|
Post by Said Mohammad on Jun 10, 2004 6:31:15 GMT -5
Bantu – is a group of closely related languages spoken in Africa south of an irregular linguistic boundary known as the Bantu line. From the southeastern corner of Nigeria on the Atlantic coast, this line runs roughly eastward, passing to the north of Lake Tanganyika and northeastward to the Indian Ocean on to the coast of Kenya. Most of the languages spoken in the vast area south of this boundary are classed as Bantu, a widely used word meaning “the people.” The chief exceptions, besides English and Afrikaans, are the Click languages (notably Bushmen and Hottentot ) and Malgache.
The Bantu languages were formerly regarded as constituting a separate language family, but they have been shown to be related to the languages of West Africa, and are now classed as part of one of the 15 subfamilies of a much largr Niger-Congo family. The many Bantu languages are distinct from one another and mutually unintelligible, despite their evident historical relationships.
The Bantu-speaking peoples vary considerably in physical type and culture, with marked differences in food, clothing, housing, arts and crafts, music, religion, social structure, and political organization. These differences are to be seen in comparing such groups as the Zulu and Swazi in southern Africa with the Kongo and Mbundu in Angola, the Mongo and Luba in the Congo region, or the Ganda and Nkole of Uganda, not to mention the Bantu-speaking Pygmies. The term “Bantu” is useful for linguistic classification, not for distinguishing race or designating cultural features.
Encyclopedia Americana, International Edition, 1997
You people in here can quit talking about a "Bantu"(Congoid) race.
|
|
|
Post by Said Mohammad on Jun 10, 2004 6:47:48 GMT -5
Map of Bantu migrations Movement of People: The Bantu Migrations From the beginning of human history, people have moved, or migrated, from one location to other locations.
People migrate for many reasons. For example, a particular area may experience large population growth that in turn may lead to a shortage of land. In this situation, people with little or no access to land may decide to leave their home areas in search of new areas where land is more available.
Approximately 2000 years ago a massive migration of peoples, which continued for 1500 years, began in Central Africa. This migration is sometimes called the Bantu Migration. It is given this name since it involved the movement of people whose indigenous language belonged to the same language family-the Kongo-Niger language group. Module Eight: Culture and Society in Africa will provide a more detailed discussion of African language groups. Within this language group, there is a common word for human beings: Bantu. Consequently, the Kongo-Niger language group is commonly referred to as the Bantu Language Group.
Historians are not in agreement as to why Bantu speaking peoples began to move away from their home areas in Central Africa in the contemporary countries of Cameroon, Congo and Central African Republic. Some historians think that this area experienced rapid population growth at this time that resulted in a shortage of land. Other historians point to the development of centralized kingdoms. The process of bringing people under the control of a central authority resulted in the dislocation of defeated peoples, some of whom migrated in search of autonomy. Whatever the reasons for the migration, there is more information available on the impact of these migrations on East and Southern Africa.
As illustrated on the map, from Central Africa these migrations took some people eastward into present-day Uganda, Kenya, and Tanzania. Other peoples moved to the southeast into present-day Zambia, Malawi, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, and reaching into South Africa by the 14th century C.E. Still other peoples migrated south into contemporary Gabon, Angola and Namibia.
These migrations were very important in the history of eastern, central, and southern Africa. Most of the peoples living in these regions today are decedents of these migrants or from peoples formed as a result of the integration of Bantu migrants with indigenous groups. Importantly, the migrants brought with them new skills that changed the economic, social and political practices in their new homes. Agriculture, or the growing of crops and domestication of animals, and the skill of mining and smelting metal and forging tools and weapons from copper, bronze and iron, were first introduced by the migrants. Along with these practices, the migrants brought with them new ideas of social and political organization that resulted in the development of many important kingdoms in East and Southern Africa.exploringafrica.matrix.msu.edu/curriculum/lm6/activityfive.htm
|
|
|
Post by Graeme on Jun 10, 2004 10:29:45 GMT -5
Said, languages are named after the people who speak them and those people have bodies, faces, genes and phenotypes. So for you to quote whoever as saying that Bantu is solely linguistic doesn't make it correct.
Linguists are too dumb to invent names for languages but use the national names for the language then pervert the national name to try to restrict it to language only. What stupidity and arrogance.
The Semitic languages were spoken wholly by Semites and they had bodies, faces, genes and phenotypes and still exist today, despite the acquisition of Semitic languages by foreign, alien elements like negroes. The racial component has not been expunged.
Bantu languages similarly. Bantus exist and they do not vary in type as much as you quoted. Some have San admixture, some in East Africa have mixed with Ethiopids, some in Central Africa are mixed with pygmies. So what. That does not alter the fact that Bantus are a racial group of negroes. They have not passed out of existence.
As for the spread of religions, it does not follow that large scale immigration of people from the Middle East occurred. In Zanibar the negro muslims massacred their Arab muslim overlords. Those Arabs maintained a genetic separateness from the negro population. Missionaries are but a minority and have little genetic legacy in Africa.
As usual you are drawing a very long bow with the simple opinions that comply with your agenda.
Bantus, Congoids, KhoiSan, Pygmoid, Ethiopid, Berber all still exist and the names are applicable racially. Linguists use words in peculiar ways different from the lexicon meaning of those words. Examples: morphology, prosody, structure and vocalism; that differ from the standard lexicon definition of those words. The use of national, ethnic or tribal names for languages does not extinguish the racial and sub racial origins of the speakers of those languages. That is what you want to do. Deny the Bantus their racial, ethnic, cultural and historic origins. Shame on you.
|
|
|
Post by Said Mohammad on Jun 11, 2004 1:15:04 GMT -5
I'm going to make this reply as simple as possible. Said, languages are named after the people who speak them and those people have bodies, faces, genes and phenotypes. So for you to quote whoever as saying that Bantu is solely linguistic doesn't make it correct. bantu is the name because all the languages share a relationships and all of those called Bantus linguistically have different phenotypes and genotypes, they are not one one racially speaking nor culturally, the only thing that relates them is the relationship their languages share. Look post some evidence or quit the ad-hominem, you have no qualifications to dispute them nor have you ever shown how stupid they are. You didn't read the whole article I posted did you? You can call "Bantu" languages any name you want, it does not change the fact that all those languages share a close relationship. Whenever you can't refute or disprove something you resort to the calling the people cited stupid and arrogant. Why don't you admit you're the one thats stupid and arrogant. Semitic is purely a linguistic term and you even admitted yourself in another thread, so no, thjere is no 'Semitic' race or phenotype. The exact home of proto-Semitic is still not known though scholars are now advocating Africa. Read: Arabic
Background and history
Arabic belongs to the Semitic language family. The members of this family have a recorded history going bak thousands of years--one of the most extensive continuous archives of documents belonging to any human language group. The Semitic languages eventually took root and flourished in the Mediterranean Basin area, especially in the Tigris-Euphrates river basin and in the coastal areas of the Levant, but where the home of area of "proto-Semitic" was located is still the object of dispute among scholars, Once, the Arabian Peninsula was thought to have been the "cradle" of proto-Semitic, but nowadays many scholars advocate the view that it originated somewhere in East Africa, probably in the area of Somalia/Ethiopia. Interestingly, both these areas are now dominated lingustically by the two youngest members of the Semitic language family: Arabic and Amharic, both of which emerged in the mid-fourth century C.E. www.indiana.edu/~arabic/arabic_history.htm They do vary in phenotype dumbass and when have they ever mixed with "Ethiopids"(non-existent race)? Look at the bantu migration maps, where do they even touch Ethiopia? They are not a racial group and believe what I cited over your blabber mouth. Look at this unmixed Bantu speaker This man is an Bantu linguistically, but he is an African of the elongated tropical African type. So sey, Bantus do vary and are not one type. There was no large scale immigartion from the Middle East, Arabs were for the most part limited to the coast and those Arabs in Zanzibar aren't pure. It wasn't about Negro muslim vs,. Arab muslim The rest of your is ad-hominem nonsense As usual you are drawing a very long bow with the simple opinions that comply with your agenda.
Bantus, Congoids, KhoiSan, Pygmoid, Ethiopid, Berber all still exist and the names are applicable racially. Linguists use words in peculiar ways different from the lexicon meaning of those words. Examples: morphology, prosody, structure and vocalism; that differ from the standard lexicon definition of those words. The use of national, ethnic or tribal names for languages does not extinguish the racial and sub racial origins of the speakers of those languages. That is what you want to do. Deny the Bantus their racial, ethnic, cultural and historic origins. Shame on you.
|
|
|
Post by Graeme on Jun 11, 2004 10:39:36 GMT -5
That man is obviously a Tutsi. They are nilotids who conquered the Bantu speaking Hutu and took their language. It is obvious that you are an American creole who does not know much about Africa. You don't know a Tutsi from a Hutu. Tropical African or congoid he is not. Go back to school, graduate and go to college. Study the differences between various Africans: Egyptians, Moroccans, other North Africans, Somalis, Ethiopians, Eritereans, Kikuyus, Masai, Tutsi, Hutu - they are nothing like your mob of congoids, west African negroes. Also GO TO AFRICA. You are totally ignorant and get biased information from dubious or disreputable sources. Bantus are the negro inhabitants of Zambia, Zimbabwe, Malawi, Botswana, South Africa and Namibia. And they don't look like Tutsis from Burundi or Rwanda. Congoids do not look anything like Tutsis. And racially Tutsis are not Bantus just as you speak English and are not English. The Tutsis are not native to where they live and did not migrate from Central Africa.
Is that the "evidence" you use. A Tutsi, a Nilotid passed off as a Congoid from Central Africa. You are one sick puppy.
|
|
|
Post by Said Mohammad on Jun 11, 2004 12:14:11 GMT -5
That man is obviously a Tutsi. They are nilotids who conquered the Bantu speaking Hutu and took their language. It is obvious that you are an American creole who does not know much about Africa. You don't know a Tutsi from a Hutu. Tropical African or congoid he is not. Go back to school, graduate and go to college. Study the differences between various Africans: Egyptians, Moroccans, other North Africans, Somalis, Ethiopians, Eritereans, Kikuyus, Masai, Tutsi, Hutu - they are nothing like your mob of congoids, west African negroes. Also GO TO AFRICA. You are totally ignorant and get biased information from dubious or disreputable sources. Bantus are the negro inhabitants of Zambia, Zimbabwe, Malawi, Botswana, South Africa and Namibia. And they don't look like Tutsis from Burundi or Rwanda. Congoids do not look anything like Tutsis. And racially Tutsis are not Bantus just as you speak English and are not English. The Tutsis are not native to where they live and did not migrate from Central Africa. Is that the "evidence" you use. A Tutsi, a Nilotid passed off as a Congoid from Central Africa. You are one sick puppy. Stupid, Hutus and Tutsis are the same people idiot, the distinction came only after European colonialism. You know nothing lok at your dumbass: Egyptians, Moroccans, other North Africans, Somalis, Ethiopians, Eritereans(Afrasian speakers, all of those), Kikuyus(Bantu speakers), Masai(Nilo-Saharan), Tutsi(Bantu), Hutu(Bantu). I never passed off an elongated African as a "Congoid"(meaningless word in anthroplogy), I posted his pic to show that Bantu speakers are phenotypically diverse you idiot. Bitch, I've been to Africa to my home xountry of ancestry, Nigeria, carry your ass to Africa and you will see that Bantu speaking people are phenotypically diverse, this has nothing to do with "Congoids" you dumbass.
|
|
|
Post by Igu on Jun 11, 2004 14:54:34 GMT -5
you know what one feels when he reads your posts? you don't accept the fact that there is a presence of other races in africa. you want 100% pure juice africans...preferably 100% negroid.
I've read that you consider ethiopians as belonging to "your people", first which people are you speaking about? black people? that's just a race not a people,
second, I'm african (caucasoid) and i don't consider you of my people (it's not race, a negroid tergui belongs to my people), i'm also "orientalid" but neither a saoudian nor a hebrew does belong to my people. My people are berbers. Do you understand what is A PEOPLE?
I don't know about you, but there's something I hate in black americans, they consider themeselves as a people, for me they are not. their ancestors were victims yes, but nothing more. a people is made of a language and a culture, black americans don't have that, and obvioulsly they have nothing to do with negroid-africans.
Another thing I want to tell you, you want to change "caucasoid" and "negroid" to ...! that's really dared! science has history, old sientists worked hard and science respects their work, it keeps their terminology and it's mervellous to see that many scientific words are actually wrong but are still used there's something human in it!
Berber comes from the word barbarian, my people are not sauvage, they don't eat humans but my people use this word to call themselves in other languages without rancour, this is the magic of words..
Personally, I think that you want to change these names because you just don't like the existance of caucasoids in north africa, nor the caucasoid influence in many parts of subsaharian africa (the contrary is right also, but this you like it! hein?),
I feel in you only resentment, jealousy.. and racism.
First it was arabs who wanted to erase us from the map and from History, now it comes from the back (where we never expect it): blacks (afrocentrists)!
|
|
|
Post by Said Mohammad on Jun 12, 2004 0:18:27 GMT -5
you know what one feels when he reads your posts? you don't accept the fact that there is a presence of other races in africa. you want 100% pure juice africans...preferably 100% negroid. Read my posts, this has nothing to do with me wanting people to be 100% pure Negroid because there are not pure races on the planet period. I never said there wasn't other races in Africa, but I don't accept lame outdated refuted labels like "Ethiopid", "Congoid", and "Nilotid", modern anthropologists don't use these terms, the only place I see is on forums like this one and Skadi. Hell, I even reject the term Negroid and use tropical African, because those that are thought to be "Negroid" are raely ever possessing all the traits associated with being "Negroid". You people here are thick skulled and simplistic in your thinking by acting as if races don't have traits that overlap with each other. An overlapping traits is not always reason to make up categories like "Nilotid" and Ethiopid. Ethiopians are tropical Africans and black people just as I am and are also Afrasian speakers just as I am, the only people with any such mixture are the Amhara. Berbers(Amazigh is what they call themselves) are a heterogenous people of many different phenotypes from Proto-Midean to tropical African looking. I'm African myself through my two parents and unlike you I have no malice towards other Africans and have no allowed myself to get up in racial politics of trying to distinguish myself from this person and that person. I consider all Africans as unique in alot of ways but nonetheless Africans, a diverse people. How many black Americans have you been around or know? They{we are a people with a culture and are not just victims. If this was said 100 years ago I would believe you as far as the victim part, but as far as language and culture, especially culture, we have that. We/They have plenty to do with Africa, thats who we are and they were cut off from. You have no problem with white Americans praising Greeks and Romans but blacks have no culture? BS!!!!!!!!! their ancestors were victims yes, but nothing more. a people is made of a language and a culture, black americans don't have that, and obvioulsly they have nothing to do with negroid-africans.Using your logic Berbers have no culture for most North Africans believe themselves to be Arabs which they are not and in fact they have only token Arab blood. There are a few that still have preserved theold Berber culture but most see themselves as Arab and even detest being identified as Berber so don't tell me jack about African-Americans who take pride in Africa.
|
|
|
Post by Vitor on Jun 12, 2004 1:24:41 GMT -5
there is not such thing as pure race... Here I agree with you! But berbers are not black africans...IF they are, then there is no such thing as white race, or even mongolian race for that matter... The majority of western europeans have a berber ancestor. believe it or not, the Rhesus negative people came from the marrocan atlas mountains, and spread thoughout europe. This people from the atlas is allmoust all RH negative. 40% of western europeans is carrying this gene (a recessive gene most europeans are still positive but 40% carry this gene, 15% are negative), some africans do also, but there are very few sub-saharan with it. the mutation ocured somewhere in marrocos, and jumped into Iberia and from here to all europe. Of course might be the other way around, from Iberia to marrocos, nevertheless the high volume of RH negative in atlas is proof enough this mutation don't come from sub-sahara region...because europeans also have that... so regartheless the prespective berbers are White! This only happened 10k-12k years ago more or less, not that time ago! btw I am RH negative! Your perspective is simple... there is no race at all. and we are all tropical africans !
|
|
|
Post by Vitor on Jun 12, 2004 1:34:58 GMT -5
A black african from the west is a lot different from another one in the east (let we classify that difference with a number...10)
If we compare northern africans-chinese-japanese-europeans-american natives that difference would be less than 1/5 of that genetic comparation with those africans...
You might think that all are black and thus all belong to the same race, skin is not the only thing race related, there are even internal differences!
|
|
|
Post by Said Mohammad on Jun 12, 2004 1:56:10 GMT -5
A black african from the west is a lot different from another one in the east (let we classify that difference with a number...10) If we compare northern africans-chinese-japanese-europeans-american natives that difference would be less than 1/5 of that genetic comparation with those africans... You might think that all are black and thus all belong to the same race, skin is not the only thing race related, there are even internal differences! I think you're misunderstanding the meaning of genetic differences versus racial difference. It is well known that Africans differ among each other slightly more that Africans from non-Africans, in SOME cases. because an east African group has a genetic difference from a west African doesn't mean racial difference, anthropologically speaking. I do see your point and you are correct. You have both east and west Africans who share more than just skin color; some have thin noses and thin lips and different hair textures. Racially speaking East and west Africans are phenotypically closer to each other than souithern Arabs are to Europeans.
|
|
|
Post by Vitor on Jun 12, 2004 2:04:05 GMT -5
genetic is RACE. more genetic diferentiation and we get a new species!
|
|
|
Post by deuceswild on Jun 12, 2004 2:14:48 GMT -5
Maybe I'm wrong, but don't the Basques have the highest incidence of RH-?
|
|
|
Post by Said Mohammad on Jun 12, 2004 2:16:50 GMT -5
genetic is RACE. more genetic diferentiation and we get a new species! Genetic isn't race. How else do you explain Melenesians and Black Africans? they look alike but are the fartherest apart genetically.
|
|
|
Post by Vitor on Jun 12, 2004 2:17:01 GMT -5
there are even higher values in the atlas.
but that might be only because of "better" isolation...and this mutation might had ocured in Iberia.
|
|