|
Post by laller on Jul 18, 2005 14:13:48 GMT -5
Oldest pottery is found in Japan. Maybe the Japanese have the best history, and we should stop thinking about Europe and Africa. Interestingly enough the oldest steel item is from Cyprus. Not exactly Africa is it. 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. On the other hand, it took Africa +80.000 years more to develop a civilization than it took Europe... What does that tell ya? Africans created agriculture independently, Europeans received agriculture from the Middle East How do you know? Since farming/agriculture's earliest attempts happened in the middle-east, how do you know africans developed it independently? Africans created four indigenous language families (Afro-Asiatic, Niger-Congo, Nilo-Saharan, Khoisan), Europeans created none (Indo-European is imported from Asia) You mean none of the "indigenous european languages" survived, don't you? Surely we must have communicated in some way before "indo-european" was introduced... 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).[/quote} It's really quite admirable how you can claim Carthage as an african civilisation, and dismiss roman and greek civilisation, when carthage is infact phoenician... And phonecian civilisation may have been partly influenced by the greek. But I guess that, in your oppinion, would make it partly egyptian in origin... Anyway, I'm sure Europeans couldn't really care less what happened in ancient africa, and vice versa. People inhabited africa alot longer than any other place on earth, so it'd be surprising if africa didn't have more stories to tell...
|
|
|
Post by asdf on Jul 18, 2005 22:53:01 GMT -5
None of course. I think the most overpresented in contributing to the computer are mid-western protestant white boys.
It was also invented far before there were signifigant numbers of Asians or Hispanics.
|
|
|
Post by subhuman on Jul 24, 2005 6:04:35 GMT -5
No doubt, thanks to the neolithic revolution in farming in the mesopotamian and mediterranean area, Europe has become the cradle of many historically significant civilizations. If someone says "Man, we white guys are so great, cos we built the pyramids and Stonehenge!" that's okay. Yes, they we're caucasoids who created the mediterranean civilizations. However, I find it very pathetic and ludicrous when a polish guy says that he's superior to africans, because it was whiteys who built the pyramids. I'm a finnish caucasoid, and I take no credit of the great achievements of other caucasoid civilizations. I don't take credit of vikings, not the sumerians or any other ethnic or cultular group just because they descend from same stone age hunter/gatherers as I do. I'm not ashamed of my caucsoid ancestry, but the saying "proud of being white", just doesn't mean a goddamn thing to me. I could say I'm proud of being finnish but the white race is some obscure and abstract group I cannot identify with.
|
|
|
Post by MC anunnaki on Jul 24, 2005 10:28:14 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. Damn straight! ;D
|
|
Nist
Junior Member
Posts: 58
|
Post by Nist on Jul 24, 2005 12:21:58 GMT -5
The worst thing eurocentrism did, was to make everybody else so blind to their own accomplishments. "ohh, look. White people have built a cathedral. But thats OK, we can do it too" "We have writen language too"
Thats the worst thing with racists. You feel obligated to stop to their level. Thats when everything f*cks up.
Why not talk about African diplomacy and the complex ways that African society was built? Why not talk about the fact that several african soceities lived in the utopias that European ideologies tried to create (unsucsesfully). But nooooo, we have too measure wich pile of stone that are higher.
|
|
|
Post by masri on Jul 25, 2005 15:36:58 GMT -5
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". >> That citation you ripped off from racialreality's website came from Coon's older works. Later on, he took on a completely different view of Upper Egypt. I'm curious, instead on parroting people, why not reference information first-hand? Here's what Coon later said of predynastic Upper Egyptians: "Turning to Egypt, it is reasonable to suppose that the early hunters of the jungle-covered Nile Valley postulated by Oliver and Fage (see page 89) contained a strong native African genetic component, and the Neolithic farmers who settled on the open flanks of the valley to either side were Caucasoid, having come directly from Western Asia. Before the end of the predynastic time, the two elements had probably fused. This hypothesis has recently been tested by J. M. Crichton, who made a comparison of a total of 296 predynastic Egyptian, dynastic Egyptian, and Negro skulls by means of multiple discriminant analysis using thirty-four measurements, seven indices and angles, and one computer. ] This mathematical exercise indicated that the predynastic Egyptians were more like the Negroes than the dynastic Egyptians were, and that the dynastic Egyptians were more Caucasoid than their predecessors. Differences between the two sets of Egyptian skulls were more marked in the face than in the vault. The predynastic skulls have broader, flatter nasal bones and more alveolar prognathism than the dynastic skulls. The predynastic skulls have relatively flat cranial bases, as shown by the difference between the auricular and basion-bregma heights. In this sense, the predynastic skulls were more like those of Negroes. Also, the occipital bone extends higher on the back of the skulls of both predynastic Egyptians and Negroes than on dynastic Egyptians and Caucasoids in general. As Crichton did not have a large series of Bushmen skulls to use for comparison, he could not determine whether or not the African element in the predynastic Egyptian population could have been Bushmen, as suggested by R. Biasutti, rather than Negro." p. 94, The Living Races of Man Mike was right when he spoke about a fusion of two types and you were wrong. Well he says dynastic Egyptians were Caucasian- and wasn't it the dynastic Egyptians who accomplished everything?
|
|
|
Post by manabovetime on Jul 31, 2005 2:38:31 GMT -5
I read the book on "Native African Technological Accomplishments."
It's 895 pages.
All blank
;D
The idea that Black Africans had any sort of "civilization" before Whites or Orientals is funny enough to split a gut. "Great Zimbabwe" is the Negro's best hope of demonstrating native-induced civilization, and it's clearly NOT related to any of the nearby ape-men cultures. Hence, the obvious conclusion is that an outside influence, Arabs probably, engineered it.
|
|
|
Post by manabovetime on Jul 31, 2005 2:41:17 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). Strange you are using the computer to send us this message, why not stick to the bongos? Because the concept of "science" to a native Black African without the benefit of European education reaches its zenith at the 101 ways to use goat urine.
|
|
|
Post by manabovetime on Jul 31, 2005 2:46:25 GMT -5
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. Which Asians, Africans and Hispanics contributed to the invention of the computer? Wang Lee made the Chinese food, Rufus Jones emptied the trash from the offices, and Jose swabbed the toilets. After all, those are essential tasks, ya know.
|
|
|
Post by Dalmar Barre on Jul 31, 2005 3:31:13 GMT -5
I read the book on "Native African Technological Accomplishments." It's 895 pages. All blank ;D The idea that Black Africans had any sort of "civilization" before Whites or Orientals is funny enough to split a gut. "Great Zimbabwe" is the Negro's best hope of demonstrating native-induced civilization, and it's clearly NOT related to any of the nearby ape-men cultures. Hence, the obvious conclusion is that an outside influence, Arabs probably, engineered it. The obvious conclusion is that you're a dumbass who needs to remove Hitler's cock from out the mouth. Zimbabwe is unrelated to anything Arab.
|
|
|
Post by masri on Aug 1, 2005 13:02:15 GMT -5
Arabs did not build Zimbabwe, if they did, they would have stayed, which they did not. However, Zimbabwe is not impressive, certainly not as impressive as Kush or Aksum (the latter having been founded by Arabs).
|
|
|
Post by Charlie Bass on Aug 1, 2005 13:33:16 GMT -5
Arabs did not build Zimbabwe, if they did, they would have stayed, which they did not. You're correct on this, I give you credit here. Thats a matter of opinion, not fact and alot still remains to be discovered about Zimbabwe. Incorrect, Aksum was *NOT* founded by Arabs.
|
|
|
Post by Mike the Jedi on Aug 1, 2005 13:59:39 GMT -5
In this encyclopedia excerpt, it says Aksum was founded about the first century A.D.
Muslims didn't even exist at that point in time, so I doubt any Arabian migrants had anything to do with the formation of this civilization:
Aksum or Axum, Tigray region, N Ethiopia. Aksum was the capital of an empire (c.1st–8th cent. A.D.) that controlled much of what is now N Ethiopia. In the 4th cent. the emperor Ezana was converted to Christianity, and today Aksum is a major center of Ethiopian Christianity. The Ark of the Covenant is said to have been brought there from Jerusalem in Solomon's time and placed in the church of St. Mary of Zion, where Ethiopia's emperors were later crowned. The town is also noted for its gigantic carved pre-Christian obelisks.
|
|