|
|
Post by topdog on May 15, 2005 2:46:53 GMT -5
I just enjoy knocking Alex down to size when he chest pounds. Its all fun to me, I don't get emotional.
|
|
Baladi
Junior Member
Posts: 63
|
Post by Baladi on May 15, 2005 2:53:34 GMT -5
Al-Fustat was founded by Amr Ibn 'Alas when he invaded Egypt in 640 AD. This settlement included both Copts and various Arabs tribes. Some Christian Arabs were even settled in some regions of Fustat During this period Egypt was ruled mostly from Mecca. Then it passed to the Umayyad and then into the Abbasid Caliph. al-Qaharia was founded by the Fatimids who came from Tunisa. My point being that most of the Egyptian population was in the rural areas,and the Egyptian population during the Middle Ages really didn't contribute much to the intellectual life of al-Qahria. All the learning centers like al-Ahzar were founded by the Fatimids and not by indigenous Egyptians. For foreigners evidence of foreigners in al-Qahaira: Al-Qahira Literally meaning "the Victorious" , al-Qahira was Egypt's fourth Islamic capital after al-Fustat, al-Askar and al-Qataii. Al-Qahira is today called Cairo among English speakers. The fortified princely city built by the Fatimids in 969 A.D. and completed in 971 A.D. was divided in four quarters by the Fatimid army, and encompassing communities of Greeks, ethnic Europeans, Armenians, Berbers, Sudanese and Turks. The core of the city Bayn al-Qasrayn ("Between the Two Palaces") was a square separating the Eastern and Western palace that was halfway along its main street (Now Sharia al-Muizz - Walk 1) that stretched from Bab al-Futuh North to Bab Zuwayla South. www.aucegypt.edu/walking_tours/cairo/glossary/glossary.html It was not just based on religion. All non-Arab Muslims who converted were treated like second class citizens. Look up Mawali if you know what that means. As far as destruction of the ancient Egyptians temples, I suspect that some of the early Coptic monastics were foreigners in Egypt. It seems odd for people steeped in customs of their ancestors to want to destoy their own heritage. Rural Egyptians still use temples in their own folkloric traditions. I could never imagine a rural Egyptian that would want to destoy any temple. You are correct that Sudanese were used as eunchs,but most Sudanese came as soiliders. These soliders were recruited by the Fatimids. Many Nubians worked and lived in the same quarters as lower class Egyptians. Along with the other soliders of foreign origin. They didn't guard brotels but actually harems. Another thing is that Turkish,Berber,eastern European,and various other slaves poured into Cairo and Alexandria. Many of these slaves often being eastern European coucubines. Most of the unions between these concubines were freed into the general population. No Egyptians converted to Judaism during the pharaonic times. Many of the Jews poured into Egypt during the time of Jeremiah. However, the bulk of the Jews were not indigenous and came from Palestine during the Ptolemic and Roman times. Ethnic Egyptians hated the Jews and associated them with Set. Haven't you read Manetho who claims the Jews were leapers. This is preserved in Josephus' book The Case Against Apion. Many rebellions were provoked during the Roman times by this very ancient belief. . Can you name the accomplishments of indigenous Egyptians during the Middle Ages? |
|
|
|
Post by Minstrel on May 15, 2005 3:11:23 GMT -5
I now present the five points of great infallible truth: 1) "Ancient egypt" is no more, obviously, so stop "claiming" it and shit, nobody here built the pyramids. 2) Alexandrian is lame  3) Egypt got its ass whooped by every nation that every existed LOL (and this is mostly not an exaggeration) 4) Never judge a book by it's cover, (in this case SS africans and history) 5) Berter is alexandrians more evil twin manefestion, alexandrianism gone bad, lol.;D |
|
|
|
Post by topdog on May 15, 2005 3:22:18 GMT -5
It was basically the primitive living standards of Sub-Saharan Africans that made it easy for invaders to exploit them. Nonsense, it was inter-ethnic rivarly and the slave trade that made it easier to conquer. |
|
|
|
Post by gulereatie on May 15, 2005 4:09:21 GMT -5
As i read this topic, i come to a conclusion,
Alexandrian is anti muslim, ok,
yet he boasts about his "connection" with arabians, and is clinged to a fantasy "mediteranean" racial affiliation..
yet he talks about the differences in these arabians and africans while , they are truly connected through islam, not through his imaginary "mediteranean" affilation...these achievements he boasts about are islamic achievements, but he anti muslim ?
"All they did was find manuscripts. They find manuscripts everywhere. If you think Timbuktu rivaled Alexandria, Athens, Cairo, Baghdad, Cordoba, or Damascus in all their primes, you're living in a fantasy land. Furthermore, this is just one location and it's not like it was a learning magnet for international scholars like the other areas were. Please give me a single significant discovery that came out of Timbuktu. "
|
|
|
|
Post by Melnorme on May 15, 2005 4:09:55 GMT -5
Nonsense, it was inter-ethnic rivarly and the slave trade that made it easier to conquer. 'Primitive living standards'? 'Ethnic rivalry'? Come on. It's because they had lousy technology, duh. |
|
|
|
Post by gelaye on May 15, 2005 4:40:32 GMT -5
hmm for some reason I think weve gone off the topic of the original post hahahaha
oh yeah and Makaahiil - I wasnt implying that slavery was only a sub saharan thing, i was commenting on how nowadays there is a general lack of knowledge on sub saharan history and how it is generally not regarged as being 'up there' with other continents.
btw - are you somalian? (just guessing from your avatar!)
|
|
|
|
Post by Soomaal on May 15, 2005 4:43:33 GMT -5
hmm for some reason I think weve gone off the topic of the original post hahahaha oh yeah and Makaahiil - I wasnt implying that slavery was only a sub saharan thing, i was commenting on how nowadays there is a general lack of knowledge on sub saharan history and how it is generally not regarged as being 'up there' with other continents. btw - are you somalian? (just guessing from your avatar!) Yes, I am Somali. Its funny how a simple thread turned into whatever it is now.LOL |
|
|
|
Post by topdog on May 15, 2005 4:46:55 GMT -5
'Primitive living standards'? 'Ethnic rivalry'? Come on. It's because they had lousy technology, duh. Initially in the beginning yes, but through trade, most the slave trade Africans acquired modern weapons and firearms. Europeans preyed on and even heightened ethnic rivalries among Africans. |
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on May 15, 2005 10:37:05 GMT -5
So you admit to make such a statement is subjective. Yes, but I think you can be brought to condivide it. Admittedly, not much. But same goes for India and China. However, without being an expert, I know this last two produced relevant literature, philosophy, architecture, figurative arts, science, corpus of law, and complex and organised societies. As as an average person, I assume that as I know the above from high school studies, films, books and whatnot, I would equally know if SSA had produced literature, written laws, science studies etc. of some relevance. I am not an (even amatour) historician. I rely on what is call common knowledge. It's you who want to challenge the common knowledge, so the burden of the proof is on you. Once I asked Minstrel who discovered what and when about Milingo. He never answered me. I am open to learn new things, so if there are written works (literature, philosophy, laws, etc), coming from ancient SSA, I'll be glad to aknolwledge them. As said above, such information are welcome. Would you say however that such works are a match to the Chinese and Indian culture? (I'm not provoking, it's a real question). About the future: I just meant that the question about past civilisations glory is not that crucial with reference to the "ability" of the populations who made such civilisations. I see ancient Egypt is a heated topic here, but it's some thousands of years that the same genetic stock of the AE are not doing anything remarkable. Thus the fact that (supposedly) SSA didn't produce remarkable civilisation does not mean this won't happen in the future. |
|
|
|
Post by alexandrian on May 15, 2005 10:50:49 GMT -5
The paper I cited says they are not Egyptian typically, its criticising the Arab-Berber description, can't you read? And you still can't read, that link you posted said that Moroccans and egyptians are related because part, not all of their ancestry has an ancient Saharan origin. Its not speaking about all of their ancestry, I knew you couldn't properly read anything. THe paper you cited doesn't criticise the population used for the study, it simply criticises the description of them being Arab-Berber. It simply says typical Egyptians shouldn't be described as Arabo-Berber but it never questions that the study did use typical Egyptians from Mansoura University. I'mnot argue this point with you anymore. It is seriously getting irritating. |
|
|
|
Post by alexandrian on May 15, 2005 10:51:28 GMT -5
^I agree, enough arguing. Why don't they just test remains of ancient Egyptians just to settle this age-old Egyptian origins debate once and for all  . We have. Have you seen the reconstructions of King Tut, King Ramses II, and Aumn-her Khepeshef. Clearly Caucasian. |
|
|
|
Post by alexandrian on May 15, 2005 10:56:47 GMT -5
Al-Fustat was founded by Amr Ibn 'Alas when he invaded Egypt in 640 AD. This settlement included both Copts and various Arabs tribes. Some Christian Arabs were even settled in some regions of Fustat During this period Egypt was ruled mostly from Mecca. Then it passed to the Umayyad and then into the Abbasid Caliph. al-Qaharia was founded by the Fatimids who came from Tunisa. My point being that most of the Egyptian population was in the rural areas,and the Egyptian population during the Middle Ages really didn't contribute much to the intellectual life of al-Qahria. All the learning centers like al-Ahzar were founded by the Fatimids and not by indigenous Egyptians. For foreigners evidence of foreigners in al-Qahaira: Al-Qahira Literally meaning "the Victorious" , al-Qahira was Egypt's fourth Islamic capital after al-Fustat, al-Askar and al-Qataii. Al-Qahira is today called Cairo among English speakers. The fortified princely city built by the Fatimids in 969 A.D. and completed in 971 A.D. was divided in four quarters by the Fatimid army, and encompassing communities of Greeks, ethnic Europeans, Armenians, Berbers, Sudanese and Turks. The core of the city Bayn al-Qasrayn ("Between the Two Palaces") was a square separating the Eastern and Western palace that was halfway along its main street (Now Sharia al-Muizz - Walk 1) that stretched from Bab al-Futuh North to Bab Zuwayla South. www.aucegypt.edu/walking_tours/cairo/glossary/glossary.html It was not just based on religion. All non-Arab Muslims who converted were treated like second class citizens. Look up Mawali if you know what that means. As far as destruction of the ancient Egyptians temples, I suspect that some of the early Coptic monastics were foreigners in Egypt. It seems odd for people steeped in customs of their ancestors to want to destoy their own heritage. Rural Egyptians still use temples in their own folkloric traditions. I could never imagine a rural Egyptian that would want to destoy any temple. You are correct that Sudanese were used as eunchs,but most Sudanese came as soiliders. These soliders were recruited by the Fatimids. Many Nubians worked and lived in the same quarters as lower class Egyptians. Along with the other soliders of foreign origin. They didn't guard brotels but actually harems. Another thing is that Turkish,Berber,eastern European,and various other slaves poured into Cairo and Alexandria. Many of these slaves often being eastern European coucubines. Most of the unions between these concubines were freed into the general population. No Egyptians converted to Judaism during the pharaonic times. Many of the Jews poured into Egypt during the time of Jeremiah. However, the bulk of the Jews were not indigenous and came from Palestine during the Ptolemic and Roman times. Ethnic Egyptians hated the Jews and associated them with Set. Haven't you read Manetho who claims the Jews were leapers. This is preserved in Josephus' book The Case Against Apion. Many rebellions were provoked during the Roman times by this very ancient belief. . Can you name the accomplishments of indigenous Egyptians during the Middle Ages? I know there were mnay foreigners in Egypt but what does this have to with anyting? Most Eygptians today still live in rural areas, that doesn't change the fact that the cities are inhabited by Egyptians. SHow me proof that there were very few Egyptians in Cairo. Most of the scholars of the Islamic areas were simply ARabised Egyptians and you know that is true. Why do you think just because they destroyed ancient Egyptian temples early Copts were foreginers? People aren't as obsessed with ancient Egypt as you. People do lose their connection eventually, they're culture and the culture they were raised in was very different from a polytheistic Ancient Egyptian culture. You sound like that retard Mustafa Gadallah. Why do you say no Egyptians converted during that time? That's ridiculous, of course they did. Just because some people found Jews evil doesn't change anything. YOu see hatred of Christians in modern Egypt, yet Egyptian Christians are still in existence. |
|
|
|
Post by alexandrian on May 15, 2005 11:02:50 GMT -5
Cultural diffusion aside, you have no claims to Greco-Roman, Turkish, or Armenian civilisations. Thats right, speak for yourself and your fanatasy world. Why do you continuously omit Nubians? Ideas flowed from Nubia into Egypt as well as Nubians ruling Egypt, but you will claim Nubians nor allow a Nubian to claim Egypt. That makes you a hypocrite. Nubians can claim Egypt, but I won't claim Nubia because I don't have any recent ancestry and Egypt was only involved with Nubia in ancient times, and since then it's just been a neglected province. Besides, why would i want to claim such a crappy civilization? Furthermore, do keep in mind, I am not an ancient Egyptian, i am a modern egyptian. You completely ignore the last 2500 years of Egyptian history, where Nubia played absolutely no role. Give me a break. The union of syria and Egypt in the 1960s was a **pan-ARAB** union[United Arab Republic, not United pan-Mediterranean Republic] and that union **WAS** recent but is no more. When Sadat made peace with Israel, Syria scorned Egypt. What you have failed to say is that part of ancient Nubia lies in modern day Egypt so who's connected more to whom now? BTW, a Nigerian feels no more in common with a Ghanaian than an Egyptian will feel towards an Egyptian. My point was that you said Egyptians felt no unity to or connection with Syrians. You are clearly wrong. You still have no right to claim other civilisations especially Greco-Roman. Why not? No, you have no right to claim anything, quit chest-pounding and stick to your hole. There is sub-Saharan genetic impact in Egypt as well as cultural ties to Africa below Egypt, but you deny those, why? I told you before why I claim those civilizations and I have a stronger link to those civilizations than some people living in those places. I have ARmenian blood, I have Lebanese blood. Why can't I claim Armenia or Lebanon you dumb twit? GReeks and Romans made a relatively significant impact on the Egyptian genepool, especially Greeks. I come from a city founded by Greeks, and with a significant Greek population since its inception. Give me a break. You think you know more about Egypt than me? Egypt was much more involved nand much more consistently so throughout all its historyin the Mediterranean world than the African world. You know it. I know it. Live with it. |
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on May 15, 2005 11:50:18 GMT -5
Come on, Alex, that is really not fair or even backable. Saying Nubia was a crappy civilization is like saying Egypt was a crappy civilization. Both of them had very much in common and mutually influenced each other, through both trade and conquest. The close relationship of Egypt and the Sudan continued well into the 20th century as the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan. Sudan could have very well decided to remain a part of the country of Egypt, right? I mean, if you're willing to recognize that Egypt and Syria were a country once, then why not lend the same the same affection to the Sudan?
And the Badarians of Upper Egypt came from Nubia, did they not? I'm sorry, Alex, but I would never write off the Nubian civilization simply because it wasn't as grand as that of Egypt. It's still way too important. Who cares if their pyramids weren't as big as those of Egypt?
|
|
.