|
Post by Wadaad on May 24, 2005 0:07:51 GMT -5
lol I think Erudite had a typo there, I think he meant a "A Somali would NOT want an Arab laying claim to anything in Somalia." and Samaal just proved that to be the case.
|
|
|
Post by topdog on May 24, 2005 0:23:20 GMT -5
lol I think Erudite had a typo there, I think he meant a "A Somali would NOT want an Arab laying claim to anything in Somalia." and Samaal just proved that to be the case. Exactly, I'v been watching you guys on the net as well as some Somalis from other message boards and what I have saw Somalis do *NOT* consider themselves as part of West Asia or Arabia. So you're correct and that was a typo.
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on May 24, 2005 7:00:45 GMT -5
lol... Samaal freaked out.
|
|
|
Post by Dodona Underground on May 24, 2005 12:46:00 GMT -5
I don't know if I am in this list of morons you talk about, but comparing a civilisation to another is exactly the opposite of relativism. Relativism would be saying all civilizations are equal and not comparable to each other. Which by the way would be stupid. The information about SSA civilisations are welcomed. Comparison with other civilisations, however, is what you have to expect. Things are known and understood by comparison, you couldn't use even the concept of civilisation without the comparison between civilised and non civilised society. If this angers you, this is just your problem. By the way, you say you find tiresom the "chest pounding" about the achievements of distant ancestors, but seem to be quite emotionally moved by the assumed achievements of SSA. In case anyone missed it because it was offered in the midst of the usual noise, this is one of the most sensible things that anyone has posted around here in quite a while.
|
|
|
Post by Le dernier amazigh on May 24, 2005 14:06:34 GMT -5
In case anyone missed it because it was offered in the midst of the usual noise, this is one of the most sensible things that anyone has posted around here in quite a while. I agree Ghost! I have posted the same ideas in a past discussion on Stone Age NWAs. There are degrees of civilisations, and if one think that the SSAs developped civilisations then what should he think about Greeks or Romans, ...Aliens!?
|
|
|
Post by Minstrel on May 24, 2005 15:03:49 GMT -5
Edited to remove flaming.
Faelcind says "Minstrel this is warning when you first started posting here you conducted yourself in civil manor and made interesting informative posts. Lately all I have seen from you is juvenile trolling. If you continue in this vein you will be banned."
|
|
|
Post by eufrenio on May 24, 2005 15:20:16 GMT -5
Berter and Minstrel, this is not a chatroom! Flaming will not be tolerated.
|
|
|
Post by Le dernier amazigh on May 24, 2005 15:26:00 GMT -5
Berter and Minstrel, this is not a chatroom! Flaming will not be tolerated. Eufrenio, Do my posts resemble chatrooms' massages!? Btw, plz deleate this post as well as those made by Minstrel.
|
|
|
Post by eufrenio on May 24, 2005 15:47:55 GMT -5
Eufrenio, Do my posts resemble chatrooms' massages!? Btw, plz delete this post as well as those made by Minstrel. Berter, there is no such thing as moderation à la carte! Please behave and try to post factual information. For instance, if you really believe that start a new thread with evidence, in a factual and composed way. That´s allowed here, as long as there is no flaming and no personal attacks.
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on May 24, 2005 16:59:07 GMT -5
A comparison has to have criteria, otherwise it's like arguing over who is the better person, me or you. We'd have to agree on some criteria first, like who is the fastest runner, who has the biggest cucumber, and such. I know. I already told Charlie Bass that of course there is no universal criteria. Which desn't mean there is no human criteria, i.e. a criteria on which we can agree on (or we already actually agree on). I think we can easily find many criteria we will agree on as "timing" (e.g. everybody like to have, say, sewers, so the civilisation which created them first made quite a remarcable thing); as "relevance to present lifes of human beings" (Greek philosophy made this conversation possible; English literature defined the language we are using); as "power to impose itself on other cultures" (Japanese dress as westerners, westerners, with the exception of Steven Segal when resting, don't use kimonos). As complexity, and so on. We may have a lot of disagreements on the criteria and on how to apply them, but I don't think that Charlie Bass, and I differ so greatly in opinion that at heart he thinks SSA culture and history as known now is actually comparable to China, as he said. You are not factoring Circe's posts here. That phrase of the Dao De Jing applies as well to what you just said, what I said, what Lau Tsu said, what he who said it said. Do you think you know that "those who think they know, do not know and those who know don't think they know."? Then you are wrong on the basis of what yourself say becouse you think you know so you don't know. Do you not think you know that "those who think they know, do not know and those who know don't think they know."? Then we are in agreement. I know it's just a fancy phrase with no meaning ;D. @ceasarghost: thanks a lot, we need to create a libertarian club here
|
|
|
Post by Soomaal on May 24, 2005 17:04:56 GMT -5
lol... Samaal freaked out. LOL
|
|
Hallam
Junior Member
Posts: 94
|
Post by Hallam on May 24, 2005 19:48:48 GMT -5
Yes, but I never assumed I was right, and neither does the Dao De Jing, or any starting point in that school of thought. I don't think you'll like this particular rhetorical tradition. I am going to be more confucian about certain forms of knoweldge. I think the Tao Te Ching was referring to absolute "Truths". That was Confucius' interpretation of Taoism. Confucius then went on to say that part of being a wise as opposed to just knowledgeble is an almost intuitive understanding of what it really means to know something for "sure", sure enough to act on it, and to not know something for certain. I think with the available evidence, I am puzzled at just how anyone can deny that 1. the predynastic Egyptians were Black Africans 2. that a significantly large portion of the AEs were a result of the mixing of this ancient population with other people(s). 3. that AE culture is fundamentally African or more specifically, native to the upper Nile river valley. I think most the archaeological, anthropological, linguistical evidence points to this direction. Of course, I could be wrong but that what the current evidence suggests. We can either go with the evidence or with empty statements.
|
|
|
Post by alexandrian on May 24, 2005 20:01:26 GMT -5
I think with the available evidence, I am puzzled at just how anyone can deny that 1. the predynastic Egyptians were Black Africans 2. that a significantly large portion of the AEs were a result of the mixing of this ancient population with other people(s). 3. that AE culture is fundamentally African or more specifically, native to the upper Nile river valley. I think most the archaeological, anthropological, linguistical evidence points to this direction. Of course, I could be wrong but that what the current evidence suggests. We can either go with the evidence or with empty statements. What do you mean empty statements? I think that if you look at the trends, you'll see that Afrocentrists post far less evidence that definitively supports them than me and people who agree with me do. Usually when they do publish a study, it comes from someone like Keita or Asante. Did you look at any of the reconstructions? What other groups formed the Ancient Egyptians if the predynastic ones were universally black? Brace grouped the Dynastic Lower Egyptians right next to Berbers and close to Neolithic Swiss. Furthermore, what decides a culture being "African"? Egyptian culture may have been African in solely geographical terms, but culturally the only word to describe it would be simply Egyptian. For almost all of its existence Egypt has been a country that has consistently looked towards partners in the Middle East or in the Eastern Mediterranean. The only black African society that concistently interacted witht he AEs were the Nubians.
|
|
|
Post by topdog on May 24, 2005 23:10:51 GMT -5
Berter, there is no such thing as moderation à la carte! Please behave and try to post factual information. For instance, if you really believe that start a new thread with evidence, in a factual and composed way. That´s allowed here, as long as there is no flaming and no personal attacks. What the heck, do you really think thats a debateable topic? Perhaps I should raise the same question about whites! Thats the kind of crap thats continually debated on sites like stormfront and VNN. There is nothing in the way of facts that can prove anything like that. I'm beginning to rethink that a forum that says its ok to debate my 'species strata' isn't even worth posting on.
|
|
|
Post by topdog on May 24, 2005 23:13:56 GMT -5
The only 'criteria' people are using is race[ie, anything is better than black]. No one is comparing Chinese to Europe, but Europe and Asia are lumped together when being compared to sub-Saharan Africans, thats the real issue here, I'm not dumb. To some people thats the only criteria thats needed.
|
|