civilizations in Africa.

[Nist]

www.wsu.edu/~dee/CIVAFRCA/CIVAFRCA.HTM

Interesting.

[Mike the Jedi]

Good link.

[mmmkay]

LOL, some people seem to forget there actually were civilizations in african, even more shamefully, the people here (who seem half-way intelligent) forget that on a very often basis, thats why I had to outline it in another thread.

[masri]

Of course its premier featured civilization is Egypt

[Ponto Hardbottle]

It is a very basic link to civilizations within continental Africa. It is also very biased. Some of those civilizations are less native and homegrown than others and have more effects of outsiders than others. The liberation of learning started by contact with Islamic learning is downplayed as is the civilizations of the South Asian area on both Axum and Swahili.
Not an impressive piece of scholarship.

[Nist]

holyjesus said:

It is a very basic link to civilizations within continental Africa. It is also very biased. Some of those civilizations are less native and homegrown than others and have more effects of outsiders than others. The liberation of learning started by contact with Islamic learning is downplayed as is the civilizations of the South Asian area on both Axum and Swahili.
Not an impressive piece of scholarship.

www.white-history.com/

Happy now.

[Ilmatar]

holyjesus said:

It is a very basic link to civilizations within continental Africa. It is also very biased. Some of those civilizations are less native and homegrown than others and have more effects of outsiders than others. The liberation of learning started by contact with Islamic learning is downplayed as is the civilizations of the South Asian area on both Axum and Swahili.
Not an impressive piece of scholarship.

So now you have a degree in Cultural History too ?

I'm not going to either confirm or deny the Academic validity of these articles, I simply don't know enaugh of the
African civilizations to do so (there are very few Afrocentrists at the Cultural History Department I got my degree from ).

However, I seem to understand that in you have a cultural hiararchy, where so-called "homegrown" cultures are held in bigger respect than the so-called "imported" cultures. Your view might actually make some sense from the point of view of a natural scientist that you are, but not so much from the Cultural Studies point of view.

First of all, no scholar of the field would ever claim that there is such a thing as a fully indigenious culture. They view culture as something mutable, subjected to outside innovations and influences.

Second, the fact that a culture absorb these influences doesn't make it any less interesting or valuable in the eyes of a serious Cultural scholar. Actually the way people in different parts of world have assorbed these influences is the main object of study for many scholar.

Third, most scholars refute the idea of forming cultural hierarchies. Only the "centrists" do so, and they are called that by the rest of the scholars in the field excactly for
that reason. Therefore there are people studying the African Cultures or Islamic World who definitely can't be labelled as "centrists". Viceversa there really still are scholars who can be called "Eurocentrists" with a very good reason.

[mmmkay]

holyjesus said:

It is a very basic link to civilizations within continental Africa. It is also very biased. Some of those civilizations are less native and homegrown than others and have more effects of outsiders than others. The liberation of learning started by contact with Islamic learning is downplayed as is the civilizations of the South Asian area on both Axum and Swahili.
Not an impressive piece of scholarship.

Yes, it is your intention im sure to discredit their SSA qualities, and replace it with west asian influence, so as to claim it within the "caucasoid" sphere of civilization, which is just stupid. The swahili cities were not arab colonies, but yes they did receive large influences from west asia.

What you don't understand is that diffusion is a natural part of how the most important civilizations in history develop, even native american cultures like the aztecs received diffussed ideas from earlier periods. Mighty civilizations can develope as a result of outside influences ans sometimes do greater than those they were influenced by. Japan is an excellent example. You have to respect that. Greece is another one, albeit less talked about example. ;D

[phrost]

Heres something on Zimbabwe/Rhodesia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Zimbabwe

[Nist]

xenohistorian.faithweb.com/africa/index.html

Kinda the same thing. But a more stable link.

[dukeofpain]

nist said:

www.wsu.edu/~dee/CIVAFRCA/CIVAFRCA.HTM

Interesting.

It links to a page with the Title "civilizations in Africa", with nothing else, at first, I thought it was a joke.