|
Post by mhagneto on Jul 11, 2005 21:23:23 GMT -5
Strange you are using the computer to send us this message, why not stick to the bongos? If you are trying to say the computer is a white invention, that is false..... it was invented in the United States, which is made partly made up of Asians, Africans, and Hispanics. The computer would not have been possible without binary numbers, which came from Egypt. ALso the computer keyboard you are typing on is based on the typewriter - an african american invention. Strange you are using the keyboard to send your message, why not stick to European cave drawings? Great list of claimed Afro inventions, but all false claims, kmt, here. www33.brinkster.com/iiiii/inventions/Btw,the neolithic did not start in egypt, which came to it rather late, 5500BC.
|
|
|
Post by mhagneto on Jul 11, 2005 21:29:14 GMT -5
African pottery is thousands of years older than European pottery ( www.homestead.com/wysinger/ironage.html ) Africans had steel two and a half millennia before it appeared in nineteenth-century Europe ( www.homestead.com/wysinger/ironage.html ) The five earliest civilizations were in the Nile valley, West Africa, Fertile Crescent, Indus Valley, and China ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization#Early_civilizations ) Of these, two are fully African, another two were influenced by Africans, and none were European or European influenced. Africans created agriculture independently, Europeans received agriculture from the Middle East Africans created four indigenous language families (Afro-Asiatic, Niger-Congo, Nilo-Saharan, Khoisan), Europeans created none (Indo-European is imported from Asia) Africa had more civilizations than Europe. Africa had Egypt, Nubia, Nok, Axum, Carthage, Zimbabwe, Ghana, Mali, Songhai, the Moors, Kanem-Bornu, Swahili states, Congo Kingdoms, etc...... Europe had Greece and Rome, and neither were truly indigeneous (Rome came from Greece, which came from Egypt and Phoenicia). Africans has at least 15 native writing systems ( www.library.cornell.edu/africana/Writing_Systems/List_of_Scripts.html ). Europe has none (Latin alphabet evolved from Greek, which evolved from Phoenician, which evolved from Egyptian hieratic). As Cocteau said, "The trouble with modern times is that the stupid are looking for their place in the sun". I ask myself: Why are those on the left side of the bell-curve so aggressive? Tolerating the compensatory grandiosity of the inferior is one of the most annoying features of modern American public life.
|
|
|
Post by Educate Me on Jul 11, 2005 22:09:45 GMT -5
Africa does not mean black because north african populations are largely caucasoid or predominantly caucasoid.
|
|
mmmkay
Full Member
Internet Philosophiser, Leftist Hero
Posts: 127
|
Post by mmmkay on Jul 11, 2005 22:29:47 GMT -5
Argh this is just confusing? whos in favor of calling splitting the contenent up to 2 names "Africa" for the northern part (its original name) and "Imbuzi" or "kwame" (or some SS-african term) for the second part?
That way, ppl who come from "kwame" we can call them kwame's and ppl who come from "africa" we call them africans. Problem solves, no more confusion. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Ponto Hardbottle on Jul 12, 2005 0:48:25 GMT -5
Strange you are using the computer to send us this message, why not stick to the bongos? If you are trying to say the computer is a white invention, that is false..... it was invented in the United States, which is made partly made up of Asians, Africans, and Hispanics. The computer would not have been possible without binary numbers, which came from Egypt. ALso the computer keyboard you are typing on is based on the typewriter - an african american invention. Strange you are using the keyboard to send your message, why not stick to European cave drawings? Your knowledge of history is quite crap, L' Americano il moro. The computer has its genesis not in good old Uncle Sam but in Europe and Asia. Ever heard of the abacus or Charles Babbage or Lord Byron's daughter Ada Lovelace? Obviously not. What about the efforts of those Indians with their steel posts and the East Asians. You are very bigoted and biased. You can use Kmt until you turn green with mold it does not make you African, Egyptian or make Egyptians black Africans. Nock that bongos thing was very witty. Bravo. Has anyone seen a picture of Charles Drew? He was one of those very light, caucasoid looking black Americans. A good scientist but a shocking driver.
|
|
|
Post by jam on Jul 12, 2005 3:38:23 GMT -5
Indus walley "influenced by africans" WTF? Or ar you talking about China Africans created agriculture independently, Europeans received agriculture from the Middle East Africans created four indigenous language families (Afro-Asiatic, Niger-Congo, Nilo-Saharan, Khoisan), Europeans created none (Indo-European is imported from Asia) Or maybe, just maybe that was their native language. Try saying that to a Finnish og Hungarian person. Africa had more civilizations than Europe. Africa had Egypt, Nubia, Nok, Axum, Carthage, Zimbabwe, Ghana, Mali, Songhai, the Moors, Kanem-Bornu, Swahili states, Congo Kingdoms, etc...... Europe had Greece and Rome, and neither were truly indigeneous (Rome came from Greece, which came from Egypt and Phoenicia). Africans has at least 15 native writing systems ( www.library.cornell.edu/africana/Writing_Systems/List_of_Scripts.html ). Europe has none (Latin alphabet evolved from Greek, which evolved from Phoenician, which evolved from Egyptian hieratic). So? why should it matter - at all If anything, and if he above was true, why did Africa stop developing? And, maybe SOME africans had a writing system, that doesn't mean all had, as many had nothing, in fact none of the above.
|
|
|
Post by Mike the Jedi on Jul 12, 2005 5:24:25 GMT -5
Egyptians were not black people. They were a mixed people who varied regionally. Coon said that the racial history of Egypt can be summed up as that of the Lower Egyptian type (Caucasoid) gradually replacing the Upper Egyptian type (Negroid). Thus, you have a gradation of hybridization, with the people getting progressively more Caucasoid in the north as one approaches the Mediterranean Sea and progressively more Negroid in the south as one approaches Nubia. I mean, is it really that hard to see the truth? There are so many Caucasoid and Negroid busts in Egypt that pinning the Egyptians down to one discrete race is kind of silly. It is to me, anyway. While it is true that most of the civilization itself has its origins in the south, it would only be partially true to say that its people had their origins in the south. I've said it before and I'll say it again: the Egyptians were a mixed race of North Africans and East Africans. I think this is the interpretation that most non-biased historians would take. As for Sumer, the Sumerians were much like the Indids of the Harappan civilization in that they were predominately Caucasoid with a noticeable Veddoid element that is not to be ignored. Argh this is just confusing? whos in favor of calling splitting the contenent up to 2 names "Africa" for the northern part (its original name) and "Imbuzi" or "kwame" (or some SS-african term) for the second part? That way, ppl who come from "kwame" we can call them kwame's and ppl who come from "africa" we call them africans. Problem solves, no more confusion. ;D lol... that's a great idea, Mmmkay!
|
|
|
Post by Mike the Jedi on Jul 12, 2005 5:53:28 GMT -5
And to answer the question who has a better history: Africans or Europeans, well, all I can say is NEITHER. The Middle East has the most impressive civilizations.
|
|
|
Post by Power Cosmic on Jul 12, 2005 6:08:18 GMT -5
Who really cares about whether Europe or Africa has the better history? No living breathing soul in this forum directly participated in the past history of these two continents. What is better is all relative to how one views what is better.
|
|
|
Post by topdog on Jul 12, 2005 6:12:09 GMT -5
Who really cares about whether Europe or Africa has the better history? No living breathing soul in this forum directly participated in the past history of these two continents. What is better is all relative to how one views what is better. Well the usual suspects who always like to chest-pound are present in this thread. I think Africa was a whole better than what people recognize and give credit for.
|
|
s.f
Junior Member
Posts: 58
|
Post by s.f on Jul 12, 2005 14:26:16 GMT -5
Africa had more civilizations than Europe. Africa had Egypt, Nubia, Nok, Axum, Carthage, Zimbabwe, Ghana, Mali, Songhai, the Moors, Kanem-Bornu, Swahili states, Congo Kingdoms, etc...... Europe had Greece and Rome, and neither were truly indigeneous (Rome came from Greece, which came from Egypt and Phoenicia). Oh my Congo Kingdoms, Swahili states, Great Zimbabwe etc.. Those 'civilizations' are nothing compared to Ancient Rome etc..
|
|
|
Post by topdog on Jul 12, 2005 14:39:21 GMT -5
Africa had more civilizations than Europe. Africa had Egypt, Nubia, Nok, Axum, Carthage, Zimbabwe, Ghana, Mali, Songhai, the Moors, Kanem-Bornu, Swahili states, Congo Kingdoms, etc...... Europe had Greece and Rome, and neither were truly indigeneous (Rome came from Greece, which came from Egypt and Phoenicia). Oh my Congo Kingdoms, Swahili states, Great Zimbabwe etc.. Those 'civilizations' are nothing compared to Ancient Rome etc.. Before Etruscan influences, Rome was a hut city. Nubia was already a civilisation. The Congo kingdoms, Swahili States and Great Zimbabwe were all indigeous.
|
|
|
Post by hansel on Jul 12, 2005 14:46:53 GMT -5
entertaining thread carry on please
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Jul 12, 2005 15:13:18 GMT -5
Mike you always make the erroneous remark that the Egyptians where Mixed ..They where not! Genetic testing only supports that they where Causasoids.
I'am not entirely sure why you constantly make such ludicrous remarks and assumptions...I must assume that you try to forge some middle ground,where no White nor black group can entrily claim them..This may be done cause you have the best intentions,but they lead only to more trouble.
<<Coon said that the racial history of Egypt can be summed up as that of the Lower Egyptian type (Caucasoid) gradually replacing the Upper Egyptian type (Negroid). Thus, you have a gradation of hybridization, with the people getting progressively more Caucasoid in the north as one approaches the Mediterranean Sea and progressively more Negroid in the south as one approaches Nubia.>>
No Coon did not...The truth and fact is that Upper and Lower Eypgt have been always made up of Mediterrean Causasoids.
Coon stated that:
"In Lower Egypt lived another group of Mediterranean predynastic people who differed from the Upper Egyptians in certain noticeable ways. The heads were broader, the cranial indices higher, reaching a mean of 75, whereas the Upper Egyptian mean is nearly 72. The vault height is less, the face is no broader, but somewhat longer, and the nasal index is lower.
"The two types from Upper and Lower Egypt represent the extremes of a purely native Egyptian population, but from the beginning of dynastic times, around 3000 B.C. until Ptolemaic times, the numerous series which give an excellent picture of the progress of racial continuity and change in Egypt show the interactions of these two types. The racial history of Egypt in the course of three thousand years was simply the gradual replacement of the Upper Egyptian type by that of Lower Egypt. ... Ancient Egypt must remain the most outstanding example yet known in the world of an important, naturally isolated region in which native racial types were permitted to develop their own way for several thousand years completely uninfluenced by foreign contacts". >>
The Egyptians where Caucasoid plain and simple. Was Egypt invaded by Negroid Nubians,yes, but their invasion was very short lived and they left no genetic marks.Nubia though was dominated by the Egyptians and Caucasoid Peoples way before then for many many years .
Having (mainly)American Negro's claiming Egypt as an Negro Civilization is B.S! These are the racist your shielding,their Negrophile's and deceivers(in other words Punks)..You'll never hear them calling upon Zimbabwe,nope,only Egypt .Why because Egypt was in "Africa" and was the Greatest / Highest and True Civilization,it was also the most Famous..
True Africa to me has no meaning other than in relation to North Africa( Caucasoid people),just as it meant to the Romans.This Black Africa is modern construct,which is highly dubious(as you can see) and misnomer .
|
|
|
Post by Mike the Jedi on Jul 12, 2005 16:05:32 GMT -5
The only thing that prevented Coon from calling the Badarians "Negroid" was hair form. If Coon didn't believe in the True Negro, then he would have called the Badarians Negroid at the drop of a hat.
Look, there is simply no way on God's green earth that the Egyptians were fully Caucasoid (and they aren't fully Caucasoid today, either). They were predominately Caucasoid throughout most of their history, but never FULLY Caucasoid. Claiming such a thing is the height of arrogance and whitewashing. Aethiopid types are found all over the place, on busts, on murals, everywhere. Given the circumstance if the Badarians themselves were not even FULLY Negroid, they would certainly be called black in America because they were Negroid enough.
I'm not trying to go after some middle ground, I'm calling it as I see it. All 20th century "Caucasoids are dem wanzes with the thin nozes!" crap should be thrown away, because it is just as wrong as claiming the Ainu or the Polynesians are lost whites.
|
|