyone says no racism was involved, I have to remind y'all that the early archaeologists were caught painting the faces of artwork white, among other things; if you don't think that racism has had a significant role in ancient studies, not to mention science, you have been living under a rock.



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
I've thought about this for a while, but my interest recently peaked, now that I have taken an intro archaeology class. The textbooks I have focused a lot on the ancient Greco-Roman cultures, but ancient cultures of the Near East were also covered. The very fact that Egypt was included was good, but also a bit confusing. Nevertheless, my problem isn't with this class; it's with the trend, in both the media and academia, to separate ancient Egypt from the rest of ancient Africa.

Sadly, the biggest reason for this I can see is racism.

Consider that ancient egypt had a lot more incommon with the civilizations of the levant and sumer than with kush or morrocco. Also, its own history, especially in the periods that we know more about, is not centered on africa, but rather the middle east and europe.


Now, I am not saying that Egypt was a black African civilization only

Supposed Ethnic identities are irrelevant tho.

It's funny to me that it is accepted that the Greeks and Romans were a group of different people from the same region, but this view is overlooked and scarcely mentioned when it comes to the Egyptians.

What do you mean? At a large scale, the greeks and romans were from the same region, on a smaller scale they were from very different regions.

I see it as nothing more but a means of taking away an African contribution to the world.

Its not an african contribution. Its a human contribution.

I can understand, tho, italians being proud of being italian, so why shouldn't africans be proud of being african and their history. But why should history be taught incorrectly to satisfy that? The history of egypt doesn't have all the much to do with the history of 'the rest of africa'. Egypt is part of africa, and people from africa can look back on egypt with pride. Its 'silly', but there's not much harm in it. Of course, 2,000 years from now, will africans look upon modern egypt with pride, as an african achievement?? Would they be entitled to? I'd say so, as much as now. But, realistically, what do any of us have to do with those accomplishments, or failings?


Until the 60's, the archaeologists were claiming Egypt as a European civilization, and that is obviously false.

But that acknowledges precisely what you are talking about, the Egypt was influential and integral on teh formation of european civilizations (mainly thru contacts in the eastern med and aegean). Realistically, Europeans can 'claim it'. Usually, Egypt is grouped in with the Near Eastern civilizations anyway.

Bantu

The bantu are a tribe, not a nation. Actually, they're really just a linguistic group.
Africa has very few 'civilizations' native to it. Egpyt is one of them. Its simply not sub-saharan africa.
Its really rather dependant on what one considers 'enough' to count as a civilization. There were kingdoms in west africa that were rather well advanced. Central Africa is another story, and it resembles the deep forests of europe, coexisting, but not really interacting, with the civilized peoples of the coasts. The Zulus are supposed to have been a peoples from central Africa that migrated to the south. They're surprisingly similar to the ancient barbaric germans (they used mainly foot soliders with spears and sheilds, they had pastoral economies, were broken up into tribes that lived in semi-permanent structures, they'd even, in battle, snap their long spears (asagi or some such) in two and use them sort of like short swords, just like the ancient germans are reported to have done). The real problem with africa is that it was largely invaded by islamic peopels, who destroyed most of the native civilizations and replaced them with their own. And then when that system started failing, the europeans came along and did the same. sub-saharan africa is sort of like Central Asia in this respects, we don't normally think of great civilizations from there (most people don't anyways).
Here is a page I just found on the subject, but havent' reviewed in detail.


My bad, but that's the most ridiculous thing I've read here in a while

Byrd means, I suspect, it was a backwater in the post classical period (well, post islamic golden age too), until napolean came along and the people there started picking up on the ideals of the French Revolution.

have to remind y'all that the early archaeologists were caught painting the faces of artwork white,

I've heard this before but haven't seen any citation for it. Is one available? Also, if these people thought that they were white, whats the harm in 'restoring' (to thier minds) the statues??
 


simulacra
we all know that the historical African Queen Cleopatra is undoubtly caucasian, I mean who can contest that

Queen Cleopatra was not an 'african', a bantu/ku#e 'black' person. She's greek. Her name is greek, her family are macedonians who came to rule the country after alexander invaded and liberated it from the persians who had been ruling it. Liz Taylor probably looks more like the real cleopatra than the 'average black woman'. Sorry to jump all over this, but its one of my personal peeves. The ancient egyptians obviously weren't 'white guys', and its wrong to represent them as such, to change history to fit a modern concept. But cleopatra, specifically, was not a 'black woman', in any sense, not bantu black or ku#e black or even north african black. Her family were recent invaders directly out of northern greece.
external image
This is Cleopatra, on a coin from her time. I don't particular care what fake 'race' we want to classify her as, the terms are meaningless. But look at her and judge for yourself.
external image
This is a marble bust supposedly of her from around her time.
Here are a collection of busts and portraits of the Ptolomies, and below is the Ptolomaic Empire
external image

 


marg6043
Willian Leo Hansberry, father of Afrikan studies

He studies the dutch settlers in south africa?



History is an amazing subject and worthy of learning, and is never to late to know everything or at least most of everything


 


off the street
If you can think of a Black African culture which left its mark on the Classical world

Simple, egypt. The egyptians were 'sufficiently black' to rank as africans.
 


agentgirl
I guess the BIGGEST question here is WHAT IS CAUCASIAN and WHAT IS BLACK AFRICAN?

Indeed, this is the biggest 'problem' here. Modern concepts of ethnicity are pretty well meaningless when appplied to populations from several thousand years ago. I'm fairly confident that if a varied sampling of egpytians was patrolled before us, we'd mostly agree that they were all black. But its meaningless. Egyptian civiliazation is a near eastern or mediteranean civilization. There were great cultures that flourished in africa that had nothing to do with the rest of the world, Ghana and the like, and Kush/Nubia had some contact with the arabian penninsula, but are generalyl thought of as African. Just to confuse things even more, the are the Berbers; a 'caucasian' peoples native to northern africa. Septimius Severus was the 'African Roman Emperor", who lived in the northern province of africa (but was, what, an italian?) After the Empire fell, the Vandals, the people who were so destructive that their name was ever more associated with wanton destruction, who had rampaged out of scandanavia/germany, set up their own kingdom in North Africa. They never 'left', their kingdom fell apart, but they had intermixed with the various populations that were there, including, semetic phonecian based carthaginians and latinate italians and who knows who else. Yet do we 'see' that variety 'today'? No. Why? Because these identities aren't biologically real, they're social constructions.
(True, we can trace the movements of 'ethnicities' by tracking the spread of particular genes, but even then we're not really talking about an ethnicity, we're just talking about a particular gene that is sometimes associated with a group, but possession of which isn't 'required' for group membership, etc etc)


Is this what you mean?

I think he is refering to one of the pages you linked to.
 


james the lesser
IT ISN'T AFRICA IT IS MIDDLE EAST! They are Arab, not black. They are not black/African, but arab!

I thought you were kidding before.
Egypt is on the continent of africa, therefore its african. Russia is a country in asia, ie, an asian country, its just not completely populated by 'orientals'. Egypt is african, the arabs are no more native to egypt than swedes are to wisconsin.

There are 5 main races.
Black Arab Hispanic White Asian Indian

This is a completely meaningless and senseless list. What are 'asians'? How are they different from 'indians'? Do you mean native american indians or indians from india? Where are the austronesians, who are a larger group than 'arabs', a minor ethnicity? Where are australian aborigines, who are not the same peoples that one finds in africa? What is 'black'? Are hottentots black? Or only Bantu? When an asian and indian have kids, are the kids now magically not in either race?
All these populations you list have been interbreeding for millenia. There is nothing that can acutally define them. They're not real groups. They're made up of previous groups that have so thoroughly intermixed that they're not even distinguishable anymore, yet you are listing them as hard 'races'.

Egyptians are Arab, they are not black

James, I am sorry, but you are completely wrong. Egpytian is a nationality, the various peoples of egypt can look like anything. A few hundred years ago, the arab peoples expanded out of the arabian penninsula and invaded lots of countries, one of which was egypt. In egpyt, they grew to large numbers, and many of them intermixed with the people that were already there.
Guess what, those people that were already there? Some of them came from sub-saharan africa, some were from the horn of africa, others were from north africa, others were from the medeteranan islands, others were semites from the levant, others were 'arabs' who came long before the other arabs', and still others were certainly migrants from that Vandal Kingdom, ie scandavian/germans, and a hell of a lot of people had come from Italy and Greece. Now, today, we see all of that, but can't distinguish, because the social concepts and knowledge are gone, and the ethnic divisions, so real to the peoples of their times, had no biological reality and are thus invisible to us, since we are in a different society.
Egyptians aren't all arabs. Arabs are an invasive ethnicity to the region, just like practically everyone else in egypt.
 



trustnone
Actually most of science and art came from Italy to spain, also why spainish are roman catholic

Science and art was preserved in spain, while the rest of europe was in the dark ages, becuase of the islamic invaders who valued it.

Agent girl read a real history book.

I suggest you read a real history book, and explain why you think you know the ethnic identity of the first humans to run around europe. Precisely how had do you think it was for primitive man to cross the straits of gibraltar? Of get in his boats and hop from island to island in the meditaranean? Explain, please, how exacltly north africans didn't cross into the mediteranean islands and places like spain italy, dalmatia, france, and greece, but other africans were able to cross thru the fertile cresecent, camp out in the caucus for a couple of generations, 'become white', and then go back over the mountains, into europe, and then into the mediteranean coasta and islands? Its preposterous. Africans, from north africa, were crossing the straits and hopping across the islands of the med as easily in the distant unregulated past as they are today. If Cubans can make trucks into boats and sail the atlantic, why, precisely, can't africans, for thousands of generations, do exactly the same and come into europe???

Also, they must look up the history of the Moors, those Muslim Afrikans who conquered much of Europe

obviously this is an incorrect statement. The moors were one of the peoples involved in the conquest of spain and the meditereanean. But to say that that counts as most of of europe is silly, agreed. To not notice that spain managed to reatin a high degree of culture, art, science, and civilization because of the islamic invaders is equally silly.

trustnone
if these contibutions to egypt are african in origin why are there no such structures elsewhere in africa?

Egypt is in africa. Its de facto an african acheivement. The people native to that region woudl be considered black if they were walking down the streets of NYC. THe depictions of the egyptians on their own monuments and portraits, indicate that they considered themselves to be different from the jews, greeks, libyans, ku#es, sicilians, cretans, and hittites. Nevertheless, if you transplanted an ancient Pharoah to tuscaloosa in the 20's, he'd wouldn't be able to drink from any water fountain he'd like. The egyptians had nothing to do with continental euoprean civilization, they had no real influences on the celts, the britons, the scands, scythians or germans. Notice, however, that the places that egypt did influence are the most civilized parts, and the tribes above were barbaric savages. The Greeks themselves readily, and gladly, noted that their own civilization owed much to egypt, a civilization already ancient by the time the greeks were writting and living in cities. They were glad to be able to claim a connection to that great and cultured society. Just like everyone today wants to be able to claim some sort of 'cultural/ethnic' descendancy from it. The Egyptians were a superpower of sorts, but not only in military strength, but in economic, scientific, and cultural prowess. And, again, not that it makes any real difference because the lables are b/s, but if you took the average egyptian of 2,000 BC and had him walk around manhattan, whether he was a field labourer, grand vizier, scrive, architect or pharoah, most white people would clutch their bags as he passed or nervously look away. He'd recognize that you were some pale, thin haired sort of sicil, sardinian or greek. He'd almost certainly not recognized the hasidics are hebrews, and he'd probably/i] recognize most 'dark black' people as being nubians/ku#es, but likely not recognize any 'fellow egpytians'.



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Truthseeka says:


OK, Street, this is what I have so far...

Nok


Well, the Nok Culture (of present-day Nigeria) did exist from about 500 BC to 200 AD, and they did produce some neat terra-cotta sculptures. There are hints that the Nok we able to smelt iron; if they did, that meant they were able to go from Neolithic to early iron age capabilities.

But the reason we don’t learn about them in school is that – to be rather blunt – they simply weren’t important to anyone else. The Nok didn’t spread their culture like the Egyptians or the Sumerians did. They didn’t spread their iron technology like the Hittites did (much to the dismay of the Egyptians, I might add). Their art, literature, and architecture – even their language – had no lasting impact on surrounding cultures -- and thus, not on ours.

{As a matter of fact, the Haya in what is now Tanzania first started smelting fairly high-grade STEEL going back almost two millennia, using high temperatures and termite-mound clay for their refractory materials. It was quite possibly better than any stuff found anywhere else at the time, but – and here’s the point I’m making – NO ONE ELSE KNEW ABOUT IT. In the early 20th century, the Haya steelmakers went out of business because Bessemer-smelter steel, which was a lot cheaper due to its economies of scale, flooded Africa (and just about everywhere else).}

You can also say the same thing for Tomboctou (“Timbuktu”), Mali, kings like Mansa Musa and his grandfather Sundiata, great Zimbabwe, and even the Ghanaian empire. All these cultures existed, but they did not have any impact on the rest of the world. As a matter of fact, the only reason we even know about most of these cultures is because of their rulers’ conversion to Islam and subsequent hegiras to Mecca.

Even the great Zulu king (and inventor of the assegai) Chaka, who certainly interacted with the Whites is what is now southern Africa, had little or no effect on world history, although other African nations, of course, still recall his “mfecane”.


Kush (Nubians)


I suggest you review www.wsu.edu:8080... ; you sill see that the Ku#es were an Egyptianized civilization who considered themselves to be Egyptian.


Bantu


Bantu is a language group, not a culture per se.



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 01:55 PM
link   
Rascism is not the underlying current here. People paint faces the way they see themselves. Whites view Jesus as white, blacks view Jesus as black, and so on and so forth. There was no such thing as photography, so people used they're imaginations, and how they percieved the world from their own eyes.

Egypt, undoubtedly for the last millenia or two, has been 'Euro" and Arabian. No question about that. It was the crossroads; it was much desired by Empires. Simple as that.

Everytime there is a disagreement about African history, people pull the 'race' card. Gets rather mundane after a while.



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 02:05 PM
link   
William leo was an American, historian, Nygdan

Born William Leo Hansberry, February 25, 1894, in Gloster, MS; died of cerebral hemorrhage, November 3, 1965, in Chicago, IL; son of Elden Hayes and Pauline (Bailey) Hansberry; married Myrtle Kelso, 1937; children: Gail Adelle, Myrtle Kay.

Education
Harvard University, B.A., 1921, M.A., 1932. Attended Oriental Institute, University of Chicago, 1936-37; Oxford University, 1937-38; Cairo University, 1953.

Career
Howard University, professor of history, 1922-59; University of Nigeria, visiting professor, 1963.

Pillars in Ethiopian History: The William Leo Hansberry African History Notebook, vol. I, edited by Joseph E. Harris, Howard University Press, 1974.
Africa and Africans As Seen by Classical Writers: The William Leo Hansberry History Notebook, vol. II, edited by Joseph E. Harris, Howard University Press, 1977.
Narrative Essay



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
William leo was an American, historian, Nygdan

Yes, I figure. i just don't like the spelling 'Afrikan'. Its silly. Afrikaans is a language spoken in south africa, by the Boers, a group of dutch/flemist/french colonizers. They are also called 'Afrikaners' and such.

Boers can be recognized by their corduroy pants and jacket and slouch hats. Often accompanied by a bible, rifle, pipe, or all three.
external image


The boers had their republics invaded by the British, at the instigation of Cecil Rhodes, (now there's a 'capitalist who started a war for money'). Their armies were ultimately defeated in the long bloody war. The ones who wouldn't surrender, the beiterenders went commando (took to horseback and engaged in guerilla fighting/insurgency). The brits finalyl defeated them by rounding the civilians up into concentration camps, drawing them out to fight or surrender.

external image
This is one of the BTOs. He, and all captured boers, were put into prison camps on the other side of the world practically, and held indefinitely, only being released if they signed contracts to 'give up agression', many didn't.

And yet, you won't hear about the Boer War in many classes, just like in the past you might not hear much about sub-saharan african civilizations. Lots of stuff gets passed over. Heck, when I was in school, they taught us about Ghana and Mansa Musas gold dispensing travel to the rest of the world, but not the boer war.
Boer War seems a little more relevant right now tho!



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 03:10 PM
link   
I can tell you've been through public education and gotten a full dose of it.

No problem ..I will post according to your premise.

The reason Egypt is seperated from the reast of Africa. is not racism..
It is becase Egypt in Ancient times was the first world class civilization/culture..complete with writings that survive unto today.
There are other civlizations/cultures that have artificats and historys that are known but they are not world class.

You do not find this by and large in the interior of most of Africa. Though you find surviving artifacts ..most of what is known otherwise is through tribal histories and what is past down by stories and legeneds. Not by surviving writings.
This same problem exists with the Vikings ...they had some writing but not a world class civilization. They did not leave a huge mark as did the Egyptians. The same problem in the Caucus of what is today Russia...in ancient times these were people of disjointed tribes and cultures without many records of thier passing ..but stories and legends handed down.
It is not racism...racism today has become a cheap default setting for ...we are not getting enough to play through unchallenged. A free pass.

The other reason Egypt is important historically is that at the turn of the twentieth century there was in England and Europe a revival of the Ancient Mystery Religions...and attendent traditions/practices. Any study of the Ancient Mystery Religions must include Egypt. The decyphering of the Rosetta Stone made the translation of the writings possible and the study of Egypt took off. This study of Egypt and the Occult religions became very popular in the 1920 with lots of notable people helping to further it along in a similar vein as Madonna and her Kaballah is being done today. During this time also ...Archeology as a science took off also...and became a more precise science that it is today. Archeologists and private collecters were to go on to loot Egypt of its ancient history..much of this is in private collections today. Also, only today is some of this treasure being returned to Egypt. I am glad of this turn of events.
Nevertheless this is religiously , historically and , scientifically motivated..not racism. The religious part of it is Occult in nature and not often available to most of the public in certain of its workings. This trend is found in deepest Africa in a different vein but not world class as a religion. If it were world class in deepest Africa we would be studying this instead of Egypt.

Thanks ,
Orangetom



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Yes, I figure. i just don't like the spelling 'Afrikan'. Its silly. is a language spoken in south africa, by the Boers, a group of dutch/flemist/french colonizers. They are also called 'Afrikaners' and such.

Boers can be recognized by their corduroy pants and jacket and slouch hats. Often accompanied by a bible, rifle, pipe, or all three.



Actually for some he used the "Afrikan" as a satire I guess in his book of the African culture.

He is a well know historian and by not means he puts down the Aricans in Anyway.



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 08:36 PM
link   
So i think we can all agree that there was some meddlng with Eygptian History and that the only reason Eygpt is called an Arab state is because they settled there later... because it was already occupied by natives.
That's like saying "Chrissy" Columbus discovered America
.. You cannot discover it if it was alread occupied ( right?). well I have learned alot more than i expected from this topic. I think everyone had alot of good points.



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by marg6043
William leo was an American, historian, Nygdan

Yes, I figure. i just don't like the spelling 'Afrikan'. Its silly. Afrikaans is a language spoken in south africa, by the Boers, a group of dutch/flemist/french colonizers. They are also called 'Afrikaners' and such.

Boers can be recognized by their corduroy pants and jacket and slouch hats. Often accompanied by a bible, rifle, pipe, or all three.
external image



I am an Afrikaaner and proud of it!

Yet, I do not have any of the clothing you are talking about.

Whilst your history is vaguely correct, and I must stress VAGUELY, I am astonished at the generalisations you have painted us with and given the impression that we Afrikaaners are all a bunch of bible bashing gun wielding right wing extremists.

Now I'm going to stir the pot here a bit and maybe go right off topic too.

Did you know that many native Africans, Germans and Americans fought side by side with the Boers in the Anglo Boer war.

Now there is something they won't teach you in the history books!



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Artificium

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by marg6043
William leo was an American, historian, Nygdan

Yes, I figure. i just don't like the spelling 'Afrikan'. Its silly. Afrikaans is a language spoken in south africa, by the Boers, a group of dutch/flemist/french colonizers. They are also called 'Afrikaners' and such.

Boers can be recognized by their corduroy pants and jacket and slouch hats. Often accompanied by a bible, rifle, pipe, or all three.
external image



I am an Afrikaaner and proud of it!

Yet, I do not have any of the clothing you are talking about.

Whilst your history is vaguely correct, and I must stress VAGUELY, I am astonished at the generalisations you have painted us with and given the impression that we Afrikaaners are all a bunch of bible bashing gun wielding right wing extremists.

I'm basing that assesment on what I've read (having never been to South Africa, and the only south african I 'know' is perhaps Dave Matthews, who fits none of those descriptives). Really its a description of the Boers during the Long Treks and the like, I agree, it'd be silly to think of any peoples as being so 'stereotypically' represented across the board.


Now there is something they won't teach you in the history books!

Heck, most history textbooks don't even mention the Boer War at all. South African history consists of "Evil Apartheid government overthrow by glorious and harmless mandella' sometimes kwame nkruma gets mentioned (we're talking highschool whitewashing education here tho).



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 02:16 AM
link   
Why is Egypt separate from the rest of Africa in terms of history:

Egyptians' had a recorded history of almost everything they did. The rest of Africa did not have this.

The Egyptians were located in the sphere of knowledge that circulated in the Mediterranean and were located along the Nile. Greek's had a huge influence in this arena and on Arab science which later carried this over into the Quran when the writers plagerized the ancient Greek theory that sperm is produced in the backbone. Arabs (Bedouins and Berbers) make up the majority of the Egyptian population by way of the slave trade that went on for many hundreds of years. So Egypt is also considered by many as a part of the Middle-East and not Africa.

Egypt is one of few African nations with an empire structure. The rest of Africa was ruled by tribal clansman and if a such thing as a kingdom or empire on a large scale existed, it was more of a confederacy. This made it easy for European and Arab slave traders to do business. Later, Europeans brought a centralized government to the continent in the late 1880's and put an end to tribal wars, the end of the European slave trade also helped reduce tribal conflicts.

Gold, Pyramids and Mummies. Pure and simple, this is what makes Egypt so unique from the rest of Africa.



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 09:57 AM
link   
To claim that racism has not had any effect on how western society views Egyptian history in relation to Africa is completely insane. Of course racism is not the only factor, but it is a MAJOR factor none the less. One can look at the various answers given here and see that an accurate portrait of history has not been painted, and this is no accident.

The egyptians were black, and African plain and simple. To try to debate it shows reluctance to accept this fact.

As someone else pointed out the Egyptians saw themselves as different from ku#es, nubians, etc, this however does not mean anything. How many distinctions have been made throughout European history, all of which considered themselves different? Normans, saxons, francs, goths, vandals etc, etc. The fact of the matter is though to all outsiders.....they are white and european, plain and simple, just as Egyptians were black, and African.

All this nonsense about written language, influence, mediterranean society, blah, blah blah is nonsense!!! There were plenty of cultures around during Egypts history that did in fact play signifigant roles in it's development. Western society has not always known this. Because of the Greek control of Egypt (which was very late in it's history) western society has always atttributed it to "themselves" As someone else mentioned MANY historians have been caught painting the faces white on the pyramids. This has tried to be dismissed as well. There is no excuse for this other than the reluctance to admit that brown, and black people did things whilst europeans were still living like savages. The fact is until recently Western (european)society considered it's origins in the halls of Egypt. Extensions from every aspect of Egyptian life have been copied, whether it be spiritual, scientific, or otherwise. This leaves western society, which has always considered itself superior, with a huge dilemma.

Why the west does not include Egypt as African, is simple....To do so would admit the AFRICAN origins of civilization. Would I call this racism? YES!!!We all know there has been a reluctance to acept evidence when out of Africa no matter what kind of evidence. If this is not racism then I would have to call it the longest ongoing inferiority complex in the history of man.

To try to play like western society has not been dominated by racist thought is assenine, to further suggest that this same racist thought would accept the possibility of it's societies origins in the very people they found to be inferior is beyond reproach.

To alleviate this "problem" we play semantical games to cause confusion like...."Sure Egypt is on the African continent, sure the peolple were dark....but they were not black, really" Now we have terms like "black African" and Afrikaans...... Come off it. Africans are primarily black, we all know that.

Why else do you think we arbitrarily make a distinction between "sub-saharan"Africa, and the north? Because for the longest time that is where white people thought all the blacks came from. As it turns out they were wrong.

A recent genetic study links the maternal lineage of a traditional population from Upper Egypt to Eastern Africa [1]. A separate study further narrows the genetic lineage to Northeast Africa ([2];
en.wikipedia.org... what do the people of eastern Africa look like? BLACK!

I like how at this point in history, especially with genetics, people in the west are still trying to prove that they didn't come from Africa (physically, and culturally)





new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join