HBD (human biodiversity) is the sort of scientific racism that Steve Sailer, J. Philippe Rushton, Half Sigma, Guy White and others believe in. They think they fearlessly follow the truths of science wherever they may lead, that their beliefs flow from it by sweet reason – “data, not doctrine”, as one of them put it. But it is just not so.
First, HBD is pseudoscience.
When I read all I can about something in science or history or when I see a new city or country, I am always surprised because things are never quite as you expect. You learn new things, your understanding of the world becomes a bit truer and deeper.
For example, until I saw New York I had no idea that it was so poor – or that Miami was so new, Atlanta so cold, Houston so Mexican or Disneyland so old.
But HBD is not like that. Everything is just as you expect: blacks turn out to be everything white people say they are: more given to crime and sex, less given to intelligence and learning, etc. Instead of deepening our understanding of black people, they remain the same old cardboard cut-outs they ever were.
True science would find surprises, it would challenge old ideas, it would deepen our understanding. HBD does none of that – it merely puts a fresh coat of paint of long words on ideas that go back to the slave owners and slave traders of the 1700s.
Black people compared to white people according to:
- Thomas Jefferson in 1787: less intelligence, more sex drive, more likely to break the law, good self-control
- J. Philippe Rushton in 1995: less intelligence, more sex drive, more likely to break the law, less self-control
The main difference is that Rushtonian blacks have less self-control and more “aggressiveness”. But even that was not some new discovery made by science: it goes back to the 1870s when White Americans began to fear the newly freed blacks, blacks who were no longer slaves, blacks who were no longer under white “control”. It became the excuse for Jim Crow laws and Klan terror. And, in Rushton’s 1990s, to build prisons like mad and lock up black men in record numbers.
The same goes for HBD findings that Asians have more intelligence. Again, it falls right in line with the current White American racist stereotypes – which are themselves partly a side effect of immigration laws that favour Asian doctors, engineers and university students.
Second, they do not fearlessly follow the truths of HBD.
For example, they like to complain about Mexicans coming to America and blacks being favoured by affirmative action. Which are reasonable positions for HBDers to take since they believe blacks and Mexicans have less intelligence. But for the very same reason they should also be complaining just as forcefully about the limits on Asian immigration and how top universities practise affirmative action in favour of whites over Asians!
HBD is just naked white self-interest dressed up as science.
See also:
HBD also makes foolish and non-scientific observations such as there is one gigantic “White Race” of people who all act, more or less, the same way, and have the same basic potential for intelligence. They also believe there is one huge “Black Race” who are pretty much a single genetic people.
Of course, even the most cursory googling on the subject of African genetic diversity will show you that African peoples have extremely diverse and divergent genetic makeups. They cannot possible all be guided by the same “dumb gene” or the same “violence gene,” or “fast running gene.” Yet the HBD dummies treat all Sub-Saharan Africans if they are a single genetic race.
The reason for this is because Sub-Saharan Africans have
– Dark Skin
– Type 4 or sometimes Type 3 hair
So to HBD White people, they all look alike! It doesn’t matter if they have a variety of different features, or if groups have different average heights, have reached different levels of civilization, and self-identify as different peoples. Not to mention that they’re tested and found to be genetically quite different. NO! Blacks are all ONE race, not two, or five, or twenty Black races. And why? Because in order for HBD mumbo jumbo to really work, it requires a genetically homogenous race of Blacks who all share roughly the same DNA so that none of them make good quarterbacks.
And how about “White people?” They are certainly less genetically diverse than Blacks, but they obviously have genetic variance between say… Scandinavians and Italians or Anglo Saxons and Spaniards… but evidently, those genetic differences are somehow never linked to intelligence. No HBDer wants to theorize on which group of White people are the least intelligent. That is only used for talking about minorities.
Who are the genetically dumber and disadvantaged Whites (comparatively)? If there is enough genetic difference to have different hair color, eye color and different average height, then why not intelligence?
The answer is because this is not science, it’s politics—and to ask that question does not serve the political goals of racist Whites. They don’t want to face the idea that THEY might belong to the dumbest group of White people in their little hierarchy, so they theorize that “Whiteness” simply makes all Whites just as capable, and all Blacks equally disadvantaged.
LikeLike
@king: well, they would like to talk about how the slavs and the jews are worse than other whites and how the germanic mensch are supreme but the time is not yet right. There are too many memories of Hitler around, but once these start to fade away, you will see this talk return magically. 😀
For me the funniest part of these guys is this: they really believe that there are different races of humans. It does not matter how many times you tell them that see, once the neaderthals disappeared, only one race remained and that is us. They just do not get it. Or more likely, they do not want to get it. That ruins it all. 😀
And if you think Africa and how many different ethnic groups and linguistic groups there are, then phwew! Oh boy, have these HBD guys some explaining to do. A bushman from Namibian desert, ethiopian guy from Adis Abeba and tuareg from Mali and nigerian guy from Lagos are very very different from each other. Comparing them is like comparing canadian from Edmonton to a mexican dude from Yucatan. But somehow these numbnuts manage to put them all into one big “race”. 😀
LikeLike
Well, the Ashkenazi Jews are always smarter than the rest of the Whites, but you see they aren’t REALLY White! A European Jew is still a freakin’ Jew, not a Whiter person!!! Besides, they are wily and deceptive and always plotting to control the world. They control ALL the media outlets!! They are like smart Gypsies who stay in one place.
“For me the funniest part of these guys is this: they really believe that there are different races of humans.”
True, and I am using “race” as ethnicity above. But they really believe that they belong to a different race than Blacks, Jews or Chinese.
LikeLike
I think the point behind this post is pretty good, however I would like to modify some of the language.
True science is not based solely on challenging old ideas or in surprises. Sometimes the discoveries of science fall into line with current knowledge, or sometimes they are not so surprising. Science does not have to be any of these things to remain scientific.
This isn’t to say that HBD should be considered science, because let’s face it, it obviously isn’t. HBD is pseudoscience because it privileges bias as fact and rejects contradictory data as outliers or lies.
But this is to say that “science” is not necessarily so revolutionary as it might seem from the post. Science can be revolutionary, if used that way, but to call something “true science” because it follows certain labels or opinions is a little dishonest.
LikeLike
No HBDer wants to theorize on which group of White people are the least intelligent.
Oh, sure they do. Vox Day says Catholics are dummer than Protestants, and that the mass-immigration of Catholics destroyed the fabric of American culture. I suppose that means that black Catholics are extra-dumb and mexican Catholics are extra-foreign. Or something.
The main problem I see with HBD is that it seems rather pointless. Even if you could identify which ethnicity was the smartest, what good would that do you? It wouldn’t make sense to say, “Black people are too stupid (or ugly, or criminal, etc.) to live here, so we have to kick them out.” If IQ were the measure, you would end up kicking out many highly intelligent black people and keeping many stupid white people. If beauty were the measure, you would end up kicking out many good-looking black people and keeping many ugly white people.
The racist goal is transparent because otherwise the exercise would be a complete waste of time. There is too much individual variation within each group to make such group categorizations useful. I would have more respect for them if they just dropped the pseudo-scientific charade and said, “We don’t like anybody who doesn’t look like us.” At least that would be true.
LikeLiked by 1 person
We’ve learned a lot about pseudoscience at the university. It was archaeology-related, but it can work for any pseudoscience out there.
Discussing it and learning about it is important, because pseudoscience is really dangerous. It is made to appeal to people, and it does, so it has a huge influence and power. Its power is often stronger than the one of the regular science.
So it is very important to know how to tell the difference between the two, and to know common pseudoscientific mechanisms (there are a few that pseudoscientists often use).
Maybe you should do a post on it, Abagond.
LikeLike
It’s funny how these people actually believe this crap is gold
LikeLike
I think Abagond is spot on that there is never an element of surprise in pseudoscientific “research”. The point is that they deliberately ignore exceptions, trivialise them or deviate them into the direction they need them to reinforce their claims. Serious scientists love surprises. Pseudoscientists loathe them.
Pseudoscientists attempt to make the invisible visible the way they see it. They seek to confirm a preconceived notion. They categorically repel any refutation made by serious scientists who look at hypotheses through scientific glasses without ideological bias. Instead of going back to the drawing board and fine-tune their “research” by considering the arguments brought forward in the refutations, the pseudos make any effort to seek further confirmation among ideologically like-minded from all sorts of disciplines. They then complexify the issue (not least to stuff the holes in their argumentation) by stitching together a patchwork of seemingly plausible, but unproven theories to make one big “theory of everything”. That’s where the circle “miraculously” closes. Their explanation of everything is congruent with the preconceived notion.
It has been shown over and over again that pseudoscientists manipulate data, refer to questionable sources and use dodgy methodologies to make the data fit their ideology.
The pseudos also tend to resort to political and personal mud slinging and raising the moralistic finger when challenged. Their publications also always contain suggestive rhetoric, strategically placed to divert from the subject when their arguments hold the least water. They place high bets on the audience’s preconceived notions, populism, belief system and allegedly intuitive circumstantial evidence. And not least, on their malleability.
Clear attempts at manipulation, that is.
A serious scientist will look forward to counter argumentation or contradictory observations from other scientists after making a claim. That’s what propels science closer to a plausible result, perfectly aware of the fact that they might never find it. Pseudoscientists however will make every effort to circumvent counter arguments, resort to bombast or diversion, always sternly remaining on their initial hypothesis.
LikeLike
Mira:
A post on pseudoscience is an excellent idea. Do you know of any good books or websites on it? How good is the Wikipedia article? What are the main points the post should hit? Do you want to do a guest post on it? You can email me the info if you want.
LikeLike
Zek:
I agree that science is not always what makes the headlines or the history books. Most scientists are not Darwins or Einsteins. But HBD is so far from being a science that it is not even a true field of knowledge. And you can tell because there is no surprise factor. Instead it is a political argument dressed up as science. It would be like putting a dress on me and calling me a woman.
LikeLike
I am by no means scientifically knowledgeable, however, I know a load of bollocks when I see and read it. To me, this ideology (that is what it is), is akin to skin cream that claims to take ’50 years off of your appearance’. I’m being facetious, but you get the drift. I don’t know what actually goes into skin cream, but I know that these claims are false. This HBD thingy reminds me of these false, oftentimes hilarious claims made by the cosmetic companies. Anywho, “There’s a sucker born every minute”. This HBD thing, is a glaring example of this. At least with the skin cream, you have something tangible to hold in your hand, and if you believe the hype will make you feel good, albeit temporarily, for those who purchase these creams. The HBD makes some people feel good, all in all, a bad marketing strategy if you are trying to sell a product.
I found this PDF article prepared by a faculty member at the Simon Fraser University:
Click to access beyerstein_cience_vs_pseudoscience.pdf
LikeLike
Good comment Femi!
LikeLike
I’m sorry but I think that HBD is essentially correct. Maybe not correct to the tenth decimal, which appears to be the burden of proof in the liberal world, but providing a correct description of reality. The problem is that if HBD is insufficiently based on facts as you propose , the equality theory not only lacks any facts supporting it but is essentially based on emotional considerations alone and clearly contradicted by the reality of the world around us.
If you weigh HBD and egalitarianism you see that while one offers a logically coherent explanation of social structures and problems backed by at least a modicum of evidence, the other offers nothing but dogmatic pronunciations, more similar to a religion with saints, sinners, primordial sin, redemption and other such things and completely riddled with logic holes. Race theory in part of the liberals is treated more like theological debates in the middle ages , preoccupied not with truth but with the establishment of moral high-ground and the scoring of victimhood points
Egalitarians want to show the cracks in HBD but ignore the craters in PC dogma.
LikeLike
dav, you’ve been in the HBD Cool Aid again.
Anti-racists are not saying that everyone is the same. It’s clear that different cultures around the world define and express themselves quite differently. And yes, some are more complex, and even more scientifically advanced than others.
All Anti-racists are saying is that these differences are not initiated on the genetic level, and neatly distributed along traditional “racial” categories.
Capiche?
LikeLike
HBD doesn’t say that cultural differences are hardwired, but that certain trends will make themselves apparent on large scale samplings. And it also doesn’t say that races are completely separated as you seem to imply. Races overlap partially but are still distinctive enough to to recognizable statistically.
LikeLike
Well, it really depends on which HBD preacher you’re listening to, and at what point. HBD is an evolving religion.
But I’ll allow you define your own belief.
Races overlap partially
Really, how many races are there?
Where do they overlap?
LikeLike
Really, how many races are there?
Millions, if you get into who is 3/4 this, 10% of that, etc etc ad nauseum!
LikeLike
@ Hernieth
Lol! Not to mention the African genetic diversity
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/1859/out-africa-human-odyssey-traced-detail
But, of course it’s just one big race with roughly the same characteristics.
LikeLike
So scientific findings have to be surprising? News to me. That seems to be your entire argument. Some “take-down”.
LikeLike
Dr. Grzlickson:
No, scientific findings do not always have to be surprising. I answered Zek on that point here:
LikeLike
If anyone’s seen The Real Eve (a documentary from the early 2000s), it says there that Africans are actually more genetically diverse than Europeans, which makes sense:
According to the documentary, a “small” group of Africans crossed whichever sea it is to Yemen from north Africa. The ancestors from that group went to Malaysia and central/southwestern Asia–extending to Australia, New Zealand and such. Later, they went to Germany and encountered the Neandrathals. “Soon after”, the Neandrathals died away, and we were one race of people. Those people extended west until Europe was covered. Far east Asia was connected to North America by the Bering(ia?) Strait, and when people crossed it, the entire world was populated. Because these migrations happened over thousands of years, people had more time to settle their genetic lines had less variation, even if there were still some differences. Back in Africa, however, different clumps of people were moving to different areas all the time (and when I say areas, I mean different parts of one huge section of Africa), and their genetic lines began to show more differences, which only increased when people moved further down and out to the west of Africa.
I hope you guys get this; it’s convoluted and doesn’t really make a lot of sense (and I apologize in advance for any misspellings of country names), but I saw this during the first quarter of the school year, and in my defense, I’ve had so much stuff crammed into my head that I can’t remember it as well as I used to. Sorry, guys, but if you find the documentary, watch it, hopefully with this comment in mind.
LikeLike
I like how everyone is trying to blur the line between races now. When black people want something from society the racial line is clear enough.
LikeLike
I like how everyone is trying to blur the line between races now. When black people want something from society the racial line is clear enough.
Why not? It has worked for the white man for centuries when oppressing and dehumanizing others.
LikeLike
@ Grzlickson
Exactly how many races are there?
LikeLike
Hey great posts =D!, i recently started reading about IQ’s and all i personally think they only set limits , they also do not seem to show everyones full potential. For example there are different types of intelligence levels (artists,musical,maths…literature..social [these are all different types of factors that show intelligence), IQ tests do not show us everything. Im not a fan of them as they divide people.
LikeLike
What are the “races”, purely genetically speaking? What are the genetically significant points where they don’t overlap? Where precisely does nature draw the lines? Those are the claims to be proven. Genetically, that is. Not statistically and even less so according to arbitrary human decisions.
Like dav did?
LikeLike
😀 This is getting even funnier I toughed!
@ dav: show me a one scientist that agrees that there are more than one human race.
@Dr. Grzlickson: show me a one scientist that agrees that there is more than one human race.
And then I’ll show you a racist. 😀
C’mon, guys! What are you babbling? Stand tall and be proud to be white. Don’t blabber this nonesense, do not try to veil your race beliefs in this “scientific” BS. Be honest! Be men! Be openly racist! 😀
The KKK does not need this HBD crap. All it needs is a burning cross, stylish clothes and few kegs of beer and it can say the same thing as you guys, but more openly and honestly. 😀
This is getting so hilarious and embarassaning :D!
LikeLike
@ Herneith:
Thanks for the link on pseudoscience.
LikeLike
Yes Abagond, you should follow Mira’s advice and do some posts on what Eurocentric archaologists consider archaeological pseudoscience. If you have the time. I would be particularly interested in these topics:
Black Moors who conquered Spain: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8M1ey6U5io
Olmecs:
Black Egypt
Blacks in Greece:
It would be interesting to hear about black civilizations as well.
God knows if you have the time for this, but it would very fascinating.
LikeLike
Abagond,
I will email you about the details as soon as I find some free time (in the next day or two, I hope). Like I said, I think this is very important.
As for the black civilizations in Europe and other similar things, yes, some of it is pseudoscience. (First and foremost, it’s because race is a cultural construct that simply didn’t exist back in the days; using words such as “white” or “black” civilization to refer to people who lived many hundreds or thousands years ago is anachronistic.)
It’s important to note that pseudoscience doesn’t mean “something we don’t agree with”. Nor is another word for “rubbish”. Real science can be wrong, and pseudoscience can have some truth into it.
What makes a principal difference between science and pseudoscience is the scientific method that pseudoscientists don’t use. Carefully forming a hypothesis, and testing it, and analyzing results, and interpretating the data… It’s the stuff pseudoscientists simply don’t use.
They use stuff like “common sense” and coleration to prove their stories, and it’s not the right way to go.
Another important thing to note about pseudoscience is that is always serves a certain ideology; it is created specifically to illustrate and “prove” that ideology, as well as making more people believe in it.
Real science is not completely free from ideology; after all, scientists are humans, and humans are unable to be completely objective. However, real science doesn’t serve simply as a tool to proove certain ideology, while with pseudoscience, it’s ALWAYS the case.
LikeLike
This post doesn’t actually deligitimize HBD in any way. A lot of these comments are trying to attack straw men arguments, too.
LikeLike
@ Jam
A one sentence response saying that all of the criticisms so far are straw men… guess why that isn’t impressive?
LikeLike
I thought they feared black riots and massacres like what happened in Haiti and the slave revolts in the South. They were bringing in quite a few slaves (either through birth or ship) and that would put them in a very difficult position.
LikeLike
“Herneith
I like how everyone is trying to blur the line between races now. When black people want something from society the racial line is clear enough.
Why not? It has worked for the white man for centuries when oppressing and dehumanizing others.”
I love cute comments like this. As if White people are the only ones to oppress and dehumanize others.
What’s the difference between European cultures and non-European cultures? The Europeans wrote about a lot of their exploits and weren’t afraid to mention things that made them look bad. I guess you follow that tradition of self-criticism all the way back to the ancient Greeks. We don’t hear about the bad deeds of non-European cultures quite a bit, but we see them every day in current events.
LikeLike
@snowgirl
Here is a small selection of non-Europeans reporting about “bad deeds of non-European cultures”.
Al Jazeera (Qatar)
The Sunday Leader (Sri Lanka)
Le Messager (Cameroun)
The Times of India
Pakistan News
Kompas (Indonesia)
allafrica.com
There are many more.
Anyway, what does it have to do with HBD?
LikeLike
@femi: 😀
Yes, and when you read some of the eye witness reports and biographies of some non-european guys, if you really read them, you get the picture. Like, Tshingis Khan or Attila the Hun from the old come to mind, or even some african guys, Muhammed and arabs, mexican revolution heros etc. It is hard to see how these depict those guys only in “positive light” if the reader has any brains.
LikeLike
snowgirl,
What’s the difference between European cultures and non-European cultures?
The difference? It’s the way WE, NOW perceive them to be, either European or non-European. Ancient Greece, for example, wasn’t an European culture, because Europe as a concept didn’t exist back then. It’s our perception of them that makes them European culture.
LikeLike
Racism – A History (Fatal Impacts) part 1 of 6
A Savage Legacy 2/7
LikeLike
Racism – A History (Fatal Impacts) part 1 of 6
LikeLike
I love cute comments like this. As if White people are the only ones to oppress and dehumanize others.
I thought it was swell, not cute. I was responding to another poster(Dr. Grzlickson) who asked a question. As someone else asked above, what’s that go to do with HBD? Nothing, next.
LikeLike
@Maria
I really have to wonder sometimes when I read statements like this:
Your displaying a patronizing arrogance when you make comments like these; a distinct lack of knowledge of Ancient Black civilizations; and a total disregard of the works of respected academic scientists like: Professors Ivan van Sertima or Cheikh Anta Diop
Are the works of people like this really what you are referring to as pseudoscience???
I think you should take another look at some of those links posted by GoldFire.
LikeLike
Kwamla,
It was my quote, not Maria’s.
As for pseudoscience, yes, some of i (Sertima’s work) is pseudoscience. The whole idea behind hyperdiffusionism can easily strand into pseudoscience. Look just what n.azis did back in the days.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustaf_Kossinna
Please note that what makes pseudoscience is not that it’s necessarily “fake” or untrue; it simply means the conclusions were not built using proper scientific method.
LikeLike
Mira said:
“I will email you about the details as soon as I find some free time (in the next day or two, I hope). Like I said, I think this is very important”
Thank you. I look forward to it.
LikeLike
@Mari.
My apologies Mira. It was you I was quoting.
If I am to understand you correctly. What you are saying, in the case of Professors Ivan van Sertima, is that his work falls into the same category as the German Nazi, Professor Gustaf Kossinna…
And this is what you are classifying as pseudo science?
Perhaps you would like to “enlighten” me on what aspect of Sertima’s work you believe deserves this categorization?
Professor Ivan van Sertima
http://www.journalofafricancivilizations.com/page/9048
LikeLike
LikeLike
Oops lol, the above youtube vid is in response to Mira’s post regarding the statment:
“Please note that what makes pseudoscience is not that it’s necessarily “fake” or untrue; it simply means the conclusions were not built using proper scientific method.”
LikeLike
Kwamla,
What you are saying, in the case of Professors Ivan van Sertima, is that his work falls into the same category as the German Nazi, Professor Gustaf Kossinna.
It has some similar way of thinking. First line of thinking is, if one group has a distinctive material culture, wherever you find similar material culture, it belongs to them. In case of pyramids, for example, if Egyptians were those who built it, any pyramidal building anywhere in the world must also be made by Egyptians, and is an evidence that Egyptians were there. This is a logical fallacy. It doesn’t work that way.
Second line of thinking is: obvious is objective. (Meaning: if I find something to be obvious, it’s really like that, and not just my subjective opinion on it). For example, if I find a sculpture to look like a black man, it’s has to be a black man… I mean, it’s obvious, isn’t it? Another logical fallacy: art doesn’t work that way. Artists don’t always present realistic portrayal of humans. Take ancient Egypt, for example. Judging by their art, you could say it’s “obvious” there were only interracial relationships in Egypt, because all women are much lighter skinned than the men.
Third line of thinking: civilization and knowledge had one source, only one, and from there it spread all over the world (hyperdiffusionism). This is a factual error in thinking, but the implications are even worse: it implies that those that were at the source are somehow superior to the rest. Kossina argued, for example, that everything came from (surprise, surprise) Germanic peoples.
All of these ways of thinking are proved to be wrong. Scientific conclusions can’t be built that way. It’s simply not the right way to do it.
LikeLike
Also, please note this isn’t about African presence in pre-Columbus America. After all, we do know there were some contacts. What is problematic here is the scale at which this is emphasized, namely, the “so what?” factor. “So what” factor is very important in pseudosciance, because there’s always a non-scientific motive for claiming whatever is being claimed at the moment. If the answer to “so what?” is “nothing, we’re just researching this because of new data and knowledge”, fine. But if answer is something else – and with pseudosciance it always is – then it’s problematic.
LikeLike
Mira,
are you trying to say, in light of some of the vids I posted, specifically the last one, that the white dominated archaeological community is objective by any strech of the imagination? LOL
Here’s an answer to your latest posts:
Ivan Van Sertima- Civilizations before Greece and Rome 2
“I’m a Black man and I’m the first to pharaoh in 2000 years. …
Anwar Sadat (1979)
LikeLike
hat the white dominated archaeological community is objective by any strech of the imagination?
What does this even mean? (Seriously… I didn’t understand the sentence).
LikeLike
Mira,
I have to say bluntly now I am finding your reasoning here incomprehensible!!! Now I am willing to accept that perhaps it might be me. (I am not there yet!!!) But I do think you’re gonna have to be more specific with your argument for Professor Ivan van Sertima’s work as pseudoscience:
Lets examine your first point:
“..if Egyptians were those who built it, any pyramidal building anywhere in the world must also be made by Egyptians, and is an evidence that Egyptians were there. This is a logical fallacy. It doesn’t work that way…”
Yes. I see this. It doesn’t necessarily make it true. However, it is still the most logical place to start. Until you find evidence to the contrary. Wouldn’t you agree? Now tell me is this what Dr Van Sertima is arguing.?
But first… Please confirm for me that you have actually taken time to view those two clips that Goldfire courteously supplied.
Then perhaps you could tell me the other way it works?
On to your second point:
“…obvious is objective. (Meaning: if I find something to be obvious, it’s really like that, and not just my subjective opinion on it). For example, if I find a sculpture to look like a black man, it’s has to be a black man… I mean, it’s obvious, isn’t it? Another logical fallacy: art doesn’t work that way. Artists don’t always present realistic portrayal of humans. Take ancient Egypt, for example. Judging by their art, you could say it’s “obvious” there were only interracial relationships in Egypt, because all women are much lighter skinned than the men…
We’re dealing with subjective opinion here. We can all offer a view or opinion. However, it is useful to be able to see and judge exactly what that view is based on. These are what we might interpret as the “FACTS” Again if you review those video clips you will see that Dr Van Sertima shows many pictures of “visibly African” sculpted statue heads. Then goes onto examine certain unique details as in the hair braids and contrasts these with those ONLY found in West African culture. Further, we see some of the helmet features appearing as similar to those found in Egyptian sculptures and paintings.
Now if I take your second point about obvious not necessarily being objective. It again would be logical and scientific as a starting point to form an opinion based on the available evidence that these statues were depicting African people.? After all these 10-25 ton statue heads are not found any where else on the planet depicting any other ethnic groups. Or are they?
And..if we take your comment about all the portrayals of women being light skinned by artists in Egyptian paintings – THIS IS NOT TRUE!!! In the same way all the sculptures of the Catholic Virgin Mother and Child are NOT made from white porcelain stone!!!
Therefore it would reasonable to assume that the Virgin Mother and Child could equally have been African in features would it not? Or would this be just part of that artistic license for expression you were alluding to?
And finally on to your third point:
“civilization and knowledge had one source, only one, and from there it spread all over the world (hyperdiffusionism). This is a factual error in thinking, but the implications are even worse: it implies that those that were at the source are somehow superior to the rest. Kossina argued, for example, that everything came from (surprise, surprise) Germanic peoples…”
Perhaps you could find for me where Dr Van Sertima argues this point and as a result that Africa (the source of civilization and knowledge) is superior to everything else.
At this point it should be clear you have unintentionally or otherwise shown yourself to be willfully ignorant of the work of this renowned literary critic, linguist, and anthropologist.
You of all people, I would have thought, would have been more open to reviewing and studying such work. Particularly given the politically struggles people like: Professors Ivan van Sertima or Cheikh Anta Diop have had to endure just to get their work seen and published.
Perhaps this is more a case of Eurocentrism than pseudoscience on your part.
LikeLike
Kwamla,
In case you didn’t notice, I never said what Sertima argues is fake or untrue. I’m just arguing his conclusions are not scientific, that’s all. That’s what pseudoscience basically is: using non-scientific method to form your conclusions and interpretations. Even if something is true, it’s still not science until you can prove it using scientific method. Until then, it’s speculation.
As for the pyramids:
Yes. I see this. It doesn’t necessarily make it true. However, it is still the most logical place to start. Until you find evidence to the contrary.
No, it doesn’t work that way. Because humans proved over and over again to be perfectly capable of making their own inventions that resemble those made on the other side of the world. (Agriculture in America, for example).
So the first thing to argue, when presented with the data, is not how Egyptians managed to visit Americas, but to research the ways local population built the pyramids.
Pyramids, for some reason, tend to be very popular with pseudoscientists, despite the fact there are many, many more intriguing things about Egypt and other ancient African civilizations. There’s currently a lunatic in Bosnia, for example, that argues about the existence of Bosnian pyramids, that are the oldest one on Earth, etc, etc.
Again if you review those video clips you will see that Dr Van Sertima shows many pictures of “visibly African” sculpted statue heads.
That’s exactly the problem I have with it: you can’t say “visibly African” as it’s a fact. The statue presented in the first clip, for example, reminds me on my aunt. Same broad nostrils, same full lips, same face expression when she’s about to argue with my mother about politics. (I am not making this up, the statue really looks like my aunt).
Similarly, some Greek paintings have images of men with 14 inch penises… It’s obvious certain men were very well endowed back then, now isn’t it?
There are also some statues found in South America (I forgot where, sorry) that certain white pseudocsientists saw as having “visible white features”… They also called them “white gods”, the ones who built the civilization in America, because, as we all know, non-whites were completely unable to do that themselves.
So all in all, art is a very, very tricky think, and should not be used as an evidence based on “it looks to me like X, so it has to be X”. It was proved numerous times that things in archaeology don’t work that way.
And..if we take your comment about all the portrayals of women being light skinned by artists in Egyptian paintings – THIS IS NOT TRUE!!!
Ok, true. I said “all”, and it’s not “all” all… But the most, yes. Those made withing Egyptian canon certainly do. Rahotep and Nofret, for example… They are clearly and interracial couple.
Just look how light skinned she is… And look at her white nose! Obviously, the IR relationship is the most logical thing to think about, until proved otherwise, right?
(That’s what I’m talking about).
Like I said, there are some indicators of the “old world” visitors in Americas before Columbus… But statues resembling Africans are hardly a proof of it. I’d check genetic results to prove it.
Also, please note I’m not saying Africans didn’t visit Americas back then. I’m just saying this isn’t the way to prove it.
Nor is existence of certain words that “sound like” something else. There’s a whole pseudoscientific school in my culture arguing that Serbs are, in fact, the oldest people on Earth and the ancestors of Etruscians and… everybody else. Just based on some words that “sound similar”.
So you could say I have a low tolerance for this kind of interpretation. There’s nothing Eurocentric about it (I never said Africans didn’t visit America). I’m just saying scientific method should be used to form conclusions, and “looks like X, so it has to be”, is NOT a correct scientific method.
LikeLike
I understand the interest of writing and studying the history from the black point of view. No doubt there is a whole alot stuff that needs to be re written and which has been whitewashed in the past.
However I’m not a big fan of so-called afrocentric history. I see that as funny as eurocentric or any other ethnicly oriented history writing. The thing is that we should be aware that history is always written by somebody who usually writes it trough his/her eyes and culture and there fore tells a story from that point. So, if we read history written by a german guy in 1890’s we should understand that. Also, if read history written by black activist, we should understand that too.
That being said, I think it is healthy to have totally different version of the history. That forces us all to re-think our conventions and ideas of the past and what has been said about it.
And then to Egypt. I spent some time there and saw the pyraminds and tombs and stuff, I saw the statues, paintings and carvings, images and such, and as far as the racial thing goes, I think they did not pay too much attention to it. You see in the color pictures all shades of brown, from light golden brown to dark reddish brown on the same group. So the indication is that the so called egyptians were mixed guys and gals. That is my view after seeing those paintings and images.
They do have totally black figures too, absolutely black that is, but I think this is more of an political than factual color. The black figures are from above the upper Egypt (present day Sudan etc.) and western desert (Libya etc). They are either allies or enemies, but not egyptians per sé. However, the really interesting thing about these black figures is this: their facial features are absolutely identical of those of egyptians. So only difference is the color and some objects such as shields etc.
One thing we have to keep in mind when we try to read these acient images: the use of body paint. We do know that it was widely used in the old times all over the world. Australian aborginals use it, as well as numerous tribes in Africa, Asia etc. North american native tribes used it and one tribe, the pawnees, used black as the color of war.
We also know that some of these painted themselves from head to toe, abos with clay white, some native americans with red ochra and blue/black, africans the same etc. So when we see images of marching black soldiers we do not know are they black skinned or guys who have been painted black. And this is just one thing we have to keep in mind when looking back in our history.
We also do not know nothing about the styles of the arts in those days. Anybody who claims that there were none knows nothing about art, painting, drawing etc. If you are an artist, painter, and you look those old images, you feel that this guy could have done anything. He has the technical skills. So why he paints two dimensional men and women?
I saw perfect image of an duck painted on a plaster wall some three thousand years ago (it could have been in some modern book about birds!) and yet those flat images of men and women from the same period. The only reasonable explanation is that they had a certain styles in their arts. They could have painted pictures just like we do, but chose not to. Don’t fool your selves to belive that they did not know depth in the pictures because the italian guy invented it during the renesance. That is eurocentric idea.
And this brings us back to the idea that the images are telling us something about the race in acient Egypt. I’m not so sure at all.
LikeLike
Mira said : “What does this even mean? (Seriously… I didn’t understand the sentence).?”
Answer: White people have proven themselves to be nothing short of pathological liars in their rendering of histoy. Will that do? 🙂
See Kwama’s post defining Eurocentricm 🙂
Meanwhile, here’s some hyperdiffusionism for ya.
LikeLike
“Don’t fool your selves to belive that they did not know depth in the pictures because the italian guy invented it during the renesance. That is eurocentric idea. ”
that’s interesting to me, do you know of any pre-Renaissance works that utilized perspective? It seems like we would know about it if they were out there.
I don’t think perspective in art necessarily means it’s superior by the way. Most experts consider Egyptian ornament to be unrivaled in all of history. However, most ancient civilizations did not use perspective in the way of the Renaissance artists. I don’t think it was a coincidental stylistic choice that was made by the Egyptians, Mayans, Native Americans etc…NOT to use perspective even though they could have. That sounds a bit far fetched to me. Surely some examples would have survived.
LikeLike
For some reason Mira you appear to have developed a strong aversion for African scientific study in the field of anthropology. Not sure what your reasons are but they are definitely not helping this discussion.
Can you actually name one respected African/Black scientist in this field whose work you would not label as pseudo science? I doubt this very much.
How about cheikh anta diop? I suppose he too falls into the pseudo science or “Kossinna’s law” trap???
Lets examine some of his achievements, given your aversion for all things Afrocentric, you may have missed:
Mira. Nothing of what you have stated or written thus far takes into account that last statement. So it is worth repeating so it might have a chance to sink in with you:
Diop showed above all that European archaeologists before and after the decolonization had understated and continued to understate the extent and possibility of Black civilizations.
No tell me Mira where do your comments of pseudo science stand in relation to this charge?
I have pulled out another extract because I think this is important for background information here:
Incidentally Mira. This same practice of “shifting the gold posts” is a popular game with Eurocentric pseudo scientists. Which must have a lot to do with fact that Abagond has just recently done a post on it. Maybe you could remind yourself of some of your comments there before you comment again in this post!!!
The whole arena of Black people having Ancient African civilizations and culture is highly contested you appear to be in accordance with this position despite your own more than apparent ignorance in the matter.
@ Sam
I have normally come to expect your comments to be a bit more informed than this. This is only part of your last comment which made any real sense to me:
“…That being said, I think it is healthy to have totally different version of the history. That forces us all to re-think our conventions and ideas of the past and what has been said about it…”
LikeLike
sam,
I saw the statues, paintings and carvings, images and such, and as far as the racial thing goes, I think they did not pay too much attention to it.
Actually, they did pay a lot of attention to race- they just didn’t have races we have today. They recognized several races of men: Egyptians, Nubians, Libyans and Asians (those being from the Middle East).
GoldFire
White people have proven themselves to be nothing short of pathological liars in their rendering of histoy. Will that do?
Don’t be sarcastic. I’m not a native English speaker and I honestly didn’t understand what you’re saying.
But yes, I do agree whites did force their interpretation of history on everyone. So what does this have anything to do with the subject we’re discussing?
LikeLike
@Goldfire.
An excellent example of what Mira was talking about with regard to: “hyperdiffusionism”
“…civilization and knowledge had one source, only one, and from there it spread all over the world (hyperdiffusionism). This is a factual error in thinking, but the implications are even worse: it implies that those that were at the source are somehow superior to the rest. Kossina argued, for example, that everything came from (surprise, surprise) Germanic peoples…
As the video clip shows and explains this is exactly how Christianity was derived and historically has its origins placed in the middle – east?. When it plainly has borrowed or “stolen” specific practices and teachings from Egyptians religions 3000 years BC elsewhere.
Where are the those European oh so methodological non-pseudo scientists crying possible foul with regard to the origins of Christianity?
LikeLike
Kwamla,
European scientists know very well the origins of Christianity. Anybody who’s claiming otherwise is not being honest.
Also, I’ve never said Europeans are scientists and non-Europeans are not. In fact, Europeans have the longest “tradition” of pseudoscience. I also never said I’m against African interpretations; all I said I don’t buy interpretations based on logical fallacies. There’s a lot of said stuff going on in my culture and its (pseudo)archaeology, a lot of it, and I sure have little patience for it.
LikeLike
@goldfire
Hail Mithros!
LikeLike
Mira these are two statements you have made:
“..As for the black civilizations in Europe and other similar things, yes, some of it is pseudoscience. (First and foremost, it’s because race is a cultural construct that simply didn’t exist back in the days; using words such as “white” or “black” civilization to refer to people who lived many hundreds or thousands years ago is anachronistic.)…”
and then this…
…As for pseudoscience, yes, some of i (Sertima’s work) is pseudoscience. The whole idea behind hyperdiffusionism can easily strand into pseudoscience. Look just what n.azis did back in the days.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustaf_Kossinna …”
So you have said that “Black Civilizations in Europe” and “Professors Ivan van Sertima’s” work are both, in your view, examples of ” pseudoscience”
Or are you now saying you wish to dissociate yourself from these statements?
Some how I don’t get the impression you are….
LikeLike
@kwamala: well I guess I try to be as critical with the afrocentric history as I try to be with eurocentric one. That is what I tried to say.
I am not saying that one is better than the other, or that afrocentric version of history is false or pseudoscience. Some of it is very good stuff. But still, it is history written with political agenda in mind, just as so many white europeans have done. So I guess we disagree some what here on this subject…
LikeLike
“Black civilizations in Europe” is always a pseudoscience, because the terms “black” and “white” didn’t exist back then. But if we want to go to layman terms, then yes, I believe there are certain proofs of non-white (by today’s standards) populations in Europe. Not to mention the great influence from non-white world to civilizations in Europe.
As for Sertima, anybody who uses logical fallacy “it looks like X, so it has to be” is stepping into the pseudoscience area.
LikeLike
@Sam & Mira.
Here is a book I read some years ago. I just searched for it on Amazon. You both, and any one else here, might find it of interest. It is written by an white American journalist with no “Afrocentric axe to grind” as you both might say
It is written by the author: Richard Poe and serves as an easy but detailed read in this area: “Black Spark White Fire”
Now here is a typical customer review:
LikeLike
Kwamla,
You seem to take my disagreement with some of Sertima’s methodology as some kind of a proof I’m Eurocentric or against African civilizations or something.
I don’t know why you do that (probably because you assume criticizing someone’s methodology equals to complete disagreement with said person’s ideas). Criticizing methodology and pointing at logical mistakes is what people always do when reviewing other author’s work. It’s how it goes.
LikeLike
@kwamala: well I have no problem to admit that Egypt is and was African. It is. I have no problem admitting that Upper Egypt was what we might call black nowadays. I have no problem with the idea that the acient egyptians were mixed people and what we might call as blacks today. No problem at all with this.
What I do find always a bit suspect is that when someone has an ideology or political agenda and then writes history from that point and claims it to be the real deal. That has always been suspect in my mind, from soviets to nazis to white racists to whom ever. That is what I find suspect in afrocentric history.
BUT, like I said before, I think it is very healthy, particulary in those circles where critical thinking is not en vogue, to have totally different versions of things we are told being true only in one way, usually the eurocentric way.
I find it very interesting that afrocentric history tries to make a case of black european civilizations when there were much more numerous black african ones which should be brought up for wider audiences. The question is of course Why? To make a point? To create conversation? In order to re-write the history, again, in one way?
LikeLike
@kwamala and goldfire
‘civilization and knowledge had one source, only one, and from there it spread all over the world (hyperdiffusionism).”
From just a quick glance at wikipedia for hyperdiffusionism It seems like some elements of civilization could spread from a single source and some arise independently. Written language seems to have sprung up independently in different areas of the world for example.
That seems to make more sense than saying all knowledge and civilization came from one place. Not to mention the concept of civilization has continued to expand throughout history around the world.
LikeLike
Just to make sure everybody understands what I’m saying:
civilizations and knowledge DIDN’T have one source. Different cultures did sometimes copy things from each other, but they were often more than capable of inventing things independently.
LikeLike
It is worth restating this aspect until it sinks in.
I would argue that much of the foundational basis of European and western history is based on the research of pseudo scientists.
Why?
In the same way Sam makes this point in relation to Afrocentric History:
“…To make a point? To create conversation? In order to re-write the history, again, in one way?…
@Mira. When it comes questions of the scientific methodology and what constitutes logical fallacies are the practices of European, Western historians and archaeologists exempt from this?
The whole historical foundational basis of European and Western civilization has been fraudulently constructed simply by virtue of THE FACT OF WHO WAS EXCLUDED.
Was there an specific agenda involved here?
The same tools and scientific methods of analysis were also constructed from the same agenda of those who were considered INCLUDED and those who were never considered or EXCLUDED.
So of course now we have a situation were those who were never really considered or EXCLUDED have used those same tools and scientific analysis to re-construct history utilizing a very different agenda.
Is it any wonder that those historians who previously and unquestionable operated from a position of INCLUSION should now be worried or contesting the analysis and opinions of those who previously always questioned their EXCLUSION? Would the tools of analysis have anything to do with this?
TWO VERY DIFFERENT AGENDAS. Which are very easy to spot.
The first agenda – the old one = EXCLUSION
The second agenda – the new one = INCLUSION
In my view the works of Professors Ivan van Sertima or Cheikh Anta Diop operate from the second agenda.
@Maria: Perhaps if you focused more on some of your own tools of analysis you might begin to re-think some of your previous ill-informed statements.
“…Criticizing methodology and pointing at logical mistakes is what people always do when reviewing other author’s work. It’s how it goes…”
LikeLike
When it comes questions of the scientific methodology and what constitutes logical fallacies are the practices of European, Western historians and archaeologists exempt from this?
No, quite the contrary. European scientists are pioneers of pseudoscience, and the worst offenders (at least when it comes to pseudoarchaeology- I am not an expert on other subjects).
They’ve been using academic pseudoscience for so long, and are still struggling to fix those errors and mistakes. Of course, science progresses during time, but some of the logical fallacies were long used in European archaeology. (Kossina’s way of thinking was just one of them).
Authors in the last few decades did thri best to question those fallacies and set up a valid scientific methodology- sometimes way too scientific (as in: natural sciences), to put some order into the whole field of archaeology and anthropology. Today’s archaeology doesn’t even resemble the one that was practiced in the XIX and early XX century.
That’s why is so confusing to see some contemporary authors- be it European or non-European, use things that are proven not to work, that are proven to be bad methodology full of logical fallacies. Why would anybody want to rely on XIX century (Euoropean) archaeology (especially if they are not European themselves) is something I don’t get, at all.
(Unless you want to say: European authors did get away with this rubbish for so long, so now we want to get away with the same rubbish, too… Which is fine with me).
PS-As for the “black” civilization… Would my point be more clear, Kwamla, if I say I don’t believe there were any “white” civilizations in Europe?
LikeLike
Perhaps it might help Mira for me to repeat one of my last paragraphs which you either ignored or did comprehend.
Which should have read like this:
“…Is it any wonder that those historians who previously and unquestionable operated from a position of EXCLUSION should now be worried or contesting the analysis and opinions of those who previously always questioned their EXCLUSION? Would the tools of analysis have anything to do with this?
TWO VERY DIFFERENT AGENDAS. Which are very easy to spot.
The first agenda – the old one = EXCLUSION
The second agenda – the new one = INCLUSION
In my view the works of Professors Ivan van Sertima or Cheikh Anta Diop operate from the second agenda…”
So to answer your question it is people like Sertima and Diop who have had to adopt new approaches in their methodologies to facilitate an agenda of INCLUSION.
I don’t read anything, so far, from you which challenges this. Would it be maybe because you have never read their work? So much for your self perceived, open and objective non-Eurocentric world view!
Which are the European authors your referring to who have set up more valid scientific methodologies operating from a similar INCLUSIVE agenda? You seem unable to qualify these assertions!
As for your last point on Black?white civilizations. You should really know better than to make such patronizing statements like this. We are simply mapping the occurrence of specific ethnic groups to modern day “Race” categorizations – notwithstanding the inadequate and potentially misleading social constructs – for purposes of communication and understanding.
Is this last point any more clearer for you Mira?
LikeLike
Kwamla,
I answered the best I can. Maybe I didn’t understand your question and what you mean by exclusion/inclusion.
Were you talking about excluding/including various groups (the ideology behind it), or about a specific scientific method of exclusion/inclusion? This is the part I didn’t get.
If we’re talking about ideology and not a scientific method, then I must say I didn’t see much of said inclusion in Sertima’s example we’re discussing. He used the old Eurocentric fallacy (whites built pyramids in America) and substituted it with black people. There’s nothing new or radical about it.
I did read some of Diop, and I’ve read some Sertima’s articles, and to be honest, I don’t find their work similar at all. Diop goes in great depth and analyzes things more profoundly. Sertima tends to be very sloppy. Diop does his best to avoid logical fallacies, while Sertima doesn’s shy from using them. I don’t see much similarities between them.
As for your last point on Black?white civilizations. You should really know better than to make such patronizing statements like this.
Excuse me, Kwamla, but in this matter, I am not a politician, a member of a civil rights movement, or even a sociologist or an anthropologist. I am an archaeologist. Ancient cultures are of prime concern to me. I try my best to look things from their point of view. I can’t say that any of them were white or black because they weren’t, I can guarantee you. And the way we see these cultures and these people today has nothing to do with how they actually were; and they were neither white or black.
That’s the only answer, judging from within those cultures. As someone who majored in ancient Greece, for example, I have a certain responsibility to it, and I can guarantee you it wasn’t a white culture. Nor it was an European culture.
LikeLike
Mira,
If I am to take your past comments here as serious. Then it would be fair for me to conclude that you REALLY DO NOT KNOW OR UNDERSTAND A GREAT DEAL!!!
Tell me if those capitals help…!!!
Mira:
“…Were you talking about excluding/including various groups (the ideology behind it), or about a specific scientific method of exclusion/inclusion? This is the part I didn’t get…”
Its about the ideology. There was a clue in the statement I wrote:
Kwamla:
“…TWO VERY DIFFERENT AGENDAS. Which are very easy to spot.
The first agenda – the old one = EXCLUSION
The second agenda – the new one = INCLUSION…”
Can you still not spot it? Its begins with A?
But even if you are experiencing serious confusion here. Why not deal with the question of scientific methodology with regard to exclusion/inclusion? Or did you miss this question that I also posed to you?
“Which are the European authors your referring to who have set up more valid scientific methodologies operating from a similar INCLUSIVE agenda? You seem unable to qualify these assertions!…
Are going to respond to this question anytime soon? Or do you not know? Further reinforcing your own ignorance in this field.
And when you are pondering this question place it in this context:
Maria:
“…If we’re talking about ideology and not a scientific method, then I must say I didn’t see much of said inclusion in Sertima’s example we’re discussing. He used the old Eurocentric fallacy (whites built pyramids in America) and substituted it with black people. There’s nothing new or radical about it…”
Tell me which “whites” are claiming they built pyramids in the Americas? Or even more specifically built those 10-25 ton visibly African statue heads. And if they are not visibly African in ethnicity what else could they be???
YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE AN “archaeologist” for gods sake!!! So tell me what are they!!!!
And while you are at it tell me what Ancient Greece was according to your esteemed wisdom.
So far, according to you,
“… I can guarantee you it wasn’t a white culture. Nor it was an European culture…”
FINE!!!
So what was it then???
LikeLike
Kwamla,
My English might be ok, but it’s far from being perfect. I honestly didn’t understand what you were saying. I don’t go around pretending I didn’t get something just I could avoid answering questions, nor do I refuse to answer. I didn’t understand what you were saying, that’s all.
Its about the ideology.
Ah. Ok then. I wasn’t talking about ideology, I was talking about the scientific method. The most important thing about pseudoscience is the lack of proper scientific methodology.
In case you didn’t notice, I never said those sculptures didn’t represent black people – I just said the method used to come to the conclusion was a logical fallacy and can’t be regarded as scientific.
Why not deal with the question of scientific methodology with regard to exclusion/inclusion?
I did answer you. If we are speaking of methodology alone, I don’t see much of a difference between said authors and European ones. Methodologically speaking, there’s no much difference – I don’t really see any particular inclusion you were referring at, apart from ideology; it all (particularly Sertima) seems pretty Eurocentric (in a way of following European sloppy methods used so many times before, only here applied to Africans. But the same bad methodology, which is European in origin, btw.)
However, it is difficult for me to speak of Sertima and Diop collectively, since they are quite different in their methods. There’s not many, if any, similarities between them when it comes to methodology. So what I said in this thread mostly applies to Sertima and Eurocentric pseudoarchaeologists.
Which are the European authors your referring to who have set up more valid scientific methodologies operating from a similar INCLUSIVE agenda?
Like I said, I was speaking of methodology the whole time (because it’s what makes Sertima’s claims pseudoscience), and I wasn’t talking about agenda at all.
Tell me which “whites” are claiming they built pyramids in the Americas?
One notable example is, of course, Thor Heyerdahl, a hyperdiffusionist and the leader of the Kon-Tiki expedition.
And if they are not visibly African in ethnicity what else could they be???
They could be anything, including black people. The thing is, what they reminds you (or Sertima of) can’t be taken as a serious claim nothing more than my claim statues look like my aunt. To be honest, most of them could pass for East Asians or Pacific islanders, now that we’re at it.
But once again, it doesn’t matter what they reminds us of. The first thing one must remember about the art is that it doesn’t have to be a realistic depiction of reality. This is often true with images and statues of humans. They are often not a realistic representation of humans living around. It is true for all the cultures, including Native American. So as an archaeologist, I would never take an image as a guide to “how people really looked like around here”. Art doesn’t work that way and should not be interpreted as such. (Don’t get me wrong: sometimes, art does represent reality in a realistic way… But often it doesn’t, so it can’t be used as some sort of a proof. Once again, canonical Egyptian art: women and men were not of the same race, right? Wrong).
YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE AN “archaeologist” for gods sake!!! So tell me what are they!!!!
Yes, I am an archaeologist and not a pseudoarchaeologist. They can be representations of Gods, for example, or kings, or ancestors. They could be realistic representations, and they could be idealistic representations. We just don’t know.
And while you are at it tell me what Ancient Greece was according to your esteemed wisdom.
No need to be sarcastic here. I never said I posses a particular wisdom, but hey, after graduating from university I do think I know a bit about the subject. More than a bit, I’d say.
FINE!!!
So what was it then???
In short, it was a culture of its own. It had some strong connections not with the West (which was quite Barbaric at the time), but with the civilizations of the East, from where i took many influences. But it wouldn’t be right to say it was an Eastern civilization; it did develop separately. It also did have lots of contacts with Brabaric lands on the North and West. So all in all, it was a culture, like any other.
It wasn’t a white culture because “whiteness” as a cultural construct didn’t exist back then, and it wasn’t an European culture because Europe as a concept didn’t exist back then. It were only people in the 18th century onwards that proclaimed Ancient Greece “the cradle of European civilizations”. Those people were white Western Europeans, and they saw Ancient Greece as “their” culture and their ancestors… Completely ignoring real life Greeks who were at the time under Turkish empire. They constructed the legacy from nothing (robbing Greek people in the process, by taking statues and other stuff) and thus made Ancient Greece seem like the cradle of (Western) Europe and all the white civilizations.
But it has nothing, nothing to do with real Ancient Greece. If nothing, I sense these people wouldn’t be so happy about some barbarians taking out their legacy and proclaiming themselves the descendants of Greeks. But it’s another story.
LikeLike
@kwamla: I think that Mira is trying to say that in the days of Acient Greece there was no such consepts as white or black in racial meaning nor they meant the same for the greeks in antique.
The very idea that Greece has anything to do with Europe per s’e came much more later, during middle ages some monks etc. strated to make the connection but, just like Mira said, it was only in the 1800’s when some western european guys started to claim the acinet Greece as the starting point of white Europe.
They made on god given line from adam to the present and Greece was one step aling the way: Greece to Rome to Charlemange to Britain and Gerrmany and France etc. They saw Greece as the starting point of the white europe and being as the cradle of western civilisation. It was not.
Those acient greeks called all the nations above the nprthern mountain and beyond seas as barbarbians, the name came from the sound of their speech. It was degratory term as it is today, but it really meant the white europeans. So the greek did not associate themselves with us northern whites at all in those days. They saw themselves in the same world as the phoinicians, egyptians and other mediterannean peoples.
LikeLike
There are just too many issues in the world to keep up on all of them. I haven’t read up very extensively on this particular archeological debate. I hope to find time to do so, but I can appreciate that there are two sides to consider.
However, at face value, I’d say you’d have to go a long way to convince me that those Olmec heads are representative of Africans. They don’t look it to me.
LikeLike
@king: 😀 I say the same about the theories that white dudes started those american pyramids
LikeLike
Exactly, Sam. That is my main problem with Sertima. He offers nothing new; most of it is the old European pseudoarchaeology, only applied to Africans.
Like I said, Europeans have the longest history of abusing pseudoarchaeology. Just take a look at hyperdiffusionism. It’s sad to see others apply their methods.
Thor Heyerdahl and Hyperdiffusionism:
http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology/2010/11/thor_heyerdahl_and_hyperdiffus.php
I think that Mira is trying to say that in the days of Acient Greece there was no such consepts as white or black in racial meaning nor they meant the same for the greeks in antique.
Exactly. That’s what I was saying. I understand it might not be the most important thing for (everyday) people to talk about, but as an archaeologist, I have a responsibility to the past societies and people who lived in them.
LikeLike
@ sam.
Lol! However, they do look more like Africans than Fins!!! 🙂
http://mormonmesoamerica.blogspot.com/
LikeLike
King,
Like I said, to me, they do look like East Asians/ Pacific islanders maybe. But definitely more like Africans than Scandinavians.
But the point is, we can discuss it this way all we want, but we can’t use the “it looks like X to me, so it’s definitely X” argument to make a (supposedly) scientific interpretations.
LikeLike
@king: that was cool 😀 I just love those cheesy mormon images and pictures, straight from some 1950’s mccarthyist Hollywood dream (nightmare?) 😀
LikeLike
@ Mira
True, Pacific Islanders can have broad nosed and full lips.
But then, so do many of the Zapatista Indians who still live under the shadows of the Olmec sculptures, to this day.
And they still carve sculptures of themselves that others might interpret to look like Black people, even though they are not.
But, as I said, I’m a novice on the subject.
LikeLike
Mira & Sam
Please. Please. Please. No more attempts at explaining to me how the concept of Greek, African, Black or white had no meaning when applied back to ancient times. – I KNOW ALL ABOUT SOCIAL CONSTRUCTS!!! ITS A STRAW-MAN ARGUMENT!!!!
If either of you had bothered to read my previous posts methodically enough you would have observed I had already acknowledged this.
Mira,
All your attempts to answer my questions begin with the same words…”…It wasn’t this…OR it wasn’t that…OR it doesn’t mean it was this or that.
All these “seemingly” vague explanations serve to illustrate that you really do not know “what it was” or “what it means”
Would it not be far simpler in explanation for someone who admits to their English being far from perfect to just say: I DO NOT KNOW!!!
I am tied of putting questions to you only to receive indirect non-specific replies.
I would like to remind you again of your two statements which I asked you to substantiate:
“…So you have said that “Black Civilizations in Europe” and “Professors Ivan van Sertima’s” work are both, in your view, examples of ” pseudoscience”…”
To which you have replied:
“….Black civilizations in Europe” is always a pseudoscience, because the terms “black” and “white” didn’t exist back then. But if we want to go to layman terms, then yes, I believe there are certain proofs of non-white (by today’s standards) populations in Europe. Not to mention the great influence from non-white world to civilizations in Europe.
As for Sertima, anybody who uses logical fallacy “it looks like X, so it has to be” is stepping into the pseudoscience area…”
Lets deal specifically with both of these now. Lets examine one of Dr Ivan Van Sertima’s books: “African Presence in Early Europe”
In this compilation of several contributors Frank M. Snowden (one of the foremost authorities on blacks in classical antiquity) writes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_M._Snowden,_Jr.
Please use this to explain Mira why you think this particular example of work illustrated here – by Van Sertima qualifies, in your assessment, as “pseudoscience”
LikeLike
Mira,
In view of the confusion being debated about whether or not the Olmec statue heads are an African representation. It would be useful to remember that this same contestantion has occurred many times before. A prime example being the Egyptian Sphinx.
Perhaps it would be useful for those still caught up in this confusion to view the following Youtube video I unearthed on the subject:
TA-SETI’AN: THE TWA ORIGINS OF THE “SPHINX” (HOREMAKHET)
LikeLike
@kwamla:
“the physical evidence for a [black African] presence in Greece and Rome is compelling and extensive…including photographs of carvings, pottery, paintings and coins…it is only because the racism of the present is projected by today’s authors into an ancient world that did not know racism as we do, that we have become so misinformed about Africans, and therefore misinformed about history.”
Well, I do not think myself a racist when I disagree with this. I’ve been in Greece several times, been in Rome too, seen a lot of statues and been in the museums, I am a history buff myself, and I must say that if somebody claims that Rome or Greece of antiques was a black african civilization (as we now understand the term at present times) he/she must be hallusional, on drugs or have a hell of a great imagination.
It is as stupid claim as the one where the white men left sinking Atlantis and rowed a boat to Mexico and started those civilisations over there. There is no shred of evidence in anything that supports any claim that Rome was black african civilization nor there is for Greece, Mycene or any other. Simply nothing. That is a fact.
Now where there black africans in Rome? Of course there were. Are you serious? They had all peoples there as visitors and multitude as slaves. They had even chinese in Rome, for godssake! But this doesn’t mean that Rome was black civilization by any means? No it does not, no more than it was chinese.
So was Rome white european civilization? No it was not. White europeans lived beyond the Alps, up north, in vast forest of Germania, in Gaul, Gothia, Albion and beyond. Rome was roman. I have no idea what their race was but that is certain from all the evidence (which the above claim proves the africaness of Rome) that it is not african either. Anybody who makes claims contrary this is inventing his/her own history. And anybody who visits those places and sees with his/her own eyes those statues and images and pictures know this. That is a fact. And same goes with Greece.
But why claim these two as african when they are not? Why it is so important to make false claims of these two civilizations? What is the real issue on that? What is the need to claim these black african civilizations? Not science. It has everything to do with politics.
Why not bring up the real black african civilizations which existed even in roman times? Nubia? Many other beyond Sahara? Egyp? What is wrong with them? Not enough pictures? Not so sexy enuff? Not good enough? Hey man, that is racism right there :D!
In 1930’s one finnish professor (forgot his name) wrote an scientific study about the origins of the finns in response to the swedish racial claims that we finns were actually mongols. This man proved that we are actually the remains of the atlantean race since no other race is like us. He mapped how we escaped the sinking Atlantis, took the ships to Egypt, build the pyramids, got the fuk out of there, went to Greece, destoyed Troy, build Sparta AND Athens too, left that place and moved to Italy and did this small thing called Rome and so on. What was a bit shady how the hell we ended up in the northern most forests of the know world :D.
While it is ok and even healthy to make provocative statements and bring up new theories on any subject, it is not smart to make weird claims. For me black african Rome is one of those. You know, like the one that instead of african guys building pyramids of Egypt it was those funny greyihs creeps from Uranus who assembled them with some mystical ray technology unknown to man.
LikeLike
As for the connections by the names Schwarzkopf, blackhead etc. There is one biker club called Blackheads in Finland today. Not one of those guys is black. You can google their website for proof.
The Mari people were called by the russians Tsheremish, black faces. Mari are fenno ugric people who used to live in wide section of present day Russia and who were conquered by the russians way back. So why they were called black faces? Because when they went to war they painted their faces black with charcoal.
“African derivatives as Mawr, Moore, Moorehead, Morris, Morrison, Mora, Maurice, Mareau, Moretti, Muir, Mohr, meaning a person from Mauritania [the Moors]. Sometimes the label is more indirect with names such as Schwartz, Schwartzkopf, and Schwartzmann, which are German for Black, Blackhead and Blackman…”
Moor also means, well, a moor. As in Darthmoor, England. You know, the place where the Hound of Baskervilles used to roam. Well the hound was invention of a writer but the moor is there and has been for few thousand years. I doubt all the moors in England were named by the muslims of north Africa all though I am not sure. Just a hunch.
I do not know the ethymological origins of Moretti or Maurice but this sounds a bit thin to me. After all name Maurice could come from latin Marcellus or Marcianus or Marcus which is much more convincing, if we think the influnce of Rome in France, which by the way comes from the latin version of the people called Franks, Francia.
LikeLike
Well. Sam its looks like my short detour along the path of a more honest re-assessment of ancient history appears to have struck a raw nerve with you!!!
At least you seem prepared to be a bit more open and direct in expressing what you do and maybe do not know.
Its a shame Mira couldn’t do the same. Nevertheless, those correspondences have helped in provoking much needed in depth responses from me.
Its apparent to me and is well known outside of the US by a lot of Black/African people that when it comes to ancient African history the vast majority of African Americans know very little! Hence King’s responses:
“…There are just too many issues in the world to keep up on all of them. I haven’t read up very extensively on this particular archeological debate. I hope to find time to do so, but I can appreciate that there are two sides to consider…”
and
“…But, as I said, I’m a novice on the subject…”
However. This is by no means peculiar to African Americans as it affects the vast majority of Black or African peoples whose connections have been irrevocably torn apart and dismantled by the horrors of slavery and colonialism.
Sam. Your reaction to some of my posts here, along with Mira, believe it or not, does not really surprise me. What does surprise me is the LEVEL to which you both want to persist in dis-believing that Africans have contributed to this planets history and civilization.
I say the LEVEL because it should be more than apparent to both of you by virtue of the type and nature of topics openly debated on this Blog: There is much in the construction of Western (to include European) history that goes unnoticed, has been purposely hidden or has been willfully erased.
Both yourself and Mira have already expressed support for this view in past comments.
Now I really shouldn’t need to tell you this. But a closer examination of your own beliefs with regard to what you’ve accepted and been taught as history really needs to start happening… sooner – rather than later!!!
Maybe having this exchange of views is a start!!!
Rather than getting in to a debate about – “half a dozen of one” OR “six of the other” i.e, Afrocentric vs Eurocentric views. Lets all agree on TWO things at least:
(1) Modern History, and in particularly ancient history, as we understand it is only a partial construction at best. But at worst a complete falsification.
(2) A true and authentic account of Modern History, including any ancient history it is based upon, would distinguish itself by its INCLUSION of the contributions from ALL peoples of the world.
My past comments here have attempted to communicate the essence of these two statements. This is what I alluded to in a previous post of mine:
To make this even more simpler I could say:
ExCLUSION AGENDAS (typically) = Western or Europeans peoples
INCLUSION AGENDAS (typically) = Black\African and POC
I say “typically” because it is not always the case and I have already proved this by citing numerous examples of people offering non-traditional views. E.g: white journalist Richard Poe – “Black Spark, White Fire”
So my question, I put to Mira, still remains unanswered:
Which are the European authors your referring to who have set up more valid scientific methodologies operating from a similar INCLUSIVE agenda?
Or maybe now I could say which are those Western or European scholars writing or researching history with an agenda of inclusivity?
I’ve already provided you with one example. Your self or Mira are welcome to provide me with more.
Then we can debate or discuss how honestly or accurately their views seek to include rather exclude the historical contributions of other peoples.
Because for me there really is no point in discussing views like:
“…Well, I do not think myself a racist when I disagree with this. I’ve been in Greece several times, been in Rome too, seen a lot of statues and been in the museums, I am a history buff myself, and I must say that if somebody claims that Rome or Greece of antiques was a black african civilization (as we now understand the term at present times) he/she must be hallusional, on drugs or have a hell of a great imagination…
OR
“…I do not know the ethymological origins of Moretti or Maurice but this sounds a bit thin to me. After all name Maurice could come from latin Marcellus or Marcianus or Marcus which is much more convincing, if we think the influnce of Rome in France, which by the way comes from the latin version of the people called Franks, Francia…
Unless of course you wish to back this up with evidence or data to support your conclusions. Speaking of which. It may surprise to note that the term “Moor” in ancient times was derived from the word “blackamoor” and was used by the Romans to describe “Ethiopians” – Just look what it says in wikipedia!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackamoors
And…the name “Maurice” which just so happens, believe it or not to be my OWN CHRISTIAN NAME also has this Moorish origin. The name was given to me by my father who, as a Christian was aware and knew of the only official recognized cannonised Black saint in the roman catholic church – ST Maurice!!!
Again as an introduction have a look at what it says about him in wikipedia!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Maurice
So Sam this is more than just thin its FACTUAL!!!
LikeLike
Kwamla, in those times people were named by their occupation, eg, blacksmith, cooper, tanner etc, if they were in the noble/royal class, they were known by the area they ruled, they were also named for physical descriptions, eg,Redhead, Blondel Moor etc. Today, your surname could be Cooper or Tanner. Are these people still prac5ticing any of the coopers or tanner trades ? Many people do not even know where their surname originated from(Europeans). Sure there are moors in England, but I doubt that is what these people all over Europe were all originally from areas with moors in the landscape. It was probably a descriptor for their origins or appearance, perhaps they were descended from Moors. For example, what happened to all the Moors expelled from Spain after Ferdinand and Isabella ‘united’ it? Not all left. Those that did may have went into Europe and dispersed. Have you ever seen some of the crest with Moorish figures found in many of the European nobility’s heraldry. I wonder where they come from and why they are there. Could it allude to some black ancestor? As for the reason blacks are drawn to ancient Egypt amongst other black civilizations may be the fact that the Egyptian civilization began in the Southern most part of Egypt, Nubia.
LikeLike
@kwamla:
“Because for me there really is no point in discussing views like:
“…Well, I do not think myself a racist when I disagree with this. I’ve been in Greece several times, been in Rome too, seen a lot of statues and been in the museums, I am a history buff myself, and I must say that if somebody claims that Rome or Greece of antiques was a black african civilization (as we now understand the term at present times) he/she must be hallusional, on drugs or have a hell of a great imagination…
OR
“…I do not know the ethymological origins of Moretti or Maurice but this sounds a bit thin to me. After all name Maurice could come from latin Marcellus or Marcianus or Marcus which is much more convincing, if we think the influnce of Rome in France, which by the way comes from the latin version of the people called Franks, Francia…
Unless of course you wish to back this up with evidence or data to support your conclusions.”
Personally I find this kind of discussions refreshing any day so I welcome it. Ok I might use some words and sentences which are a bit harsh or like that, sorry about those. That is just my way of expressing myself.
I think Herneith was onto something there concerning names. In Finland we have loads of people called Mustapää (blackhead in english) and these families have zero african-moorish pedigree, I can guarantee you that. That is just one example. Another is Schwarzenegger. You really believe that his ancestors were known as Black N****s??
You do know that many jews have the last name Schwartz etc.? Are they all decentants of the moors or black africans?? You do know that gypsies also have that surname in Europe? In finnish they are also known as Mustalainen, blackie. Are gypsies africans? No, they come from India. See? It is not that simple to draw conclusions from names per sé.
These etymological things are murky, interesting and a lot of fun, but not always factual. I mean, you do know that Charlie Sheen is really Carlos Estvez? Now what that means? People have used, adpoted and been known with different names trough out the history. For example emperor Caligula was not actually emperor Caligula. That was his nickname, but we know him by that, not by his real name.
We do not know what was the real name of Attila the Hun, but we do know that Attila meant Big Daddy, Father of All. So it was also his nickname. Charlemagne was and is know also as Charles the Great. Was this because of his status or because of his size? His thigh bone measured indicated that the man was +180cm tall, mighty giant in those days. Same can be said of Peter the Great, Russian tsar who was two meters tall and physically extremely strong man. So was he Big or Great or both??
Then lets move on the evidence of “black african Rome”. Have you been there? Have you seen those images? Pompey? Murals? Statues? I have. Have you ever been in Egypt? I have. Have you been in Athens and Greece and seen their statues, paintings etc.? I have. I think anybody who has been there and seen those works with his/her own eyes can honestly say that absolute majority those people depicted in their statues, murals and pictures and images are not black africans. That is just the way it is. I am not inventing this, nor I think I am blindly following some old beliefs of white supremacy. That is just the fact. The same goes with ancient Greece.
Like I said, these people were not white north europeans either. They are mediterannean. We the white europeans were horror for these civilizations. We were the barbarians from their point of view. And we, eventually, destroyed them.
I think the evidence is abundant. Rome was not a black african civilization. Nor it was a white european. It was Rome. Same goes with Greece. It is just that fact, not an opinion. I am not saying this because I do not want them to be black civilizations. I say this because I have not seen a shred of anything remotely that proves they were and I have been there many times. I have spent days and weeks in museums and ruins.
As for these guys who have “the evidence” that it was black african civilization (wht ever that means in their minds), you do know that there are guys who have proven absolutely that it was white atlanteans who started the Egypt? You do know that there are dozens of professors, researchers and scientist (so called) who have proven that it was aliens who build the pyramids? You do know, that there are millions of americans, millions, who think that biblical creation story is the absolut truth and that humans walked among the dinosaurs and that the world is few thousand years old??
Once one guy claimed that because there are black guys in greek pots and clay vases, they must have been black africans. Really? Because there are blue natives in Avatar there must be some blue skinned guys hoppin around the Earth somewhere? Because those guys in Braveheart had blue paint in their faces the scots still walk around their faces like that or did so in those days? No they do not nor they did. That is Hollywood. Picts used to paint themselves but that was roughly a thousand years before William Walace and 1500 yrs before Mel Gibson.
Never draw conclusions from art. Why? Because there has never been women on real life who look excately like those in Picassos paintings. Michelangelos David is not a lifelike statue. Or then he knew the biggest humanbeing ever. I doubt the egyptian pharaos were ten, twenty meters tall but their statues are. You understand where I am going witht this?
As for the wikipedia being a scientifical proof?? C’mon, man. You know better than that! 😀
I talk more about why I respond to this in the next. This is gettin too long for anybody. Sorry bout that!
LikeLike
@kwamla, part 2: sorry man, this is just too interesting for me to just let go.
Why I respond to the claim that Rome was actually black african civilization? It is very simple. For the same reason I respond to the claims that say that blacks are intellectually lower spieces. Or that they are not the same race as humans are. Etc.
I think that the only reason someone is making the claim of african Rome is political. It has nothing to do with reality. I was in States when so called New Afrikan movement was coming up. I talked with guys who adopted it, who opposed it etc. It was very interesting. But I also talked with nigerian guy who was laughing his ass off when one american new african guy walked by using swahili name, dressed in yoruba clothes with togoan headdress. You understand?
I think it is false to claim that Rome or ancoent Greece were black african civilzations. From scientifical point of view it is not so. That is just the way it is. The real question is this: why somebody wants to make that claim?
It is very simple. Because in anglosaxon history writing Rome has been traditionally seen as the white father of European civilzation. So in order to attack that construction it is necessary to un do white Rome and paint it black. This is particularily an american thing. It has more to do with the race politics of USA than real history.
If and when black scientists and researchers really want to highlight the achievements of the black africans, they don’t need to swim across the Mediterannean sea. Egypt is right there. There are also all those Saharan civilizations to bring up. You really should check out the libraries of Timbuktu etc. Sub-Sarahan Africa had many civilizations and mighty empires. Why all of these are ignored and the focus is on Rome and Greece?
Because they mean so much for white anglosaxon american history and its canon. From Rome to new Rome Washington. That was the idea of the founding fathers. Look at the monuments and buildings in Washington, in your university campus, Wall street etc. Rome, Rome, Rome. And… A White Rome that is!
How to attack all that? By claiming that the original one was black african one!
That is the reason for all of this.
And like I said: why all the sub-saharan civilizations are ignored by these african Rome advocates? Do they think that the real black Africa has anything like it? Well, I know they got the Big Daddy of them all: Egypt. And that is just for starters.
And I say all this with genuine will to debate, kwamla.
LikeLike
Sam ???
Your getting worse than Mira! You’ve completely ignored the bulk of my post and the arguments I put forward for evaluating and discussing any peoples contributions towards history.
Why is this?
Instead you’ve chosen to respond and make this critique at length???
This is all very well Sam but I not arguing that!!! Neither are any of the writers, scholars or academics I have quoted so far arguing for this.
They would make this claim about Egypt. And would support and be willing to defend this argument. But even that is another separate debate.
NO! Just to be clear. My post is about acknowledging the impact and influence African civilization has had on the rest of the world. Americas, Greece, Europe etc…
For which the evidence is particularly overwhelming.
And I say all this with a genuine will to debate Sam!!!
LikeLike
LikeLike
I think this answers some of the questions you were posing Herneith…
LikeLike
The last video Kwamla posted does in fact reflect a scholar reality people grew up with in central, western and southern Europe (at least, perhaps also elsewhere). I do remember from my early childhood on that Moors were usually associated with people of dark complexion and mainly subsaharan features. There are enough historical sites with artefacts over here that suggest this. Only much later, in my twenties or so, I first heard of Moors with chiefly mediterranean features, like the Berbers. Now the hypothesis that the Berbers were the ones, exclusively as a homogeneous group, to invade southern Europe somehow doesn’t fit into the big picture.
I’m definitely not a history boffin. However, it seems plausible that the truth is most likely somewhere in between. If I understand correctly, the Moors were never considered a distinct ethnicity but rather a mixture of peoples from different origins. It seems unlikely that migration from Mali, Sénégal and Niger towards the North have just halted once Europe and North Africa were more or less extensively populated.
I suppose there is enough reason to assume that the medieval Moors were composed of a similar mixture of ethnic groups as exists today in Mauritania, Southern Maroc and Northern Mali.
http://www.trekearth.com/gallery/Africa/Mauritania/South/Trarza/Merderdra/photo438665.htm
My cousin pointed me to a video of a friend of his who considers himself a “nomade maure” of a long family line.
(Ali is the presenter. In French)
LikeLike
@kwamla;
“This is all very well Sam but I not arguing that!!! Neither are any of the writers, scholars or academics I have quoted so far arguing for this.
They would make this claim about Egypt. And would support and be willing to defend this argument. But even that is another separate debate.
NO! Just to be clear. My post is about acknowledging the impact and influence African civilization has had on the rest of the world. Americas, Greece, Europe etc…”
Ok, yeah, now I got it. Yes, there is no denying that Egypt had a huge influence on every other civilization that ecxisted in its time or after it. That is true. But I still struggle on this follow up… Hmm.. I have to digest this for a while.
@femi: yeah, that is what I have heard about the moors. Or maurs. Mauri in finnish. I do not think they were so much an ethnic entity as they were a cultural or political one. The video is a good one.
About the claim that the moors conquered most of Europe, well… Again, what is Europe? If it consists present day Spain, Portugal, Balearian Islands, parts of southern France and Italy, then ok.
They never did got as far as northern France, central Europe, Germany, Britain, north Europe, Russia etc. They did raid quite far up, some tales tell about them raiding Switzerland, but they did not hold these lands at all. So majority of Europe was beyond their reach. And this is also an historical fact.
“the Moors who invaded Spain and ruled for over 780 years and also conquered much of white Europe”.
Well, like I pointed there, they never did conquered much of white Europe nor ruled it for 780 years. That is a ridiclous claim as it is. Some southern parts of Europe, yes, but not that long them either. The moors in southern Italy were done bu 1200’s permanently by the normans. That is a historical fact reported by the arabs widely at the time.
That is a stretching of facts, lets put it that way. And if this guy is willing to say these things, what he is saying elsewhere?
This video which Kwamla posted does not prove anything, sorry bout that. Why? Because absolute majority of the artefacts this guy shows there are not made by the moors, are from the time of moors or anything like that. They were made by the white europeans at times of colonizing Africa, from 1700’s onwards. They were made centuries AFTER the moors were driven out of Spain. They are ashtrays, serving plates, commercial signs, statues and signs etc. To put it shortly, they are exotique for those who could afford it at that time. Not all, but most of them. Sorry about that.
If this guy lived in Europe for plus 3 years, he should have know better. He must know that the images of black men and women have been en vogue over here for centuries, not because they prove that blacks ruled Europe, but because exotique sells. I believe Femi knows this very well. Advertisers in France have always used these images for various reasons.
Now bear in mind that I have no axe to grind here. I have no problem with the idea that black african guys once ruled Europe. What I do not accept is saying that the others lied and then present another lie as a fact. This is a such a lie. Not the truth.
I remember too well the cold war struggle in Europe with all its disinformation and this smells the same. It may be appealing for you Kwamla, but it has nothing to do with history or reality. Were there black guys among the moors? Sure. Black moor kings? Sure. They are still there among the tuaregs of Sahara.
I think you should read about Spanish reconquista Kwamla and history of Spain. This guy claims on this video that the moors ruled much of Europe for 780 years. From what till where? Goths ruled present day Spain till the 600-700’s when the arabs conquered much of it. Arabs that is. The moors came around after 1000 AD. I think the last remanant of muslim Spain was taken around late 1400’s. That gives us max 400 years, almost half of what this guy claims there. Not too convincing.
They once ruled Sicily for example. It is a historical fact. But if you tell me that they ruled much of Europe and then prove it with lamp from 1800’s Paris, that does not convince me. I try find some images of my own after this.
And finally; what on earth is wrong with black Timbuktu, one of the most important cradels of civilization of man kind in its time? Not fancy enough for these guys? What is wrong with the Zimbabwean kingdom?? Not great enough? Not civilized enough? I do not understand. I do understand it as a political move. Nothing else.
No, Kwamla, I am sorry, but for me this is political stuff. This is not history, pure and simple. I am not saying that we know everything, but that does not mean that we can start to invent the past because we want.
Mira experienced it in the old socialist system. You guys have experienced in your american system. Why try to do it again, from black perspective? For the hell of it? To get even? I do not understand.
@abagond: sorry, this is off topic but this getting pretty interesting 😀
LikeLike
@kwamla, femi: looks like I will be busy this weekend but I’ll be back next week. This is interesting!
Couple thoughts before I go:
Why it is so important present the idea of black african Europe, Rome etc.? I say that it is because of race politics in USA. It is an political construction, ideological version, not a historical one. It is designed to challenge the white anglosaxon version of the american history of the world.
Why the real black african civilizations are disregarded? I have no idea. Not famous enough in US? Not enough knowledge about them. I wonder this a lot. I have been waiting seriously when the black african civilizations are brought up generally, when the flood of books, documents and films start appear, because there is lot of stuff. I have no idea why black historians, or white for that matter, ignore a lot of this stuff. It is interesting.
Just think about this: the sub-saharan black african kingdoms traded with Rome, Levant, Arabia, India, Carthago, China etc. What was that? It has been presented to us that bunch of adventurers went to trade with local tribes for slaves and tusks etc. but that is boloney. Why trade if there was nobody stopping you from taking it?? That is the whole point!
Romans could not take it and they were trading as far south as in present day Tanzania and Kenya. All those mighty empires and kingdoms in India could not conquer Africa. Why? Because of some savage tribesmen? I don’t buy that for a second.
Rome conquered anything they could. All over. In north, east, west, south. They conquered Egypt. They wiped Dacia from the face of the earth. They destroyed the whole gaullic civilization etc. Why stop at Sudan? Sahara? What was there to stop them? Remember, Sahara at this time was not so desert as it is today. So what was stopping them??
In the east it was Persia and others who stopped Rome. In Europe it was Germany. What blokced them in Africa? Bunch of half naked guys running around on savannah? Not likely.
That I would very much like to know more about and read about. The real great civilizations of black Africa for real.
LikeLike
Yes, I believe HBD (at least the popular, Steve Sailer kind) is shot through with self-interest. Everyone wants their group to be considered the best, so throughout history there have been individuals who have claimed their kith and kin disproportionately possess positive traits and others possess negative ones. These people tend to percieve only virtue among their group and vice among outsiders. Not surprisingly, some who have expressed sympathy for Sailerian “HBD” blew a fuse when I posted links to studies indicating that biracials were percieved by survey interviewers as especially attractive. Then again, the only reason I posted those links (and did not look for countervailing evidence) was that they favored my social class. This is not to say that objective research and analysis of human biodiversity is impossible. I think it is, but you’ve got to look to the right sources to find it. I would say that people with a PhD in a relevant field (e.g. biological anthropology, genetics) and who possess tenure at a respected university are very likely to be reliable sources on this subject.
LikeLike
@Sam & Femi. Here is another video I found by the same author showing pictures and artifacts of Moors.
I would like to point Sam these pictures, crests and paintings pre-date the 17th Century before the start of colonialism (18th Century). So they are more than just novelty trinkets of the empire era as you imply!!! So for example there is famous painting by Rembrandt which I looked up, as suggested, and to my surprise found this video with paintings by the Artist Rubens too!
LikeLike
well, yeah, maybe this history thing should have its own thread?? 😀
LikeLike
[…] Biodiversity” here. Here, blogger bigWOWO talks about it. Blogger abagond talks about it here and here. Ken Weiss discusses it here. Magnus Hansen talks about HBD in the first of a four-part […]
LikeLike
@ michaeljonbarker
Thanks for sharing that article on the “Abagond used to be great” but has devolved” thread with this comment:
What caught my eye were the passages where Molyneux and his cohorts describe a color-coded racial hierarchy that puts paler people on top and progressively darker people on the bottom:
These passages made me think of how some N.E. Asian Americans have fallen for White Supremacist propaganda that praises them at the expense of Black people. Moreover, they also seem to be ignorant of their own history in the US including the hostility and pseudoscience N.E. Asian pioneers faced just a few generations ago:
LikeLiked by 1 person
Don’t understand what the level of one’s intelligence or social behavioural patterns have to do with biodiversity.
In my opinion, biodiversity is about biological facts, like ‘people of African race usually and in comparison to Caucasian or Asian races have more facial wrinkles when aged ‘, or ‘people of Asian race sweat under high temperatures less’.
LikeLike