|
Post by Crimson Guard on Jan 12, 2006 19:55:27 GMT -5
Right...keep popping pills,cause your full of it!
|
|
Nist
Junior Member
Posts: 58
|
Post by Nist on Jan 12, 2006 21:02:19 GMT -5
imagine for example, that all the mande speakers in west africa united to form a single nation, comparable in size almost to china, and the same thing happened across africa, with various large empires divided by language. Im sure they would then have created massive cities and monuments and architectural styles, maybe even developed new technologies etc. I'm sure this would have made them less vulnerable to slavery, and maybe even earn them respect from Europeans. I could imagine european scholars talking of the great African empires of the South, with large cities of populations of millions and temples etc. And maybe a writing system would have developed (which I know did in places, but it would have remained)!! JUST IMAGINE!!! lol Africa would be a very different place today. it wouldnt be split up how it is now, but maybe west africa would be one country (or something like that).... lol heres a random map i drew earlier.... That would be very hard. They would be forced to ignore their cultures and traditions. Very many tribes are divided on purpose because they don't want to have to many mouths to feed in one place. Not many know of the intelligent and sophisticated bureaucracy some tribes have so they can keep themselves divided yet not be victims of inbreeding. So it's not that easy to just unite a tribe/language group to a nation.
|
|
|
Post by galton on Jan 13, 2006 5:47:18 GMT -5
Pure opinion. Prove me otherwise. And don't provide pseudo-scientific links, but actual peer-reviewed studies, or quite frankly your opinion is just non-sense. You have to be convinced that race is biological? Are you daft man? Well, alright here it goes. If negroid parents reproduce and have children, then those children are negroid. Negroid parents don't reproduce caucasoid or mongoloid children. The same is true for the other races as well. The great thing about race is that no matter where these parents are located on planet earth, they will reproduce their own kind. Of course, these parents aren't mixed couples. So, as an example, negroid parents reproduce negroid children no matter their location, no matter their nationality and no matter what language they speak. It doesn't even matter if the negroid parents like country music, they will always reproduce negroid children.
|
|
|
Post by eufrenio on Jan 13, 2006 11:33:56 GMT -5
[ The point of the matter is that the roman leftovers in most of europe are modest or non-existant compared to those outside europe. which makes me wonder how europe rome was. Alright, so the fact that over 200 million europeans speak some form or other of Latin, that is, a Romance language, derived from Latin, is a "left-over"? Bear in mind that there are 0 speakers of Latin derived languages anywhere in Asia Minor or North Africa. Moreover, the written language, Latin, was still in scholarly use until a century or so ago, throughout the whole of Europe.
|
|
|
Post by anodyne on Jan 13, 2006 11:40:58 GMT -5
Also the importance of Roman law in continental Europe.
|
|
|
Post by eufrenio on Jan 13, 2006 11:51:48 GMT -5
Whats so "laughable" about it? You have'nt disproven anything he said, you only provided links proving his point. Namely that the middle ages and european architecture, arts, sciences etc, was the remnants of roman colonialism and not a purely indigenous achievement by any streatch of the imagination. If we define "indigenous achievement" as the achievements of native Europeans, then what is medieval Europe, African? Nobody else but Europeans, whether Frenchmen, Italians, Spaniards, Germans or Englishmen, etc , were doing the handicraft, building the cities and churches, writing the books, etc. Ex-colony? Pathetic! Have a look at these paltry "medieval achievements". They pale before those awesome swahili monuments ;D: Chartres: Bourges: Please do some reading (or googling) before making such ridiculous statements.
|
|
mmmkay
Full Member
Internet Philosophiser, Leftist Hero
Posts: 127
|
Post by mmmkay on Jan 13, 2006 14:53:22 GMT -5
Did these people all of a sudden start living in cities, writing, going to church, etc during the middle ages? The answer ofcourse is no. The knowledge of all of the activities/skills you said above was initiated to them via the romans. The romans in turn derived much of their civilisation from the greeks and etruscans. The greeks and ertruscans from phoenicians and minoans. The minoans and phoneocians from mesopotamia and egypt.
Who were the egyptians? The simple answer is that they were native africans. "Blacks" in all their various cultures and phenotypes are the only people truly native to africa, having never left . Therefore, what we call "western civilisation" and by extension "european civilisation" is actually of mostly african and near-eastern origin. Even european languages bear testament to this, calling to the fact that greek has around 50% egyptian and pheonician vocabulary.
The simple fact of the matter is that before the romans, "native europeans" (such as western and northern europeans) did'nt have the skills to build the "grand cathedrals" you posted, or castles or even cities for that matter. They were illiterate, had short lifespans , high infant mortality rates, and lived in mud and wattle huts.
That was the point ras-xafun was trying to make. That namely there really is no such thing as a genuine and indigenous "european" civilisation. Therefore untill recently (600-700 yrs), Europe proper contributed very little to human history. It is basically an ex-colony that has retained the skills and techniques of its colonial masters and just built from there.
|
|
|
Post by eufrenio on Jan 13, 2006 15:08:12 GMT -5
Therefore, what we call "western civilisation" and by extension "european civilisation" is actually of mostly african and near-eastern origin. All cultures have outside influences. What does that prove? Even the Egyptians learned from Sumer. If it makes you feel better, please keep on cherishing your afrocentric beliefs! You´ve failed to contribute one single fact to the discussion.
|
|
mmmkay
Full Member
Internet Philosophiser, Leftist Hero
Posts: 127
|
Post by mmmkay on Jan 13, 2006 15:38:09 GMT -5
Hehe building a strawman are'nt we? First of all what is "bad" about being an "afrocentric" as you imply? Otherwise your just throwing around words in an attempt to discredit me. Tisk tisk eufrenio, I was expecting a much more intelligent reply, especially from a moderator. Oh really? So basically everything I said is untrue? Western and northern Europeans all of a sudden miraculously started building cities, governed by laws and states? Be careful how you use words. Nearly everything I said is factual or ground in fact, if not then prove me otherwise rather than building the base of your contributions upon non-sequitors and throwarounds.
|
|
|
Post by Miguel Antunes on Jan 13, 2006 20:01:36 GMT -5
The external influences a civilization had are irrelevant....lets simply judge them from what they are.... Africa did have great civilizations...even if ones excludes Egypt on the basis of its significant caucasoid element and the Horn of Africa on the basis of its not so significant caucasoid element (something I don't think one should do), one still has numerous empires in Western Africa like Songhay, Mali, Ghana, numerous cities in the East Coast and the Great Zimbabwe... People should focus on Australia when talking about uncivilized places...not Africa....and certainly not Europe...external influences or not, it has been a civilized place for milenia..first the south and then the north... The difference is that Europeans learnt well from their masters and even surpassed them. the Africans aparently didn't, at least for now..who knows what the future holds...
|
|
|
Post by dukeofpain on Jan 13, 2006 21:10:22 GMT -5
Lol, you guys are full of it. Tell what empire or civilizations Europeans have ever had (minus the med areas)? And don't talk about western civilization coz this is a collective creation from all continents. You keep mentioning that Africa whatever it had was influenced from outside. Now tell me even one exclusive "European civlization" (if it ever existed) that is indegenous? 90% of Europe were in the same condition as most of Africa 5-600 years ago. The only thing that pulled Europeans out of their dark age history was due to the renaissance which was derived from the foundation and knowledge laid by the muslim expansion. Some ambitious countries took advantage of this opportunity and campaigned for enlightment and then spread it further north to the rest of the isolated communities. Now besides the vandals and the vikings and other barbarian communities(if you want to call these kingdoms), what civilization has Europe ever had? (I'm refering to most of Europe minus Rome and ancient Greece and nearby communities which were imo more closer to near-eastern countries than rest of Europe). The arrogance and ignorance on this thread is unbelievable. Did Europe even ever had a writing script before the Greek scripture? which btw was influnce by the phonecian script and these civilizations were both by structure close to each other than any other European country ever were at that time. Just face it European history(that is worth talking about)just started some five-six hundred years ago, the rest is just some minor details (not comparible to other regions history) and further exagerated by western historians so to create something out of nothing. Disregarding your laughable writing off Rome and Greece as marginal to the continent (when to the contrary greco-roman culture and civilization took root in a sizable part of Europe in antiquity), there´s so much wrong about your post that it´s hard to make sense of it. You seem to ignore that the Middle Ages were a brilliant civilization on their own, hardly the dark ages you make of them. It was spread throughout Europe and not just in the Med area. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_ages Medieval society had rule of law, a literate culture, architecture (take a look at any gothic cathedral and tell me if SSA Africa has ever produced anything like it), medicine, cities with sewage system, etc. Read the Decameron and tell me what´s backward about it and the society it portrays? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Decamerons You cannot argue against the continuity of European Civilization. It is a fact for anybody who can read. Gothic cathedral of Burgos, Spain: Gothic cathedral of Bourges, France: Hardly primitive. He's just resentful and full of shit.
|
|
Terp
New Member
Posts: 27
|
Post by Terp on Jan 14, 2006 0:20:29 GMT -5
Therefore untill recently (600-700 yrs), Europe proper contributed very little to human history. Sub-saharan Africa (or "black" africa) has actually contributed enormously to world history Lol. Get a grip on reality, man.
|
|
Terp
New Member
Posts: 27
|
Post by Terp on Jan 14, 2006 0:29:30 GMT -5
The swahili on the eastern coast were among the most technologically advanced socities of their time. LOL. Yeah, right "The city's multi-storied houses were architecturally of Islamic Middle Eastern design." www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/oldwrld/merchants/kilwa.htmlThe Swahili had no sailboats of their own, so they used Arab dhows. The Swahili language was full of Arabic loanwords. The word Swahili itself is derived from the Arabic Sawahil, meaning "coast". Their religion, of course, was Islam. So much for your purely "indigenous" Swahili villages. Villages like Kilwa represent the spread of Islamic architecture, technology, religion and language into East Africa. So, you're promoting a double standard. You're holding up the Arab-influenced Swahili as a shining example of black African originality, while at the same disdaining Europe for being influenced by Greco-Romans. Nice argument.
|
|
|
Post by dukeofpain on Jan 14, 2006 0:30:35 GMT -5
Sub-saharan Africa (or "black" africa) has actually contributed enormously to world history Sure. As a labour force.
|
|
mmmkay
Full Member
Internet Philosophiser, Leftist Hero
Posts: 127
|
Post by mmmkay on Jan 14, 2006 2:28:40 GMT -5
There are two schools of thought regarding the origins of swahili material culture, (such as architecture, pottery etc.). First the "colonialist" theory was proposed, due to prevalent ideas at the time (such as 18th-19th century biases against black africans) and confusing and complex relationships on the coast. The second is the "indigenous" school, which holds that the architecture and culture seen on the coast is mostly of african origin. The latter, that is that the swahili and their material culture is mostly indigenous, today seems to be more likely, due to recent archeological findings: www.antiquityofman.com/Complex_WA_EA.htmlNo doubt the swahili did borrow some aspects of their culture from arabia, cultural borrowing is present in all civilisations. But unlike europe, they were never colonised by any arabs untill the expulsion of the portuguese in the 1800's and following a period of socio-economic weakness in the intervening years afterwards. Lol europe was even colonised by the moors, nothing like that ever took place in east africa. The swahili were trading on the east coast of africa for hundreds of years prior to contact with arabs, what were they using then? Before the dhows they used the indigenous seafaring technology available, such as dug-out trees, which are found throughout western africa aswell. Ofcourse. This is simple borrowing, but nothing approaching the 20-25% phoenician/egyptian found in the greek langauge. "Full" is probably not accurate to describe the arabic presence in swahili, the language is almost completely bantu african in structure and grammar, even vocabulary. No quite. Their religion was (and is) markedly african in many respects, having truly never let go of their traditional customs. Swahili commonly believe in good and bad "jinni" or spirits, carry magickal medallions and talismans to ward off evil, and perform sacrifices and other rites to mark transitions in life or purge evil spirits. Women frequently go about in colorful non-islamic attire (or no attire at all). They are hardly islamic purists, their religion could be described as "syncretic" and very african inspired. Wrong. "Towns" like kilwa. And contrary to the source your provided, the Swahili are very african, and their culture is very much indigenous to the coast they live on. Architecturally, there are no parallels anywhere else in the world, not even in arabia. I dont recall arabs building in coral rag quarried from ofshore reefs, do you? The "double-standard" you see is purely a result of your inadequate information concerning the subject, whereas I see none. I am a student of archeology/anthropology and having studied the east african coast extensively, I can tell you that colonial europe bears almost no comparison to it. Not in developement or socio-economic-political structures. Your "double-standard" is purely fictional. Try again.
|
|