The main ideas I learned from history as taught in schools and books in America in the late 1900s:
1. Spotlight history: Most of human history does not matter. Here, roughly, are the important periods and regions:
- -3500 to -500: Middle East (honorary white)
- -500 to +500: Greece and Rome (white)
- 500 to 1500: Western Europe (white)
- 1500 to present: North America (white)
Other parts of the world make “contributions” from time to time, like gunpowder or slave labour or South America. That is all you need to know about them. Even the history of the people who would become the English does not start till they cross into the Roman Empire, into the Spotlight.
But: This leaves out at least 65% of world history!
2. Technocentrism: Better living through technology. You can rank human societies from backward to advanced according to a Western technological scale, which goes something like this:
- stone tools
- agriculture
- bronze tools
- wheels
- writing
- iron tools
- arch
- printing, paper, gunpowder, compass
- industrialization
- electricity
- cars, planes, rockets
- computers
Thus the Incas and Ancient Egyptians are backward because they could not make iron tools.
But: The Incas and Ancient Egyptians could make things the West cannot.
But: Mexico had cities and zero long before Britain, yet had no metal tools or wheels.
But: Gunpowder wiped out millions and made millions more slaves.
But: Before 1500 the West ranked the world by religion, not technology. By that measure the West itself is now in a dark age.
3. White Moral Centre: Northern White American Protestants are the moral centre of history. You can tell because they always fight on the right side of history: in the American Revolution, the American Civil War, two world wars and so on. Democracy, freedom and equality! Bootstraps! Yay!
But: Most Ivy League history professors were Northern White American Protestants. Is that, like, a coincidence?
But: genocide, slave trade, slavery, Dead Indian Land, Indian boarding schools, wars of empire, regime change, ghettos, racism, etc.
But: abortion, high rates of divorce and out-of-wedlock birth.
4. Magical Progress. Everything just naturally gets better all the time without anyone trying too hard. Not just in technology but in every way: morally, culturally, intellectually, politically, everything. That means you do not have to waste time reading what people wrote in other times and places.
But: What was Magical Progress for whites was Apocalyptic Regress for others, like Black and Native Americans.
5. Race is fixed and racism is universal: The idea of what is “white” has always been the same throughout history. Racism is natural, part of human nature, going all the way back to the first tribal wars. Yet: whites are becoming slowly less racist over time because of Magical Progress.
But: White Americans became more racist after 1890. Before 1500 English did not even have the words “racism”, “savages”, “whites” or “civilization”. Ancient Greeks did not see themselves as “whites”.
6. Only white people matter. Far worse than the narrow Eurocentrism of all this, most of these ideas about history assume that only white people matter.
“Friends” (1994-2004), an American television show set in a New York where, in real life, 65% were people of colour, just like in real world history.
See also:
- white racist guide to writing history – Oops! This is pretty much the same post written in a different way. It does not cover #4 (Magical Progress) and #5 (Racism as natural), but does talk about the ideas of honorary whites, “contributions”, technological “mysteries” and colonial vocabulary.
- elements:
- examples:
- style guide: Eurocentric words
Abagond 
I’m reading “The Destruction of Black Civilization” by Chancellor Williams right now.
It is very eye opening. He mentions that African history is taught as the history of white people in Africa, not as the history of African people. Of course, I’ve always known this but have never heard it stated so plainly.
It’s effect is to teach African Americans that we had no history until slavery or until white people showed up.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Great piece – equally perceptive and depressing.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on oogenhand and commented:
All powerful points about the unexpected racism in LIBERAL mainstream discourse. Points 2. and 4. i.e. Technocentrism and Magical Progress are also talking points of the New Right in Europe.
LikeLike
You know when you steal and corrupt others histories and implement your concepts you remain true to it. Like the Impressions song, The Same Thing It Took To Get Your Baby Hook Is Gonna Take The Same Thing To Keep Her. With that being said lets us look at what they missed and will suffer from. The calendar, the Gregorian Calendar is a modern slavery key. The Clock is the timekeeper of something that really doesn’t matter. They have convince us that without these things we will not survive. They say that numbers is life but is it really. Maybe we should ask the Dogons.
LikeLike
I’m a history major and often feel myself quite disappointed with the material that is required of me to learn for these reasons. Although, there are a few great courses I have taken with some really amazing professors that offer a different point of view – and I saw a lot of people drop out of them because it was too much to stomach for them I suppose.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on The Racist and Unoriginal Anglo-American Entertainment Industry.
LikeLike
If Eurocentric historians were truthful, then they’d admit that European history is a product of the study of Egypt/Kemet (hence “Egyptology” but never “Romanology” or “Greekology”), because every European power went to Kemet to learn. This is why it’s important that “Egyptologists” maintain the lie that Kemet was a non-African civilisation.
While 19th century Europeans were in Kemet digging up the past, they found the future. Without Egyptology, we would still be in the dark age.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sing it, resw77
But since the modern day “white Arab” brown-skinned Egyptians themselves keep perpetuating this Lie, white/Europeans have no incentive to stop trying to twist the Truth.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Linda
Right you are, but if these modern (Ottoman-Arab) “Egyptians” truly believed they were the same as the ancients, they would not have destroyed the sacred ancient temples, and would not continue to put on public display the corpses of their SUPPOSED ancestors. So I’m unsure why anyone believes this lie.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Because modern day Egyptians want to keep being “honorary whites” but too much evidence is working against them.,,, it’s an Obsession for white people to not accept that their European “civilization” has to give “Thanks” black Africans.
I do believe the ancient Egyptians were a mixture of different Ethnic groups but based on white racist Eugenics, all those people would be called black or mixed race…. none of them would be “white” but for Egyptians, they get a pass into the “Caucasian” group…
National Geographics 3-D image of King Tut as a “white man”
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/05/0510_051005_tutsface.html
Anthropologist now want to do the same with the Amharic/Ethiopians and other afro-Semetic people and call them Caucasian (covers all the bases of the cradle of origin and history robbing)
LikeLike
@Linda
Good assessment. Modern Egyptians get a “pass into the ‘Caucasian’ group” until they try to board a plane in a Western country. Then their pass is quickly revoked.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Some of them were mixed, not all. Many were pure black, the originals were black but were whitened and pushed out due to Asian(white) invasions and immigration. The mixed offspring did not think of themselves as black because the black parent was their enslaved mothers. They didn’t want to identify with slavery and their free fathers treated them as Asian. Egypt achieved greatness and was united during the reign of African(black) pharaohs, Menses and Mentuhotep II.
This is what I got from Chancellor Williams, who seems to be a more respectable source to me.
LikeLike
*the originals were black but were whitened OR pushed out due to Asian(white) invasions and immigration.
LikeLike
I recently stumbled on an article that was proposing what ‘humans’ would look like in 100,000 years. They would become bug-eyed and gain darker pigmentation. Of course, the examples were white and in the artists’ rendition they’re still lighter than many people are TODAY. That’s ‘#6″ for you.
LikeLike
It has been quite a while since I’ve read Cheik Anta Diop’s book that describes his development of the “Dosage Test” , but I believe that he did this in the 1960’s . With this test he would use a very small piece of a mummified skin , and then test it for melanin content . I do not recall how many specimens he was able to secure , but I do remember that he proved definitively that Egyptian mummies had melanated skin . He had a very difficult time acquiring mummies to perform this very non-invasive test on …
LikeLike
“solesearch,
The mixed offspring did not think of themselves as black because the black parent was their enslaved mothers. They didn’t want to identify with slavery and their free fathers treated them as Asian.”
Linda says,
You’re speaking about modern Egypt after the Arab invasion. Prior to Arab Invasion and Greek/Roman, Egypt passed hands politically back and forth between “black” and “brown” groups of people (such as the Hyksos, who were allies of the Nubians) but the average Egyptian person stayed the same regardless of who was sitting on the throne.
The slavery you are referring to occurred after Arab invasion, where in North Africa, the black women would be brought up from the south as slaves…that has nothing to do with Ancient Egypt.
During Ancient Egypt, the slaves during those times were Ethnic groups who lost the war against the Egyptians, such as the Caanites, Hittites, Syrian (brown or “Asian” people) or Nubians.
Here is an article that talks about it:
http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/timelines/topics/slavery.htm
LikeLike
Nubians, what are today’s Ethiopians and Eritreans, and Malayalees, that is Indians from the state of Kerala in South India, look curiously similar.
LikeLike
No, Nubians are the southern Egyptians and northern Sudanese of today, who still live in Egypt and Sudan — they still exist.
Nubians and most of Egypt at one point, was a part of the Kingdom of Kush, which included Egypt, Sudan, and ancient Ethiopia or Meroe (not the Ethiopia of today, it’s located in Sudan)
Modern day Ethiopia is made up many different African Semitic/ Habesha groups
Eastern Africans look similar to southern Asians because they came from the same group that first left out of Africa.
LikeLike
No, I’m talking about Ancient Egypt. Asians(whites) had already begun invading Egypt and had control of Lower Egypt at various times. Weak African and Afro-Asian pharaoh’s encouraged or did little to stop the growing foreign power in Lower Egypt. This caused many African’s to move further southward into Nubia.
This is from the The Destruction of Black Civilization by Chancellor Williams, a black historian.
LikeLike
There is a long ancient trading history between African and India that history books also over look.
LikeLike
I love that Boondocks comic strip, it pretty much summarizes the thread. In my opinion I believe there are many culturally biased teachers/instructors in the educational system and a lot of information is incorrect or just left out. So as a Black American, it’s my job to study and learn about my culture and the contributions of African people around the globe. That’s just my two cents.
LikeLike
History is dominated by the conquerors. The question you should ask is who documented historical events or investigated said events. Blacks, Asians or Europeans?
Ask yourself another question. If u were Japanese or Chinese do you get euro-centric information and history or from their national perspective ? The facts are that history we are taught in ” the West” is going to be from a western perspective!
LikeLike
Egypt has a very long history. What dynasty are you referring to when you say that the mixed children of black slave mothers identified with their Asian fathers?
which dynasty before the Ptolemaic Kingdom (or 18th dynasty when the Ramses, King Tut) are you referring to?
LikeLike
The above question is for Solesearch
I’m a fan of Dr. Ivan Van Sertima, (Caribbean) who gets down to the details about African history.
LikeLike
@ Linda: Could you recommend a reference book for me on Blacks and Africans in the world. Seeing I am at a remedial level I need something easy to comprehend. It would be greatly appreciated. I value your commentary.
LikeLike
No problem, Mary. Broad question though, what specifically are you trying to focus on?
LikeLike
@ Linda: I was reading the discourse between you and solesearch about the Egyptians. I have always wondered about the Egyptian and where Africans come into play, If that makes sense.
LikeLike
@ Linda: Abagond’s referral “Creating Black Americans African History And It’s Meanings 1619 to the Present looks like a good start. Or Maybe something basic. I read on the internet blogs about Black people being the Original people. Maybe something along those lines. Thank you for responding.
LikeLike
@ Linda: I just went into the archive Abagond did a post on how black was Ancient Egypt? I will read that thread and I will reference t.he information from that as well. That’s what I am talking about. Thanx
LikeLike
You know, there was a Youtube blogger, a white woman who’s an overt white supremacist, that said that African civilizations not only didn’t contribute anything, but they used European tools to build their communities.
This and some other white racist hogwash was no doubt met with a lot of anger from many of the responders, many of them were black. As expected, this woman got upset and called them “black haters”.
I don’t know if her videos are still around.
LikeLike
Okay, well so not to take up too much of this thread, I’ll direct you to a discussion I had with BR.
But in a nutshell, the ancient Egyptians are indigenous natives of Africa – other words, they were “black” based on todays concept of race.
They invaded and were invaded by many different Ethnic groups but these people would still be classified as “black” today.
Because of their location, they were also invaded by groups of people from the East (what we call middle-east) — These are the “Asians” Solesearch is talking about even these people varied in their geno and phenotype — like the Hykos, who were actually a mixed-race group of people.
None of these people would be classified as “white” by todays standards though — they looked nothing like modern day white Europeans.
LikeLike
Off the top of my head, I’m going to say the Asians had already invaded and occupied the Nile delta before the first dynasty. The first dynasty being Menses’ reign when he unified Lower and Upper Egypt, restablishing African’s control of trade in Lower Egypt.
An excerpt from the book:
Asian masters in the regions over which they had gained control, first in Northern Egypt . This meant that even in the beginning, “siding with the Asians” was not solely determined by whether one was a half-breed or a full-blooded African . Blacks who did not choose to flee south but remained under Asian rule, even if enslaved, worked harder to gain recognition and acceptance than any other group . Indeed, so anxious were some of these early Blacks for “integration” with the Asians that they themselves did most in creating the new breed of Egyptians who were to become their mortal enemies . For in an all-out effort to appease
the invaders, they freely gave their daughters and other desirable
females as gifts to become concubines, thus speeding up the reproduction
processes on an ever-widening scale . Nor did this lessen the wholesale
capture of women in raids on African villages for the same purpose and
for export to Asia .
LikeLike
@ Linda: Thank You. I think I can take it from here. Again Thank you for responding.
LikeLike
“Solesearch,
Off the top of my head, I’m going to say the Asians had already invaded and occupied the Nile delta before the first dynasty.”
Linda says,
I don’t remember myself, I’ll have to look, but during Menes rule in the 1st Dynasty, if there were any “Asian” or Semitic groups, they were not rulers.
LikeLike
Menes, who united Egypt ruled when it was known as Kemet and before this, it was prehistoric Egypt…this period didn’t even have dynasties, the people were nomadic and farmers.
This is the period where Anthropologists have traced the migration patterns of the ancient Africans from the east and west and linked it to Egypt and north Africa.
LikeLike
Mary, you’re welcome.
I’ll include my conversation with BR, which in essence talks the Egyptian language and the Igbo language… basically, who originated what since pre-historic Egyptians were “black” and Igbo and Egyptian share similar words / etymology
Due to migration patterns and the fact that different groups frequently retraced their steps
did the Igbo language originated from the Egyptians or did the Egyptian language originate from the Igbos?
Did the native black Africans go west to Northeast first, then retraced back to west or did the native black Egyptians migrate from north to west (the Akans did in fact migrated from the north to west)
https://abagond.wordpress.com/2013/01/14/sub-saharan-africa/#comment-168626
hope it helps.
LikeLike
Also from the book:
The evolution of the Egyptians as a nationality group is as interesting as their anti-African attitude, although the latter differs not at all from that of many mixed breeds with African blood elsewhere . It has been stated that the original Egyptians were black, half-African and half Asian . This general racial pattern changed, however, as the centuries passed along and more and more white conquerors, their followers and the other whites were attracted to the “Bread Basket on the Nile”-Jews, Syrians, Hittites, Persians, Babylonians, Assyrians, . Greeks, Turks, Arabs, Romans, et al. Intermarriages between conquerors and conquered continued along with concubinage as a national institution . The direct result was that more and more Egyptians became lighter and near-white in complexion . In short, they did, in fact, become more Asian in blood than African . Yet this upper ruling class of near-whites was at no time more than a fourth of the population . For until the Islamic “flood” which began in the middle of the seventh century A.D ., the vast majority of the Egyptians were what modern scholars like to characterize as “Negroid”.
LikeLike
@Linda: Thank You again. Yes I remember the discourse between you and commenter B.R. It was the Sub-Saharan is racist thread. Thanks for the reference.
LikeLike
Honestly I think ”World” History is just an extended course of the White history taught in our schools. Trust me. My pal took ”World History” two years ago in her Sophomore year and she told me that all she learned was European history about Europe and how it was a superpower etc but not a thing about Africa. To me, it is a shame that Black kids aren’t taught more about Africa.
LikeLike
Mary,
Here is an article by Dr. Ivan Van Sertima, high-lighting the scientific and technological achievements of ancient Africa that gets NO mention by white western/European historians:
Van Sertima, Ivan. Blacks in Science: Ancient and Modern
http://www.christinaproenza.org/BlacksInScience.html
African Metallurgy :
Africans living on the western shores of Lake Victoria, in Tanzania, had produced carbon steel.
Astronomy :
an accurate and complex calendar system based on astronomical reckoning was developed by the first millenium in B.C. in eastern Africa
The astronomer-priests of the Dogon had for centuries, it seems, a very modern view of our solar system and of the universe (Dogons lived in region found in modern Mali)
Architecture and Engineering
South of the Sahara lie several architectural wonders. One of these is Great Zimbabwe, the most immense construction site found in Africa outside the pyramids of ancient Egypt and Sudan.
Great Zimbabwe is a massive stone complex.
and then the Europeans proceeded to rob Africans blind.
“Europeans not only began to steal the treasure but even the right of the native Africans to lay claim to their own civilization. Many books have been written, trying to prove that this architectural site, which is right in the heartland of Africa, half a thousand miles away from any seacoast, was built by Persians, Phoenicians, Portuguese, Arabs, or Chinese. (even though no other prototypes of this architecture exists outside of Africa)”
LikeLike
mary, I also included an article by Dr. Ivan Sertima but for whatever reason, it’s in moderation, so keep an eye out.
LikeLike
“I don’t remember myself, I’ll have to look, but during Menes rule in the 1st Dynasty, if there were any “Asian” or Semitic groups, they were not rulers.”
Before Menses, they had gained control of Lower Egypt. It was called Chem then. It was not Egypt. During this first dynasty, the Africans retook Lower Egypt and Egypt was created.
I think we are in agreement on who created and ruled Egypt, the Africans.
It was during the 7th – 10th dynasties from 2180 – 2040 B.C. where the mass whitening occurred. During this period of de-centralization Africans and Asians claimed to be Pharaoh of Egypt although they hadn’t unified upper and lower Egypt.
It wasn’t until the 11th dynasty that Mentuhotep II was able to unify Upper and Lower Egypt again and could rightly claim to be pharaoh of Egypt. William’s says that it is stated that he expelled the Asians from Egypt, but that would have been impossible since they were the majority in Lower Egypt and had been for centuries. However, he did remove the commercial blockade on the Africans that the Asians had in place This led to another golden age in black history furthering advances in learning, science, and the arts and crafts.
However, mixed race children had identified with their Asian father’s from the beginning. William’s attributes this to invading conqueror’s always setting themselves up as the superior people, the African mothers of the children being slaves had no right to their children, and the Afro-Asiatic children being opportunist siding with who was the most powerful.
I’ll have to check out Dr. Ivan Van Sertima, when I finish this book.
LikeLike
“solesearch
However, mixed race children had identified with their Asian father’s from the beginning. William’s attributes this to invading conqueror’s always setting themselves up as the superior people, the African mothers of the children being slaves had no right to their children”
Linda says,
I asked for time period because I’ve read that is was when the Arabs invaded, that this concept of children born to black African mothers would be identify as “Arab” by the father… the Nubians were not the only slaves, many different Semitic/ Asian people were slaves as well (like the Hebrews, Syrians, etc)
I haven’t read anything like that pre-Arab that’s why I am interested in the time period because “race” was never a concept back then until after the Arabs.
LikeLike
correction:
I’ve read that when the Arabs invaded, this concept of children born to black African mothers, would then identify as “Arab” like their fathers..
LikeLike
@solesearch & Linda: I will check out Ivan Van Sertima, Thank you for this as well.
LikeLike
And why is history always seen through the eyes of Whites? How about the point of view of people of color? Too much Whitewashing for me to bear.
@Linda, Solesearch and ,Mary
I am sure you guys agree that so called World history is White washed to a certain degree, right?
LikeLike
@Adeen; I agree. As I said in above previous comments. There are many culturally biased instructors in America’s educational system. And many of these culturally biased instructors are the authors of the textbooks. We Black people are just non-factors to white America. So this doesn’t surprise me why we are left out of the history of the world and our nation. That’s just my opinion.
LikeLike
History is always written through the eyes of the Victors…and for the last 500 years, that has been white Europeans.
that’s why it’s important to read other countries history(s), so that when you lay history out globally, you can fill in the blank spots that your country’s historians left out — not all Historians wrote with “erasable” ink — many of them were very factual about the events of the times.
Such as the fact that one of the primary reasons the USA entered the Vietnam war was because they didn’t want the Communist to control the oil that was found off the “Indochine” coast — I learnt that info when I studied in Germany many years ago.
LikeLike
@Mary Burrell
”We Black people are just non-factors to white America. So this doesn’t surprise me why we are left out of the history of the world and our nation. That’s just my opinion.”
Only by this society’s standard but you know Blacks were the first people. We are the ones who built civilizations on the banks of the Tigris River near Mesotopamia. We are the ones who created the light bulb, air conditioners, stop lights etc. We don’t get enough credits for any of the contributions we made in the world.
LikeLike
@Linda
Well said.
LikeLike
I’ve not attended an HBCU, but don’t they teach the history of African civilizations as well as African Americans?
LikeLike
@Why: I am making an attempt to become an autodidact. I want to retain knowledge on my own. I don’t care for classroom settings.
LikeLike
@Why
Teaching Black kids about African civilizations and African history breaks the hold that White supremacy has on the minds of Blacks who feel that they are inferior to Whites and they don’t want that. They want us to think that we are nothing and they are everything that is perfect. Most of all, Black kids will have pride and dignity about their ancestral homeland and about themselves.
LikeLike
mary burrell
@Why: I am making an attempt to become an autodidact. I want to retain knowledge on my own. I don’t care for classroom settings.
___________________
Me too! However my question was – do HBCUs teach the histories of African civilizations as well as Black American history or not?
LikeLike
@ WHY: I am quite certain that African American studies are taught in most HBU’s.
LikeLike
Again Abagond, I must point out how you conveniently ignore the central role that Christianity (not just Protestant, either) has played in all these negative events.
PLANTING THE CROSS!
India’s militant Hindus may have found an unlikely ally in their campaign against Christians: Pope John Paul II. They do not even need to rant about the dangers of “spiritual imperialism” anymore. During his recent visit to India, the pontiff has bolstered their arguments against Christianity by openly calling for the conversion of Asia to Catholicism.
Ignoring Hindu appeals for an end to proselytizing and complaints about the 16th-century Inquisition in the former Portuguese colony of Goa, John Paul hoped that the coming millennium will see “the cross firmly planted” in Asia, just as it was in Europe and the Americas in previous millennia. The continent, he said, is “thirsting for the living water that Jesus alone can give.” The exclusionary statements play right into the hands of far-right Hindus and worsen what is already a volatile situation. In the past two years, attacks on Christians have soared, with more than 150 reported church lootings, beatings, rapes and killings. The World Hindu Council responded to the Pope’s words by vowing to “intensify agitation against the activities of the missionaries.”
Read more here;
http://www.cnn.com/ASIANOW/asiaweek/magazine/99/1126/ed.india.pope.html
LikeLike
[…] What “World” History Has Taught Me […]
LikeLike
@ Why
I am not casting blame on who did what. That is not what the post is about. It is about the ideas that lie behind the names and dates, that shape how Western history is put together and written. Catholicism has not been one of those ideas for over 200 years.
LikeLike
Perhaps you should take a look at this post on Abagond’s blog. He doesn’t seem to hold the work of Dr Ivan Van Sertima in the same regard as some of us might.
https://abagond.wordpress.com/2012/06/05/olmec-colossal-heads/
LikeLike
I cannot speak for Van Sertima’s work in general, but in regard to the Olmec heads, yes, it was pseudoscience.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on revealingartisticthoughts and commented:
Bring back memories of my Boondocks books. Not a fan of Aaron McGruder for personal reasons, but I have always liked the comic strip and boondock books.. Great break down of world aka European His-story.
LikeLike
@abagond
After reading your Olmec article, I think your understanding of Van Sertima’s research is extremely limited. There are many reasons to conclude the Olmecs were Africans beyond the mere coincidence that they have stereotypical African features and their writing appears to be similar to Mande.
LikeLike
@Why?
It’s not Christianity (perhaps the Western “Bible”) to blame, for many Ethiopians have been Christian longer than most European countries, yet Ethiopian Christians have never practiced colonialism, genocide, slavery, apartheid, etc. It’s the West’s “holier-than-thou” mentality that’s really to blame.
LikeLike
@ Kwamla: Thank You Also Sir for the link.
LikeLike
One thing to remember is this: the white/european hegemony is a very, very short term phenomena in history. The white domination of the world is only 200-300 years old. In history that is very, very short period of time.
So when we are dealing with the concept of white history or history as a science, we must understand that we are dealing with a phenomena which is at most 100-150 years old. So the ideas of history, white or black history that is, are very recent. Our concepts are very recent.
So called white history, or european history as it is sometimes referred, was born to explain why the whites have the right to rule the world. Earlier versions, drafts one might say, were just explaining why certain kings or nobility had the right to rule the people etc. Thus began the “white history” which is very ideoligical and almost funny at times in its one sided story of the world. In western history China was completely forgotten, or ignored, despite the fact that China was the super power of the world at least from the roman times if not even earlier. Only recently, as China has began to rise again, its importance has crept back into the “white history”.
The historical fact that in late 1400’s and early 1500’s the whole Europe was filthy, over populated, disease ridden region plagued by constant wars, genocides and almost totally un educated people (the nobility included) is usually nicely forgotten or not explained. It is much nicer to talk about the reneissance than plagues, massacres, witch hunts, inquisition, religious wars, Borgias, pirates, slave trade etc.
What I find confusing and sometimes strange is the so called afro centric history writing, which is in many cases originating from USA. It mirrors in many aspects the white western history writing in its prime concern and purpose. Instead of being true work of history I find it in many cases trying to replacing the “white” history with “black” history of sorts, but still from its own political point of view, which is inheritly western as well. This is very confusing and strange in a way as I see a lot of honest attempt to find the “truth” from under the “white” history but also a lot of same ideological repetitions, just racially reversed.
I had a long discussion about this with a guy from Togo as he brought up his concern about the “afro centric” history. At first I could not understand his concern since I thoughed that afro centrism in history could only be good from the african point of view. But according to him the so-called afro centrism was not african but an american phenomena. In his mind it was just one example of the americans trying to steal the history from africans and claim it their own, as in his eyes black americans were just americans, not africans at all. Naturally this goes against what many afro americans feel or think about themselves.
I had a discussion about the same issue with couple nigerian guys later and they agreed pretty much. Though they were not too concerned about the black american version of african history, they both said that it is the americans (black americans) who just make up their own version of the history of the africans, just like the whites used to do. For them their history is theirs and they saw the american invented afro centric history and thinking as an american thing which had nothing to do with them.
One guy from Ghana saw it in a pretty similar way. “First the whites came to tell us what and who we are, now the black americans come and do the same” he said.
Now, I have no idea is there a academic discussion about this or not, is there a discussion inside the afro centric history circles about its discourses, but I must admit that the way those african guys saw the so called afro centric/black history opened my eyes in a way. I realised that it is too a product of the western way of thinking, or at least dominated by americans who represent the western traditions even as they attempt to re-write the history canons of the previous times.
I do know that the beginnings of afro centric movement in the 60’s was among the african intellectuals, I know there was a big movement among the african academics BUT has the african american movement hijakced the afro centric history as its own vehicle, just like white history has done so many other cultures, in a western way?? I do not know.
I am not saying that so called afro centric history is Bad or that there is others which are Better. I am just wondering if the fact that we can now see the “white” history with its flaws and propagandic purposes could be extended to include the whole western way of looking at history? What if the problem is the way of seeing the world?
If these african guys felt that it is again the americans (this time black americans) telling them about themselves, is there something in our western way of looking at the world that is wrong??
Sorry, a bit long, but I think this goes to the heart of white history/western history. Is the new history truly free from that or not? Is the black american history just a black version of the western one in its core? Is a black american wearing an african costume just like Kevin Costner wearing native american costume?
I do not know. But it is interesting that african guys do not see black american history as african history but as a western history, which in this post is assumed to be the White history and mainly had been. I think this needs to be discussed and thoughed about.
Are we simply too deep in the western frame of mind? Do we just project OUR ideas to the others and replace the original meanings with ours without even realising it? Is the “black” in the west too “white” for the africans? Is it in essence just another version of the western idea?
I am trying to figure this out. Very confusing indeed.
LikeLike
@resw77: Ethiopians actually have, that is why they had a decades lasting conflict with Eritrea.
LikeLike
@Sam
Yes, if you study the history of Civilization in any High School or introductory college class, it is actually the History of Western Civilization and the other stuff (eg, from China or other places) were “contributions” to history.
The History Channel recently aired “Mankind The Story of All of Us”. It was released in Nov. 2012, so is very recent. I watched it on an airplane (at least 3 1/2 episodes). It is basically a History of Western Civilization as all the other peoples and cultures are regarded as “contributions”. I have not seen “America: The Story of Us” but I suspect that it is 90+% about White American history, and the rest only make “contributions” or suffer a decline under whites. One telling point is that it starts with English colonists and traces 7 generations of European settlers.
I used to subscribe to the History Channel, but it puts out some bad stuff.
LikeLike
I wonder if it is fair to say that,
if any World History education material has whitewashed Ancient Egypt, and treats Ancient Rome and Ancient Egypt as the cradle of civilization for Mankind, then it is Eurocentric.
If any American history starts with Jamestown / the Pilgrims, and traces the American civilization as an unbroken chain of development of the European settlers to the present day culmination of their descendants, then we have been reading and studying a whitewashed US history.
LikeLike
@ sam
Up to my eyes at the moment, and no time right now now to properly address a couple of issues that came up in this blog regarding myself in the last month.
Nevertheless, I visited this blog today to skim and came straight to this thread (two of the more intriguing thread titles :-D) and saw your most pertinent comment:
{my emphasis in bold}
Agreed, sam. If ever a lens were invisible.
How many times have commenters like yourself, Kwamla, and others, pointed this out? Please keep bringing up the questions you raise here.
Personally, I see no contradiction in examining this American and Western lens, or, asking these self-reflexive questions, whilst ALSO keeping an open mind about what we do not yet know about about fully.
LikeLike
@ sam — if you reply after after today, I won’t be around for a couple more weeks due to travel commitments.
LikeLike
“But according to him the so-called afro centrism was not african but an american phenomena. In his mind it was just one example of the americans trying to steal the history from africans and claim it their own, as in his eyes black americans were just americans, not africans at all.”
Sam, as an African-American I will say that any attempt to limit our origins to slavery is not welcome whether it be by white Americans or Africans. I doubt this guys view point is held by most Africans. My ancestors were African and I have just as much right to research and try to understand that history as any African.
So I would say the problem is with his limited viewpoint, but his viewpoint has no bearing on whether or not I embrace our shared African history.
“Afrocentrism” isn’t limited to African Americans. To characterize it as such is dishonest. I even doubt the first blacks to oppose euro centrism were American.
LikeLike
Don’t you mean Egyptian history? Its usually that with those crazies, or some Lord of the Rings, mystical melanin nonsense. West Africa, where most diasporan Blacks come from, is completely off the RADAR with those losers.
LikeLike
@ Bulainik: Bulaink, Girl is that really you? I have missed you so much. Please come back to us.
LikeLike
@bulanik: Hi, and welcome back. I thoughed that you left for good.
LikeLike
@solesearch: ‘
Yes, I am aware that the so called afrocentrism began as an african thing in the 60’s, at least partly. I have no idea why these african guys view it as an american phenomena and alien to them. It might be simply that as american media dominates the “white” history/news, these guys feel that it is the american viewpoint which dominates the afro centrism. I do not know.
LikeLike
Bulanik,
Glad to see you have decided to tip your toes in the water 🙂
I’ve missed your input, don’t be a stranger.
LikeLike
“Solesearch,
My ancestors were African and I have just as much right to research and try to understand that history as any African.
So I would say the problem is with his limited viewpoint, but his viewpoint has no bearing on whether or not I embrace our shared African history.”
Linda says,
I don’t think that Africans object to us western Afro-descendants learning about our African ancestry, because the ignorance from black westerners needs to end.
from my conversations with African associates, from their point of view, black Americans, Caribbeans, afro-diasporans are “lost” because we have no African ethnic group affiliation.. to whom do we “belong”? Most of us have no clue
My black African ancestors were Jamaican Maroons, so I know for a fact that they were Akan (aka Koromanti) from possible Ethnic groups Ashanti, Fanti, or Akyem — all these people came from the region which is modern day Ghana, but other non-Akan ethnic groups were brought to Jamaica and I would love to learn who they were.
I would love to know for sure which Ethnic group(s) my non-Akan ancestors came from so that I could learn about their history, get the full picture of my African lineage.
The Africans I met took their ancestral/ family Ethnic identity very seriously… That’s why wars had been fought to re-establish regional territories that got screwed up by the Europeans.
LikeLike
“To me, it is a shame that Black kids aren’t taught more about Africa.”
As an old, rich, right wing, tea party guy, I think it’s equally a shame that white kids aren’t taught more about Africa – from an African view point.
LikeLike
@ Linda & solesearch: I was acquainted with a Nigerian gentleman who made this statement to me “You don’t even know your history baby”. I didn’t think much of this at the time. But since coming to this blog and my new found thirst for knowledge, I know what he meant now. I don’t know my history. I am trying to learn it. So much conflicting information and trying to decipher what is credible and accurate and what is not.
LikeLike
Satanforce’s comment gives me pause. I never thought about what history for black people was from the African’s point of view. I would like to learn that as well. I wish they would share that with us.
LikeLike
yes, I think it’s important because black Americans and other black diasporans can say all day that they’re “proud to be black” but it’ almost an empty statement because to be “black” is to be African —
and being “African” is more than just having the stereotypical phenotype traits — you have to have something of “substance” to honour and that starts with knowing who our direct African ancestors really were and learn their culture.
I would love to take the genealogy DNA test that Dr, Henry Louis Gates promotes.
http://africandna.com/
LikeLike
Why does that make us lost? What has their African ethnic affiliation saved them from? I’d say we belong to ourselves. We definitely to learn the history of Africans, but I don’t see why we’d need to belong to an African ethnic group.
LikeLike
“Don’t you mean Egyptian history? Its usually that with those crazies, or some Lord of the Rings, mystical melanin nonsense. West Africa, where most diasporan Blacks come from, is completely off the RADAR with those losers.”
Well those particular Afro-centrists say that “Khemet” was the capital and cultural center of the African continent. And that it was also comprised of West Africans.
LikeLike
“I am not casting blame on who did what. That is not what the post is about. It is about the ideas that lie behind the names and dates, that shape how Western history is put together and written. Catholicism has not been one of those ideas for over 200 years.”
I present to you The Doctrine of Discovery:
“If you have never heard of the Doctrine of Discovery (Doctrine), you are not alone. Folks in the United States do not teach the Doctrine in the public school system, citizenship classes, or religious (particularly Christian) institutions. The Doctrine, therefore, is a silent and present part of everyone who lives in the United States.
“That is a bit of leap, don’t you think?” You might ask.
Well, determine for yourself. You are about to read the first of 17 posts (These posts were first posted at justbetweentheridges.wordpress.com. In this reposting, a few have been edited.) telling a portion of the story telling how the Doctrine developed, how the Doctrine influence the development (theology and polity) of a Christian institution—Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), and how this institution entered into a Doctrine influenced relationship with American Indians.
Let us begin!
To begin this conversation it is good to say the Doctrine of Discovery is not a document, but rather a series of papal bulls, edicts, Supreme Court decisions, newspaper articles, International government policies, U.S. government policy-legislation-laws, and even DOC resolutions. There is no clear date on when the Doctrine begins. Just importantly, there is no ending date, the Doctrine continues to influence DOC polity, decision making of the U.S. government, and our everyday lives.”
Read more here;
http://doctrineofdiscovery.wordpress.com/
LikeLike
Sam,
“One thing to remember is this: the white/european hegemony is a very, very short term phenomena in history. The white domination of the world is only 200-300 years old. In history that is very, very short period of time.”
And in that period of time they managed to rewrite history entirely. However – only for them. Indigenous people the world over have held onto their own histories.
“Thus began the “white history” which is very ideoligical and almost funny at times in its one sided story of the world. In western history China was completely forgotten, or ignored, despite the fact that China was the super power of the world at least from the roman times if not even earlier.”
Even more forgotten, ignored and purposely covered over is the long and ancient history of China’s sister civilization: India.
However it is to be noted that if you go to China and India, they know their own histories and they are taught those in their schools. But again here you must too remember that Mao tried to erase even his own peoples’ history during his “Cultural Revolution”.
Same thing was attempted throughout Southeast Asia during their Communist Revolutions. Nothing of value supposedly happened before The Revolution. History was supposed to have started from the Revolution onwards.
LikeLike
@ Why
I have heard of the Doctrine of Discovery:
https://abagond.wordpress.com/2012/10/08/adam-fortunate-eagle-nordwall/
LikeLike
@ Sam
Well said.
LikeLike
@ sam
You obviously don’t understand the role of the Italians in the Ethiopian-Eritrean conflict.
LikeLike
I like patties. Well I like Jamaican meat-loaves more but patties are fine too. But what is a patty? A Scottish meat-pie seasoned with curry that is prepared by diasporic African Jamaicans, and sold all over the world by a companies owned by Chinese Jamaicans. The patty is influenced as much as it influences. This usually occurs when various cultures intermingle with each other. Whites get rock and roll , blacks get saxophones,return with jazz. Moog makes a synthesizer, the Japanese make a drum machine off of it, blacks make hip hop with it. And so on.
So why is there no evidence of cultural intermingling with “Kemet” i Ghana, or the Congo, or Nigeria. And vice versa? Other than rather dubious and easily disproved “evidence”presented by Chiekh Ante Diop, no afrocentrist has shown such link.
Speaking of Anta Diop, you notice that all these afrocentrist types marry thenselves off to white and light-skinned women? You just have to shake your head when you read these wierdos. Black american amateurs imposing themselves on African social scientists and historians, while living comfortably at majority white universities with their white women. Pathetic.
LikeLike
@satanforce
“This usually occurs when various cultures intermingle with each other. Whites get rock and roll…”
Whites didn’t “get” rock and roll, they took it…most radio stations refused to play music by black artists in the 50’s but played the white copycats, like Elvis, who spent time listening to and mimicking black musicians.
“So why is there no evidence of cultural intermingling with “Kemet” i Ghana, or the Congo, or Nigeria. And vice versa?”
Cheikh Anta Diop contends that ancient “Egypt” was an African culture. In other words, it was a part of a whole. I’m unaware of any Diop claims that ancient “Egyptians” “intermingled” with Ghana or Nigeria. I think you have some misconceptions.
But there is archaeological evidence that Mentuhotep II or his envoy made a trip as far southwest as Lake Chad, indicating at least a small possibility that they went farther southwest than that. Also, there are numerous written accounts of voyages by ancient “Egyptians” to Central Africa to lead one to believe that there was much interaction between ancient Egyptians and other Africans.
“these afrocentrist types marry thenselves off to white and light-skinned women?”
Who are “these”? And as to Diop, I think it at least COUNTERS any eurocentrist claim that Diop, a so-called “afrocentrist type,” was racist.
LikeLike
@resw77:
I do know about the italians and their part in the history of Ethiopia but one has to be honest here: Ethiopia was an inland empire itself well before any europeans showed up there.
LikeLike
Did someone mention beef patties? Yum!
LikeLike
@sam
You apparently don’t understand that the italians created Eritrea, which had been linked to Ethiopia for over 1,000 years. And this “inland empire” of which you speak honored economic and political sovereignty, culture, and languages of the various nations that existed and continue to exist in that region…unlike the european colonists.
LikeLike
satanforce
Well those particular Afro-centrists say that “Khemet” was the capital and cultural center of the African continent. And that it was also comprised of West Africans.
I like patties. Well I like Jamaican meat-loaves more but patties are fine too. But what is a patty? A Scottish meat-pie seasoned with curry that is prepared by diasporic African Jamaicans, and sold all over the world by a companies owned by Chinese Jamaicans. The patty is influenced as much as it influences. This usually occurs when various cultures intermingle with each other. Whites get rock and roll , blacks get saxophones,return with jazz. Moog makes a synthesizer, the Japanese make a drum machine off of it, blacks make hip hop with it. And so on.
So why is there no evidence of cultural intermingling with “Kemet” i Ghana, or the Congo, or Nigeria. And vice versa? Other than rather dubious and easily disproved “evidence”presented by Chiekh Ante Diop, no afrocentrist has shown such link.
Speaking of Anta Diop, you notice that all these afrocentrist types marry thenselves off to white and light-skinned women? You just have to shake your head when you read these wierdos. Black american amateurs imposing themselves on African social scientists and historians, while living comfortably at majority white universities with their white women. Pathetic.
________________________________________________
Of course it makes sense there would be some cultural fusion amongst the wide variety of tribes, cultures, villages, etc living on the same continent.
Why wouldn’t there be?
I was not aware that some of the big names in Afro-centric scholarship married white people!
I relayed a story eariler about an Afro-centric Black friend of mine who always praises and glorifies Black women, and is now currently dating/living with a White woman. Even she asked him, “Why are you with me instead of a Black woman?”
Strange.
LikeLike
@resw77:
I do understand what role italians played in Ethiopia very well. But I do know that Ethiopia was not just a big happy family. Empires never are, not even the small ones anywhere in the world. Empires are based on domination of smaller entities.
One of the key elements of the success of the europeans was their ability to exploit the many rifts in power structures they met in native empires. This happened in Mexico, Peru and it happened again and again in Africa too. Europeans naturally did not liberate anyone nor helped any tribe or nation to gain their freedom, they just exploited them for their own benefit.
So where ever european conquistadores or colonists found a dominating native force, they hired the dominated to join them and die for them. Europeans did this in North America too where they played one native nation against others, time and time again. The goal of europeans was naturally the destruction of all native forces cabable to resist them.
LikeLike
@ sam
“But I do know that Ethiopia was not just a big happy family”
No one said anything about it being utopia. My point was exactly what I said: Ethiopians, prior to European interference, did not practise “colonialism, genocide, slavery, apartheid, etc.” If you have evidence to prove otherwise, please let me know.
“So where ever european conquistadores or colonists found a dominating native force, they hired the dominated to join them and die for them.”
That wasn’t the situation in Ethiopia during its wars with the Italians . Ethiopia survived Italian colonisation by uniting the myriad groups of people in that region to fight for a common cause. Eritrea had already been colonised by 1890 and could not be considered “dominated” by Ethiopians.
LikeLike
Sam,
“One of the key elements of the success of the europeans was their ability to exploit the many rifts in power structures they met in native empires. This happened in Mexico, Peru and it happened again and again in Africa too. ”
It happened in India too. However what the colonialist narrative fails to mention is that BEFORE the arrival of Islam, the sub-continent (what is today known as India and surrounding countries), while being comprised of various small kingdoms, was overall united in a common cultural ethos.
I suspect the same was true for Africa.
Again, Abrahamic monotheism, whether in the form of Christianity or Islam, is a corrosive and divisive factor.
LikeLike
@why?: Yes, they did the same in India too, using one group against the other, exploiting the old hostilities between the different rules and classes, ethnic groups and every thing they could. Conquer and divide, hire another half to kill the other half. The same principle.
LikeLike
@resw77:
“Ethiopians, prior to European interference, did not practise “colonialism, genocide, slavery, apartheid, etc.” If you have evidence to prove otherwise, please let me know.”
Perhaps they did not practise apartheid, since it was invented only after WW2 in South Africa, and very likely did not usually commit genocides, but they certainly had been colonising, or at least conquering and going at war against their neighbours for a long time.
Roman and greek historians and geographians believed that Ethiopia was just south of Egypt. We know that the kingdom of Kush was there, in present day Sudan, as it had been fighting wars against the egyptians and sometimes even dominated Egypt. However, once weakened enough, kingdom of Kush was wiped out by ethiopian Axumite empire ín 3rd century. So the ethiopians did wipe out at least one very old black african civilization.
The Axum/Askum empire began its rise sometime in the 1st century replacing older ones, such as the kingdom of D’mt which had had contacts with the sabaean lands in Yemen well before. From northern Ethiopian plateau the Axum empire expanded south. It was the persian religious teacher and leader Mani who wrote that in the world there was four great empires: Persia which was his home country, China, Rome and Ethiopia, that is the Axum empire.
in 3rd century emperor Ezana conquered the nation of bogos, who also dissapeared from history, and it was him who also wiped out the ancient kingdom of Kush, perhaps the oldest african civilization there was. These conquests have been recorded in inscriptions which have been found from Axum. Ezana expanded his empire up to the border of roman controlled Egypt. He also invaded Yemen and subjacated it.
In early 500’s jewish yemeni rulers took over over country and started to kill christians. Ethiopian emperor Kaleb invaded Yemen to protect the christians. So it was ethiopian emperor Kaleb who went for crusade as a first christian ruler and wiped out the jewish yemenite rules and replaced them with his own. He could not stabilize his rule across the Red Sea, though, but ethiopian raiders attacked arabian sea ports at least up to 702.
Later, after the european crusades were over in 1240’s, ethiopian emperor Wedem Arad attempted to create antimuslim union and start new age of crusades against muslim caliphite. In 1270’s a new set of rules established themselves in Ethiopia and conquered the Horn of Africa and included it into Ethiopian empire.
In 1529 imam Ahamad ibn Ibrahim attacked and conquered much of Ethiopia, whose rulers escaped into the mountain region. They asked and got help from other christian nation, that is Portugal. The ethiopians fought against the muslims for decades untill 1543 when the muslims were utterly defeated by the ethiopian-portugese forces.
In 1600’s nomadic Omoro people invaded Ethiopia which was too weak to stop them and they intermarried themselves to the ruling part of the Ethiopian society, the Amharas. Since that invastion the Omoro have been dominating segment of the Ethiopian society.
1700’s were almost constant civil war, competition between different groups and families in the empire.
The warring continued in sporiadic form well into the following century untill emperor Menelik obtained guns, ammo and cannons from the Italians and defeated his opponents in bloody civil war. Menelik gave Eritrea to italians as a payment for the weapons. Italians told other europeans that they now owned the whole Ethiopia which lead into a war between Meneliks empire and italians. Menelik defeated the italians totally in 1896 in the battle of Adowa, this time with the help of the brittish.
Even though Menelik tried to balance the brittish with the french, he found out that the brittish were not italians. Nor were the french.
The last gasp of the Ethiopian empire was in 1932 when Haile Selassie conquered and annexed the kingdom of Jimma into his empire, which dissappeared from the history after this. Only three years later the italians came back, this time with bomber planes, poison gas etc.
This is a short version of the history of Ethiopia and as we see, they have wiped out at least one major civlization, albeit when that was already in decline. They have fought many wars against their neighbours, they have united with europeans as felllow christians and fought with them against other africans who happened to be muslims.
Like I said earlier, no empire, african or asian or european, is non violent and harmonous union of free nations and people who just wish to live under the domination of another nation. Ethiopia was not an exception. It was an empire just like any other. And it was an truly african empire.
LikeLike
Really? Do we have “Asian” cultures, or “South American” cultures as well? The idea of an “African” culture is to create homogenized whole that can give black Americans something to one up racist whites in blog comments. Other than that, such a fiction cannot give any moral, social, or personal guidance for black people in todays, or any world.
Your second claim is the more interesting. What Diop espouses is irrelevant to most black laypersons engaging in Afrocentricism. the popular belief is Egypt was run by black people who influence Greece and intermingled with the most of black Africa. A nonsensical claim, but nonetheless, the widely held version.
No one cares if they are racist. The point is they internalized a version racism that makes them seek to create a shadow of (what they think of) Europe, through a mythical version of Africa, that influenced Socrates, and thus, is responsible for Western Civilization.
Picture of Ivan Van Sertima’s wife
http://www.artisticsignatures.com/ (scroll down,on the right)
Anta Diop marching with wife
LikeLike
Ethiopia is an empire, and a genocidal one at that. God did not sprinkle moral pixie dust on it any more than he did on America or Nazi Germany.
LikeLike
Satanforce said:
Right, the danger of Afrocentrism is that it will just flip the script.
A good example of Flipped Script History is the Black Inventors thing. While black inventors should get some shine too, it becomes a dangerous trope if it means buying into #2 (technocentrism – judging the worth of human societies by their technological achievements) and #5 (race as fixed and natural).
Whites, because of their power and all the ugly things they have done to achieve that power, NEED the sort of hyped-up mythology they call history just to sleep at night.
But blacks, because they lack power, NEED a serious understanding of history, not mythology, not sunshine, not lies. Applying white ideas of history to black history will not work. As Linda Tuhiwai Smith says, they need ideas of their own to make sense of their past and present. The ideas listed in the post are things to avoid.
LikeLike
@sam
“since it [apartheid] was invented only after WW2 in South Africa”
LOL. The word “apartheid” may have been invented at that point, but the practise of keeping races apart existed in european colonies long before WW2.
“Roman and greek historians and geographians believed that Ethiopia was just south of Egypt.”
You’re confusing two distinct empires at two different periods of time.
” kingdom of Kush was wiped out by ethiopian Axumite empire ín 3rd century”
Not true. Not even the Romans “wiped out” the Kushites when it invaded in the 3rd century. After such time, Nubians established Nobatia, Makuria and Alodia, which were not under Aksumite control. Ezana spent most of his time countering the Romans.
“So it was ethiopian emperor Kaleb who went for crusade as a first christian ruler and wiped out the jewish yemenite rules and replaced them with his own.”
Kaleb sent men to protect Christians, not “wipe out” Jews in Yemen, which was originally an Ethiopian settlement. Big difference.
“Wedem Arad attempted to create antimuslim union and start new age of crusades against muslim caliphate”
You have the story backwards: Sheikh Abu-Abdallah proclaimed jihad, and Wedem Arad won.
After the 1500s, Ethiopia faced constant inflitrations from Europeans: Ottomans, Portuguese, Jesuits, Italians, etc., which attributed to these “constant civil war[s]” of which you speak.
@ abagond
” Ethiopia is an empire, and a genocidal one at that”
First, Ethiopia is a republic. It WAS an empire. During its days as an empire, I take it you have some proof of genocide to support your claims?
LikeLike
@resw77:
Looks like we have different take on this one. You wish to read history in a way that supports your agenda and I wish to see it in context with general history of empires. I do not believe for a second that Ethiopian empire was any more honorable than any other.
As for Kalebs actions in Yemen, he did wipe out the jewish leadership of Yemen in the name of protection of christians. Just like the franks did in 1099 when they took Jerusalem and Holy Land.
Ethiopian rulers worked WITH portugese as fellow christians against muslims. Nothing strange in that. Same thing was repeated over and over again all over the world. Europeans did not help natives out of their nice nature. They exploited these chances when ever they appeared. And they did also in Ethiopia, as they did in Americas, in India etc.
The ethiopians invited the portugese troops and worked with them. Later they tried to eliminate these with the help of the others. Menelik gave away Eritrea in order to get modern weapons, which he did. Ethiopians rulers tried to play europeans against each other later on but that plan backfired. But unlike other parts of Africa, Ethiopia was seen as a different place since it was christian. That is why no other european nation tried to colonise it after the italians.
Interesting to see you calling ottoman turks as europeans, as even today europeans do not see Turkey as part of Europe and certainly did not in 1500’s, or even in 1800’s. Turkish nationalists do not consider themselves as europeans and neither did the ottomans. They tried to invade Europe several times, though.
(“Roman and greek historians and geographians believed that Ethiopia was just south of Egypt.”
You’re confusing two distinct empires at two different periods of time.)
In what way? Romans and greeks lived side by side for centuries, as did the Kush and Egypt. Greeks and romans knew Egypt, romans even conquered it. Or at least subjacated it. So?
“Ezana spent most of his time countering the Romans.”
Which he could not have done if there had been the old kingdom of Kush between roman dominated Egypt and Ethiopia. The Kush was not a mile or two, it was most of the present day Sudan, which is hundreds and hudnreds of miles. So if there had been Kush, ethiopians and romans could not have even met each other even by accident. And this simply means, there was no more Kush, which was wiped out by the ethiopians.
(“Wedem Arad attempted to create antimuslim union and start new age of crusades against muslim caliphate”
You have the story backwards: Sheikh Abu-Abdallah proclaimed jihad, and Wedem Arad won.)
Wedem Arad sent couple dozens of ambassadors to Europe in order to create the AntiIslamic Union after the war against muslims began. There were thirty ethiopian ambassadors in Vatican trying to egg the pope to get on with it. This is historical fact recorded in the Vatican archives.
LikeLike
@ sam
I don’t have an agenda, and you’re all entitled to our beliefs, however unsubstantiated yours may be.
As to Kaleb, yes, his troops killed the ruler, but out of retaliation for persecution of Ethiopian Christians in that region, which Ethiopians had occupied for centuries prior.
As to european colonisation of Ethiopia, despite the country’s existent Christianity, the Portuguese/jesuits still had Christian missions there, and yes, the Italians were colonising Ethiopia in the 1870s, well before the Treaty of Wuchale. After the Italians’ final defeat in 1941, the European scramble for Africa was over.
As to the Ottomans being European, look at a map. Is not the original city (the place from which the Ottoman Empire was ruled) of Istanbul in Europe?
As to “confusing two distinct empires at two different periods of time,” let me clarify: when Herodotus (c. 450 BC) referred to Ethiopia, he was talking about “Nubia,” which he also said had its capital at Meroe. The Aksumite empire didn’t use the name “Ethiopia” until 400 AD. These two Ethiopias were not one and the same.
As to Kushites being “wiped out” by Ethiopians, not only can you not prove it, but you’re leaving out a big part of history, i.e., the establishment of Nobatia, Makuria and Alodia by Nubians with their Nubian writings and languages, some of which still exist today.
As to Wedem Arad, you are incorrect about the sequence of events. Sheikh Abu-Abdallah proclaimed jihad on Wedem Arad’s empire more than 5 years before Wedem Arad took any such actions.
LikeLike
satanforce,
Why nonsensical to assume that a power center on the continent of Africa would have people from all over Africa coming there to work, learn and live? Why nonsensical to assume Egyptians would travel throughout their continent trading and intermingling with the other people of the same continent?
Why nonsensical to assume that the ancient African continent may have been similar to the ancient South Asian sub-continent in that regions flourished interdependently rather than completely cut-off and independent from one anther and that while regional variations thrived, there was a common underlying cultural/spiritual ethos?
For South Asia the cultural/spiritual ethos was “Dharma”.
The various regions expressed their local dharmas in different languages and with rituals unique to their regions, but the underlying concept of dharma was was the thread that wove throughout the sub-continental tapestry.
Is it too much of a stretch to assume Africa worked much the same, PRIOR to the onslaught of Abrahamic monotheism?
LikeLike
@ resw77
If you look at Ethiopia from the point of view of the Oromo, Ethiopia still clearly functions as an empire:
https://abagond.wordpress.com/2009/05/19/oromia/
Ethiopian genocides since 1945 where at least 100,000 were killed:
1945-1974: Ethiopia: Oromo, Eritreans, Somali: 150,000
1994-2000: Ethiopia: Oromo, etc: 100,000
Source: http://www.genocidewatch.org/images/GenocidesandPoliticidessince1945withstagesin2008.pdf
LikeLike
@abagond
Using your logic, then almost every country on earth is an empire. The big difference, however, is that modern Ethiopia’s government allows for the political representation and participation of its various groups, including the Oromo, the ethnicity of President Girma and DPM Muktar Kedir.
Your trusted source doesn’t provide any proof, but somehow accuses Selassie, part Oromo himself, of genocide against his own people. There are just as many allegations that the Oromo committed acts of genocide in the North.
LikeLike
@resw77:
“As to the Ottomans being European, look at a map. Is not the original city (the place from which the Ottoman Empire was ruled) of Istanbul in Europe?”
No. Check the history of the turkish empire.
LikeLike
Due to the barrier created by the Sahara desert, the Malaria belt and the lack of historical and archaeological evidence, yes it is a stretch.
LikeLike
Step back. What is the point of history? Why do we study history? After WW2, the Europeans thought that economic integration would end wholesale warfare among them. But had they not been blinded by their economic blinkers, they would have had seen that they had simply returned to a pre-WW1 world = and all that that implies.
The afrocentrist doesn’t even bother to use history to avoid making mistakes or as a guide for future policy. The Europeans at least had an ideology, although as the Euro crisis proves, a flawed one. Their concept of history hasn’t even reached the era of Franz Boas – they are “flipping the script” on a mid 19th century version of European standards and beliefs.
It is no wonder then, that they worship a failure like Marcus Garvey. This is a man who decorated himself in military regalia,looking like Otto Von Bismarck, and gladly shook hands with the KKK Grand Dragon – the leader of an organization that regularly mob killed black women and men. Like the Afrocentrists, he wanted to go “Back to Africa.” Never mind that it was firmly in the grip of colonial powers at the time, and he had not bothered to create any diplomatic links with the Africans on the Continent.
People who fail to study the history of their oppressors tend to become like the oppressor themselves. The history of Liberia should be evidence enough for that.
LikeLike
@ sam
The original city of Istanbul is in Europe, and If I call the Ottomans European, because they ruled from Europe for hundreds of years, then I don’t see why it upsets you so.
LikeLike
@satanforce
The Sahara was only a barrier to Europeans. Africans, however, have for thousands of years (with ample archaeological evidence) inhabited and continue to inhabit the Sahara, as well as the contiguous banks of the Nile River, FYI.
LikeLike
^^^^ I never said that Africans did not inhabit the Sahara. To be specific, I have never seen any mainstream scientific study give evidence of the type of cultural interchange between West Africans and Egyptians, or that Egypt was some sort of trans-continental hub of commerce or culture.
LikeLike
@satanforce
But you stated the Sahara was a “barrier,” which contradicts the fact that Africans have been inhabiting it and crossing it for thousands of years (well before the “Neolithic period”)
I don’t contend that “Egypt was some sort of trans-continental (i.e., trans-African) hub of commerce or culture,” and I am unaware of any scholar who does. Just because there are (whether you are aware of them or not) cultural similarities between ancient “Egyptians” and other Africans, it does not mean Egypt was necessarily the source of such culture.
LikeLike
I’m talking ancient times. Malaria is a relatively recent disease.
Some Africans were settled, some nomadic, some semi-nomadic. Hence various cultures and peoples of Africa had plenty of exchange and mixing. Like South Asia at the time.
LikeLike
Wow, Well, you see there is thing call ed sickle cell and… you know what, just read. From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_malaria
Here is a picture of a giraffe brought from Somalia by Zheng He to give to the Ming e,peror.
LikeLike
^^^^ contd. You have any links to show cultural intermingling of the kind that Afrocentrists claim?
LikeLike
@resw77:
“The original city of Istanbul is in Europe, and If I call the Ottomans European, because they ruled from Europe for hundreds of years, then I don’t see why it upsets you so.”
I does not upset me at all. I just know that the city of Istanbul was former Byzanthium, former Konstantinopol, the capital of East Rome and Byzanth. It was never The Original city of the ottomans. The Ottomans took it in 1453 after the Byzanth had declined into a small relic of its former self.
The ottoman empire began in earnest in 1299 among the turkish people who had originated from eastern steppes before settling into Byzath empire. The first ottoman ruler was Osman Bey who in the year 1299 started the dynasty and the building of the empire in north western Anatolia, which is located in the Asian part of modern day Turkey and which was known in the antiques as Asia. So the Ottoman empire was not originally nor later on european other than they conquered the Balkans and Hungary and some eastern parts of Europe. Their origins were asian.
Actually the Ottoman empire and various european powers were at war for few centuries, from medieval times untill 1800’s. The Kinght of St,John fought their crusade in Mediterannean against the ottomans trough 1300’s up untill 1700’s in one form or another. The Ottomans tried to invande Europe proper several times but were driven back, most famously in the battle of Wienna. Usually european powers fought together against the Ottoman empire but in Crimean war France and Great Britain joined forces with the empire against Russia.
The Ottoman empire was not european, though it had possessions on the european soil, mostly in Balkans, but its core was in Asia. Its biggest conquests were also in Asia, in Mid East and Caucasus region were it did the infamous armenian genocide during the WW1 years.
But I have to wonder why do you want to see the Ottoman empire as european when it was not? Perhaps you do not see them as asians since they are not similar as the far eastern people?
LikeLike
@Sam
“It was never The Original city of the ottomans. ”
No one ever said it was the original city of the Ottomans. I said “original city of ISTANBUL” (NOT Constantinople or Byzantium) in order to exclude the agglomerated portion of modern Istanbul that lies on the Asian side of the Bospherus. The place from which the Ottomans ruled for hundreds of years is in Europe. Period.
I don’t need yet another history lesson from you, as I’m well informed. What you neglected to say was that Osman Bey is a descendent of the Kayi people who originate in the North Caucasus region (i.e., Europe)–the SAME place where “Caucasians” or Europeans supposedly originate.
“But I have to wonder why do you want to see the Ottoman empire as European”
I have to wonder if you are sincere when you say “I[t] does not upset me at all,” because here you are making a big fuss about why the Ottoman rulers, who ruled from Europe for centuries are somehow not European…
LikeLike
@resw77:
You serious? Turkish people come from the Central Asia. You don’t know that? Well, that explains a lot.
As for Turkey/Ottoman empire being european: that debate is still going on in Europe and Turkey itself, but I am glad that you have solved the question that the turks have pondered for few centuries.
Are you american, by any chance? That would explain it.
LikeLike
@Sam
Are you serious? You didn’t know that the Kayi people are from the Caucasus? You didn’t know old Istanbul is in Europe? You must be ignorant. That would explain it.
LikeLike
@resw77:
😀 No need to get upset if you do not know history, particulary european history. As a european I understand that it is not the most closest to you.
The original home land of the turks was south of Altain mountains in central Asia. From there they began to move to west, at first as slaves of the arabs in 600’s. In increasing numers they were put into slave armies of the arabs untill there were enough turkish soldiers to be lead by their own in their own ethnic regiments. This happened in 900’s.
In the 1000’s one group of the turks, the Seljuks were able to take over the eastern provinces of the abbasid empire. In 1071 they beat the Byzanthine armhy in the battle of Manzikert and that opened up the flood gates for turkish immigration into to the Anatolia. They replaced the greek christian culture by muslim turkish one and absorbed or expelled the greek population.
Europeans began to call Anatolia as Turkey, the land of the turks, in 1200’s. When the mongols attacked the turks and beat them agian and again from 1243 onwards, the turkish tribes moved westward untill they were in the Byzanthine borders. In the next century 1300’s the turkish forces and rules began to invade Byzanth and slowly ate it away untill in 1453 they conquered the city itself, the one you claimed to be the original city of the ottomans, which is was not. It became their capital but only after the conquest.
As for the Kayi people, I must admit that I have never heard of them. I assume they are not that influental at all since none of my turkish friends do not know them either and I have never heard of them as being a turkish tribe.
LikeLike
I do know that the Kaytak were caucasian people who were ruled which ever empire or stronger nation happened to dominate them from time to time, but they were and are not turks. They were subordinate to one turkish tribe at one time though. Perhaps you mean these people?
LikeLike
@sam
“As a European”
That would explain why you’re so desperate to call the Ottomans Asians. They were just not white enough for you, I guess. There must not be any maps in Europe b/c you still don’t have a clue where old Istanbul is.
And clearly you don’t know a thing about the Kayi people or Osman Bey’s ancestry, and so try learning about the subject matter before squabbling.
LikeLike
@resw77:
I am not squabbling. I just try to get the facts right.
As for the turks not being white enough for me, you are barking at the wrong tree here again. I am darker complexion than most of the turks or what the europeans look like or you think they look like. See, you have the stereotypical idea about what and who the europeans and turks are and there fore push your own agenda here. Me, I have no pennies in this. I just deal with the reality.
Most of the turks still live in what is Asia. They originated from Central Asia as people. Why it is so difficult for you to accept this fact? There is nothing wrong for being from Asia. Or do you have a problem with that? Why do you want to believe that the turks are europeans? Because you made a mistake or did not know or… ? I do not understand. What is wrong about being asian nation?
I do not know about you, but I have been in Istanbul. I think I have a pretty good idea where it is. You do know that there is part of the city which lies on the Asian side of Bosphorus? Right? You do know that this narrow sea way is the traditional border between Europe and Asia, has been about 2500 years at least?
Why do you get so exited about this one? Because you did not know or ?? It is ok not to know or to have misconceptions about things. That is why this blog is a good one, you learn new stuff here all the time. I did not know about the Kayi people but I did not get offended at all. I just did not know.
This is not a competition in my mind at least.
LikeLike
@ sam
I think a third party would think you’re the one who’s “excited.” Again, you don’t know what you’re squabbling over. Learn Osman Bey’s ancestry, and which continent from which the Ottomans ruled for 300+ years, and then I’ll entertain your anecdotes.
LikeLike
@resw77:
Osman Bey was seljuk turk. So he was a turk. So? I just tried to provide correct information for you and have a nice debate but I guess that is not possible.
I see that your idea of history is truly american in its shortness. You think 300+ years of ruling from Constantinopol made turks european? Hell, even the turks do not know are they or are they not europeans. More westernized want to joind in EU, conservatives do not. This debate has been going on since the days of Atatürk.
You seem to think that you know this thing better than the turks themselves. That, my friend, is a big big problem in certain type of the american thinking as it has been seen in Afganistan or Irak, or in many many places. And one which never sees to amaze me, since I know a Lot of americans who do not think like that.
LikeLike
@ Sam
On one of the other article, a commenter referred to you as a ”Patronistic racist”. I agree with that commenter and you come across as someone who do not respect Afrikan Americans. In reflection upon some of your commentaries. I think there’s exceedingly sufficient evidence to back up this assertion.
Yes, dealing with populous Afrocentrics can be very difficult and frustrating at the sametime as I have found out myself on several, but it doesnt give the right to deny Afrikan Americans of their Afrikan heritage or reduce their history to just slavery. What you are doing is trying to disconnect Afrikans from their land of origin, just as your ancestors did and some modern whites continue to this very day.
You keep making this distinguish between AfriKan Americans and African from the continent of Afrika, with words like real, pure Afrikans and Black Americans, all in an attempt to debunk Afrocentrism. Afrocentrism has many flaws but this calling Afrikan Americans, Afrikans is not one of them. Being born in the Afrikan continent is not the criteria for identity. An Arab born in modern Israel is not an “Israeli,” a white person born in China is not Chinese. There is no error in connecting whites born in China with the broader cultural pool in Europe. If people of Afrikan ancestry live in America and continue an Afrikan culture and world view, how does that new location alter what they are? What about Afrikan in Afrika that have no Afrikan language and dress and behave identical to Afrikan Americans? These are some of the ignorant challenges in your analysis of Afrikans globally need to be cleared away. White critique of Afrocentrism like yourself must deal with its practices not only its conclusions.
And despite you taking issue with Afrocentrism, it is rather obvious that you are not equally sincere in your disagreement. You dont understand Afrikan history, Afrikan culture, national identity, and so forth. And also it is ridiculous and dishonest to select Afrocentrism for serious critique and make no mention of its nemesis, Eurocentrism. To people like you, to have an opinion not supported by white or to speak favourable about Afrika is to be an Afrocentric, which in the white vocabulary simply means a desperate childish pseudo-historian. I am rather fedup of this.
The contempt in your implicit Eurocentric commentaries is so self-evident, it almost needs no commentary to identify the intention or fallacies. Thanks for proving to me that, no human can be trusted to be immune to racial bias (this is more true for whites), so self-monitoring is a fallacious conclusion.
By the way am Afrikan from the continent. Off Fulani, Tuareg and Kanuari heritage.
LikeLike
@ Solesearch
”Sam, as an African-American I will say that any attempt to limit our origins to slavery is not welcome whether it be by white Americans or Africans. I doubt this guys view point is held by most Africans. My ancestors were African and I have just as much right to research and try to understand that history as any African.
So I would say the problem is with his limited viewpoint, but his viewpoint has no bearing on whether or not I embrace our shared African history.
“Afrocentrism” isn’t limited to African Americans. To characterize it as such is dishonest. I even doubt the first blacks to oppose euro centrism were American”
Ajakenza wrote
Well said … And it is critical that the Afrikan people understand the ambit of tactics used to undermine Pan-Afrikan centred ideals.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Mothers Against Mass Incarceration and commented:
The harm that whitewashing history does to children of color is evident when we see the lack of achievement, motivation and drive in our youth. This assists the cradle to prison pipeline, by allowing “disconnected” youth to receive educations that do not include a strong sense of self, racial identity, or encouragement to civic duty. Telling our children the great history of African American is our duty as parents, and we should be pushing schools to reinforce what we are teaching at home in their curriculums.
LikeLike
@ Ajakenza
“I agree with that commenter and you come across as someone who do not respect Afrikan Americans. In reflection upon some of your commentaries. I think there’s exceedingly sufficient evidence to back up this assertion.”
I think you’re right. Just look at his comments above. He patronisingly (and wrongly) assumes I’m American just because we disagree about something.
LikeLike
You know the map of the world we were all shown and taught?
Totally wrong!
http://www.elephantjournal.com/2010/07/the-world-isnt-even-close-to-what-you-think-it-looks-like/
LikeLike
@all:
Well, all the people born in Africa, that is afrcians, that I have met and talked with about the black american view of Africa (in Africa or elsewhere, even in USA), have told me that they think americans just do not get it.
Now, they might be wrong, ignorant, or they might even be “white racists” or something, but if a black african tells me he thinks that the whole Afro-centrism/pan-africanism is BS what can I as a white person tell him? Can I as a white man tell this black african man that he is wrong and black americans are right? No I can not.
Now, black americans, and I happen to know some of them too, do not all see Pan-Africanism/afrocentrism as the Only way. Not at all. I met some very radical black americans who were very much of the opinion that black americans should take their America to them. They did not see themselves as africans but first and foremost as americans. It is their country and culture and their right. They did not feel african just because they might have some very distant roots in that continent. They saw themselves as americans who happened to be blacks, americans who had the right to claim everything american as theirs, what ever that might be. And I agree with that. Black americans should claim their rightful place in the american society and culture as one of the, if not The, prime movers in the whole history of USA.
Could I, as a white man, tell guys like that: “Sorry, but you are an african, nor american.” Of course not!
The feeling that I have gotten from this “afrikanism” stuff is that is a very american phenomena. It is a romantic idea of black people as being africans somehow, being One, being Holy in some sense. And that is very american ideology. I never met anyone in my travels in Africa back 80’s who would have said that “All africans are One”. Not a one individual. Not a educated people, not uneducated. None. Not in Nigeria, not in east Africa. Not one african ever told me that he/she saw all africans as One.
Political unity, united political action and front against USA and Europe, against the imperialism of those, yes. That was in the air, but this mystical mythical race based “afrikanism”?? None. Not once.
Instead I came across it only in USA later on and not even there most of the blacks I talked with, spent time with, believed in it.
I think the romantic idea of africans, the mythical africaness, speaks in volumes about the american ideology. It is the Holy Land, Promised Land wrapped in african costume. It is appealing when one lives surrounded by a racist society, when one is facing racism everyday in everyday life. It is nice to believe that somewhere over the rainbow there is this mystical Land where we are the Boss, where we are One, where the whole history and everything is about being black and where I belong.
Unfotunately the reality is nothing like that. Like I have said before, Africa is the most diverse and multicultural continent in the planet. You can put all the other continents and all the billions of people together and still there are more cultures and languages and variation on DNA in Africa than in the rest of the world. Africa is the world. The rest of us, all the rest of us, are sort of “left overs”. We spilled over.
A black afroamerican person has more DNA similarities with a guy from Korea than fulani from Nigeria with a guy from Malawi. It just the way it is. It is very had to comprehend and understand but that is the way it is scientifically. There is more diverse DNA in Africa between africans than in the rest of the world between the rest of us. If you are fourth, fifth or what ever generation black american, you and I are more close biologically than you and a guy from Kenya, unless you and your family are difrectly from there. That is a biological fact.
Now we get to the crux of the whole question which I personally find interesting as an antiracist. You are claiming afrikaness only because the color of your skin. You are claiming the Race of africans. You are saying that there is a race of people called africans who are defined by the way they look, act and such. That, my friend, is racism. Period.
If you claim that all black people are africans, based on their looks, you are a racist. Period. It is that simple. You believe, just like the nazis did, in biological races. That is the racism in its purest form. I understand that as a black american you learn racist thinking from the society around you, it is very hard not to grow up as a racist in USA, but if an african, born and raised in Africa, claims such nonesense, he/she can only be a racist by ideology. It is that simple.
ajakenza: “Being born in the Afrikan continent is not the criteria for identity. An Arab born in modern Israel is not an “Israeli,” a white person born in China is not Chinese. There is no error in connecting whites born in China with the broader cultural pool in Europe.”
No, it is not an error. It is racism. To assume this, to think like this, requiers one to be a racist. You have to believe that there is a biological definition of humanbeing. In order to claim that the culture were are born into does not have anything to do who we are and that it is our “race” which defines us and creates us and carry “our culture” in us, is racism in its purest form. The nazi race biology held this as the Holy word. The germans, who happened to jewish or romanis, were not “real” germans because their alledged race. That is why it was ok to kill them all.
To see the world as races, the whole humanity as biological races, is racist. If you cathegorise people based on their skin color, looks, what ever, you are a racist yourself. You are ideologically on the same page as the KKK, the guys at the Stormfront etc.
I can understand why people in USA are so obsessed with their alledged roots, whites and blacks and others a like. Excluding the native americans not one ethinic group in USA has its origins on that continent. This gives their history a very short time span, sort of a mini history. That is why many americans, whites and blacks and others, come up with mythologies of their past, of their places of origin.
When you know that you are just a decendant of immigrants, and very recent that is, it is natural to try to create an imaginary past which mythically connects you into something greater and bigger, into some cultural tradtion which gives you the history at par with other imagined histories. The history of USA is full of this. It is natural reaction to the limited reality.
Fantazising a great history, creating an epic history of “My” people lifts one up, makes one bigger and gives a meaning ones lame and mundane exisitence. That is why many american italians speak so fondly about the romans, which they have nothing to do with but as italians they wish so. That is why so many white americans claim to be decendants of some english nobility or royals. It is creating a past, a story, a history which gives the individual a meaning and roots which in reality do not exist.
Being part of a very young nation of immigrants is painful and very painful when that nation is based on racism. And if one belongs to a minority in that nation one is almost certainly longing something greater than his/hers existance. That is where these ideas come so handy.
“There is a great history of Africa and it is mine since I happen to look like an african”. No, that would not be enough, naturally. That is where you need the biological race. There has to be an african race. Without that a black american could not be an african. So, there is an african race, a race one can belong to and claim the connection to Africa via that race. But wait. That means that all those white racists all trough the history were right all along. That is what they have been saying all the time. And now you say the same??
“And also it is ridiculous and dishonest to select Afrocentrism for serious critique and make no mention of its nemesis, Eurocentrism.”
I see, afrocentrism is just an nemesis of eurocentrism and vis versa. If so, then it is as faulty ideology as eurocentrism. It is just a black version of that disfunct idea that world history is european history. Or is it??
“You dont understand Afrikan history, Afrikan culture, national identity, and so forth.”
No I don’t. But I do no that there is no national identity of Africa or Afrika or any continent. Not even in Australia, no matter how much they have tried to create one down there. I also know that there is no african culture but hundreds of african cultures. The idea that there is just one culture is very eurocentic and catholic christian that is, a very white american idea.
“you come across as someone who do not respect Afrikan Americans.”
Nice try but I have some american friends who happen to be black. Perhaps it is because they do not share your ideology they do not count? Perhaps it is the same reason why you disregard the comments of african guys about afrocentrism and other such ideas as “american” BS? When an african guy dismisses your racist ideology as humbug you get upset and claim that they are nor real africans, that there is something wrong with them? Now what is that?
“What you are doing is trying to disconnect Afrikans from their land of origin, just as your ancestors did and some modern whites continue to this very day.”
No I do not. If one wants to study african history and cultures I have nothing against that. But what I have find curious that an individual who has no family or relatives living somewhere in Africa is playing that he/she is african when it is obvious that this is not the case. Yes, he/she can propably trace the family roots to Africa but in the case of black americans, most of them can trace their family roots back to Ireland or England as well if they choose to do so. Understandibly they usually do not wish to do so. But they could, the absolute majority.
So when you are making the claim that african history and origins are their own, you are cutting them off from their european roots and heritage. That belongs to the black americans as well. And in my mind they should claim that as well and loudly so!
Naturally by doing so they would step across the racial barrier and deny the biological race of theirs, bring down the basics of american racism, and that does not suit for racists. They do not like that. If a black man from Detroit would track his family roots to Kerry co, Ireland, which he propably could, that would be seen as… Yes, a race treason!
You understand what I am trying to say? By making a claim of afrikaness based on the color of your skin which is black is as stupid as claiming somekind of imagined superiority based on the fact that the color of onesskin is white. Both ideas are based on the very idea of biological race. That is the basic element of racism. That is the first step. As long as you claim that, on what ever bases, you are upholding the basic teachings of racism.
As long as you claim that there is an african race, you are supporting KKK. You are supporting the government which is classifying people on racial bases. You are supporting the government which is using racial profiling. You are supporting the insurance companies which are using racial profiling. Security companies, air ports, custom services, police and other who also believe in biological races and uphold the racist system.
As long as you claim that there is a “race of africans”, or “whites” or what ever, you are saying aboslutely same as they are. You are claiming the same. As long as you claim that there is a race called africans, you are upholding every racist ideology there is. It is that simple. And by doing so you have no moral high ground what so ever, you have no right to tell a a racist cop or politician, that he is wrong in his thinking. You are endorsing his world view. You are both claiming the same.
Me? I do not believe in races. Cultures, yes, but races? No. Biological fact is that there is only one human race on this planet today.
There is a great diversity how that humanbeing can look like, in languages and cultures, but it is all the same. We all belong to the one and only humanrace there is. To claim anything else is racism. There is no way around it. There is no other way to look at it. If you claim that there are separate races with different biological qualities, you are really making a case for racism. Not against it. That is something that should be remembered.
Sorry about the lenght of this one.
LikeLike
Sam, you obviously feel comfortable telling African-Americans what we should do, so why not Africans?
LikeLike
Sam, what is this “black American view of Africa” that you have been discussing with this representative sample of Africans?
LikeLike
@solesearch:
“Sam, you obviously feel comfortable telling African-Americans what we should do, so why not Africans?”
Where did I say that? I just said that i agreed with some black americans who think that american culture has been greatly created by black americans and that it should be rightfully theirs.
Why would I tell anyone what they should do or not?
“Sam, what is this “black American view of Africa” that you have been discussing with this representative sample of Africans?”
When I was in Africa back in the 80’s I met some locals. Naturally we discussed about the realtionships between white europeans and africans, the history of that realtionship etc. The people I met and talked with, In Nigeria and in Kenya and else where, saw USA in the pretty much same vein as they did Europe. Colonialistic, imperialistic power which is exploiting Africa and its resources, colonialist and imperialist in cultural sense mostly since at that time USA was not too much involved in Africa.
When the subject of black americans came up, the people I talked with were pretty much saying that no matter what the skin color is, they are all americans. They did not see black americans as their brethren or fellow africans, just simply as americans. A black american in Kenya was an american, not african
When I was living in USA late 80’s and early 90’s there was a quite vibrant movement among some american blacks of afrikanism. This was an attempt to provide black americans longer history, something they could be proud of. Some other blacks, particulary who were leaning towards the Left, saw it as an imitation of the white americans attempts to create a great history of theirs.
Just like white america linked its past into the past of Europe, all the way to the antiques and Rome and Greece without any merit, some blacks were trying to create similar history for the black americans via Africa and its cultures. This was their opinion, not mine at that time. Also some not at all poltical black americans, the ones who might be called blue collar working men and women, did not feel any draw towards this afrikanism and supposed africaness of themselves. They were pretty much convinced that they were americans, not africans. Yes, they were black and living in a racist society, but they were americans still.
I also met some afrocentrists at the university circles and they explained to me their ideas and take on several issues. When I asked how changing ones name from Jack Martin to some made up african name effects on them, they explained that this gets them in contact with their african soul and roots etc. What they were very keen to emphesize was the afrikaness of every black american, that in reality they are all africans because they are blacks and african is the same thing as black.
However, they could not explain to me how a man whose backround might be 80% white and only 20% black can still be african, other than by the racist definition. Nobody has been able to explain that to me other than by the same racist arguments as the racists use.
I came to conclusion that this afrikanism is an american idea. Just like a white american, born and bred in Milwaukee, claims to be polish simply because his distant relatives came from poland five generations ago and his name ends with -wicz, black american could claim african heritage simply by his skin color.
I understand that as an first, second or even third generation immigrant you feel certain nostalgia and affection to the “Old Country” (also an american idea) but after two, three, four hundred years?? It makes no sense in any other way than as an way to empower oneself, as an way to lift oneself up and as a source of self esteem. This is also very american idea. You can create a past, an identity, you can invent yourself as you wish and thus become what ever you wish, Something that the super hero stories reflect in popular culture.
You can convince yourself to be an irish even though not a single individual in your family has ever been in Ireland. What you have at most is an story tale version of Ireland and irishness. Nothing real, nothing from Ireland. Only invention of it.
You can make yourself to believe that you are a decendant from the earl of Lancaster etc. You can even create a pedigree on that, a family tree to “prove” your noble roots. Americanitalian can and sometimes does claim his roots in ancient Rome, which he has absolutely zero connection with, none what so ever. He just thinks that since the Old Roman Empire was based on what we now call Italy, and since he is americanitalian, he somehow has his roots in Roman empire, which is nonsense of course.
In a similar vein the very idea that all american blacks are somehow africans, that they carry in themselves this mystical afrikaness, is just an illusion. It is make believe, invention, an idea, an ideology. And the best proof of its american origin is the heavy emphasis on race. That is the defining factor in the idea of afrikaness. It depends solely on the very idea of racial connection, the existence of biological race as the defining fact.
It is racist just like the white american idea of itself as the saviour of the mankind/the most advanced form of human existence. Anybody can see how ridicilous the white american idea of their past and present and future is. Anyone can see that as an invented idea based on the idea of the superiority of the white race.
Not all american blacks were brought from Africa, Some of them came from Caribbean islands where they had lived for centuries. Some came from latin America. Some came from France and Britain. Some came from South Pacific. If the color the american racist definition says they are all blacks, then what says they all are africans?? Are australian aborginales africans simply because they are all blacks?? Of course not.
BUT, we are all decendants of those africans who came from the continent some 30-35 000 years ago and even before that. Now, were do we draw the line?? How far one can go digging up his roots?
Or is it that just the color of ones skin defines who is african and who is not? Is it the way one looks like? Is it his hair? Lips? Nose? If so, then the racists have been right all along.
Is it ones biological race? If it is then the racists have been right, according to that.
Personally I do not think so. I do not accept that.
LikeLike
Apperances, the way someone looks, can be really deceptive.
I have black hair and brown eyes, or used to have, now it is getting grey. My brother blonde hair and blue eyes. I carry my mothers genetic features, my brother my fathers. There are no romanis, gypsies, latinos, mediteranneans or turkish in our family tree. Not for at least since 1600’s according the church records.
When I was in New York many people believed I was a latino. Some thoughed I was mexican. When I was in Israel many believed that I was an arab, a palestinian. Later on in USA some believed I was italian, spanish or something like that. Some cops thoughed I was a native american untill I showed my passport. Simply because I had a long black hair and brown eyes.
And all the time I was a white european.
If ones identity is defined simply by how one looks like, it is a make believe. Unless one believes firmly on biological races, their unique racial forms, one can not define people simply based on their appearances, the looks.
As I do not believe in these races, since the science has proven that they do not exist, I can not tell who is american simply by looking at the person, Same goes with africans. Untill I talk to that person I have no idea is he an african, american, brittish, french, a finn, a russian, german or what. His looks do not tell that to me. It is his cultural backround, his language, his nation, his family that tells me is he an african or not.
This is my take on this issue. I can not define who is who and were from simply by looking at them. There are black guys in Finland who have full finnish names, who have been born and raised here, and who talk different dialects of finnish. Are they africans? No. They are finns who happen to look like that. They go to sauna, drink beer, support ice hockey teams, drink kossu (our vodka), eat pork, listen the same music as anybody etc. What makes them africans if anything?
LikeLike
@Solesearch
You’re right, Sam sure professes to know so much about African Americans… (and Africans, for that matter). He must have conducted surveys and DNA tests with thousands of African Americans to support the many claims he made in the novel he posted above.
That’s the problem with his type. They always think they know it all, when they really don’t know much at all. A tall glass of humility would do him well.
LikeLike
“….people have opposing OPINIONS…facts are facts and opinions are just opinions”: I recall resw77 once saying once when we were discussing Africa.
I feel resw77 words are wise indeed.
sam is not now a “type” because facts are facts, etc.
Perhaps sam’s “mistake” here is that he presented sobering contradiction.
Maybe sam said something that others might not want to hear?
I hope no one wants to see sam “shut up” because he presents a fact or 2.
So what if somebody writes long or writes short — their meaning can still be plain and clear. (Not everyone is George Orwell. James Baldwin said it does matter how you write, just as long as the reader sees it. I love James best.)
Isn’t pointing at sam a distraction from what he is REALLY saying — and isn’t it deflection, a PREVARICATION from what could really be questioned and/or thought about, instead of just being personal about sam?
**************************************************************************************************
@ sam
As I said a week or so ago, I am short on time right now, so not read this thread properly, but this this thread is about history and NOT about your person or inner workings, right?
I notice you, sam, prefer not to be “personal” about anyone.
Also, when you are given new information, I notice you say “I didn’t know that, thanks”. I think you prefer discussing and learning over trying to “win”.
Personally, I think commenters who admit they are slow or learning or trying their best are the coolest.
When commenters try to make it about someone’s character because they don’t like their opinions and information (or just THEM), then what is that but an attempt to bully?
Maybe you recall a while back, in 2011, I told you that you were a patronizing white bastard for something you said.
You apologized.
Later, I re-read what you had said, and thought about what you meant.
To my chagrin, I saw and knew what you said not only hung together, but was on the money. (Well on that subject at least!) We disagree about some things, but it’s always the substance of the subject which is at issue.
***************************************************************************************************
@ mary, linda
Thank you for your warm greetings.
I’m sorry I haven’t been keeping up.
I am far behind with too much on my plate to read or write here properly because I am between the west of Ireland and London trying to care for an elderly relative following her ileostomy, and also to give proper attention to a business acquired in mid-May. I think I am failing at both plus, everything in-between, tired and unable to concentrate. I simply won’t be able to comment until I can find the space.
If either of you want to keep in touch, please ask Abagond for my personal email when you have the time. I shall let him know. My best wishes to you both.
LikeLike
Yeah bulanik u are back welcome back
LikeLike
Mstoogood7yall, dear lady! 😀 {bulanik looks round for a moment….lol}
Thank you.
LikeLike
Nice to see your name here again 😉 Bulanik
LikeLike
lifelearner. 😀 Hello, thank you. I only stepped in for a moment, but it’s so kind of you (and Mstoogood7yall) to say this.
LikeLike
Sorry, I mean Mstoogood4yall.
Numbers get mixed up sometimes! LOL.
LikeLike
resw77, sam
I saw this article and thought of you both…
“German finance minister says Turkey is not part of Europe”
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/03/us-germany-turkey-eu-idUSBRE96217U20130703
I do get that you two are discussing “location” but this article just highlights the issue that white Europeans fight hard to retain the right to “designate” and classify other people and the rest of us just go along with it.
(I personally think the term “Caucasian” is misused and misapplied by white Europeans)
I lived in Germany for several years over 20 years ago and this argument was going on even back then… I never did think Turkey would make it into the European Union.
Even though the Turks themselves consider themselves to be “white”, the people I met did not consider themselves to be “European” and they definitely didn’t consider themselves to be “Arabs”
as far as the Germans are concerned, the Turks are the “n’ggers” of Germany and are not considered to be European or white….thus Turkeys struggle to be accepted into the European Union.
LikeLike
Correction, I meant to say the “term “Caucasian” is misused and misapplied by white Americans …
I don’t know too many white Europeans who call themselves “Caucasians”
LikeLike
Linda, Europeans still have “cellular memory”. They identify with their specific ethno-cultures, not some “pan-caucasianism”.
Americans, both black and white, have been cut off from their cellular memories.
LikeLike
@Bulanik
FYI, Sam also presented opinions such as, “A black afroamerican person has more DNA similarities with a guy from Korea than fulani from Nigeria with a guy from Malawi. That’s NOT a fact.
@Linda
Thanks for sharing. Trust me, I KNOW most Europeans don’t consider Turks to be Europeans, and Sam confirmed that. I don’t contend Turks are European. I simply referred to the Ottoman Empire as European b/c old Istanbul is physically in Europe, among other reasons. Sam tried to give reasons why Turks were not ancestrally European, but that’s a matter of opinion.
It’s not a big deal to me (Europe is not a continent anyway). It’s Sam and other Europeans, as you’ve pointed out, who obviously have a big problem calling Turks Europeans (they’re not white enough).
But if I choose to call the old Ottoman Empire European b/c their capital was in Europe, it is not incorrect.
LikeLike
@resw77:
The DNA is not an opinion but a scientifical fact. Most recent DNA studies have shown that even in a single african village next door neighbours might have greater variation in their DNA than any one else outside Africa. This includes black americans, excluding those who are recent immigrants from Africa.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_variation)
It is stated in that article too: Africa has greater diversity of DNA than any other place on earth. This is not a mystery, a political opinion, but simple science. It is also only logical.
The population pool which migrated from Africa to the rest of the world some 60 – 35 00 years ago presented a small portion of the gene pool of the african population. Most stayed back. Thus, the most diversity remained in Africa when the rest of the human population migrated around the globe.
So when I say that a black guy from Detroit has more similar genetic structure with a korean than a fulani with a malawi, that is based on the scientifict fact. All the people outside Africa, every single indian, chinese, european, american, polynesian, have less variation in their DNA than present day africans. It is just so.
You and I are more closer by our DNA than mauritanian and a kenyan guy. It is so simple. It also shows that the basic themes of racism are huge pile of BS.
LikeLike
@Solesearch
This is exactly what I mean. Sam thinks he knows EVERYTHING, but knows very little.
@ Sam
So your proof that Fulanis are so genetically different from Malawians is a link to the genetic variation page on Wikipedia, which does not mention any specific the genetic studies of Fulanis or Malawians? That’s scientific evidence to you?
Here’s a RELEVANT genetic study:
http://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/humbiol/vol78/iss1/2/
“We sampled four Fulani nomad populations (n 186) in three countries of sub-Saharan Africa (Chad, Cameroon, and Burkina Faso [a West African country]) and analyzed sequences of the first hypervariable segment of the mitochondrial DNA. Most of the haplotypes belong to haplogroups of West African origin, such as L1b, L3b, L3d, L2b, L2c, and L2d (79.6% in total), which are all well represented in each of the four geographically separated samples.”
Another genetic study of Southeast Africans (which includes Malawians) says: “The youngest of the major haplogroups, L3, is MOST COMMON in WESTERN and eastern/SOUTHEASTERN sub-Saharan Africa, particularly among speakers of the Bantu language” family, and is thought to have originated in eastern Africa, where it accounts for half of all types” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2674340/
LikeLike
@resw77:
And? There is still more variations between those than there are between americans and koreans.
LikeLike
@resw77:
Now, let me ask you this: what it is that you excately try to prove to me? That there is a african race of people? That all the “blacks” belong to a separate black race of africans? Is that it?
I am not sure I am getting what you wish to say here, so can you be more direct and specific about your point. Thanks.
LikeLike
@resw77:
This is from that study you gave the link above:
“it is unclear how they achieved their current distribution and why the L3 haplogroup was the only lineage to be carried out of Africa.”
Now I may not understand this but it looks to me that L3 haplogroup was the ONLY ONE to be carried out of Africa, out of many. To me that suggests what I have been saying here but I might be wrong.
LikeLike
@ sam
“what it is that you excately try to prove to me? ”
LOL. You’re the one who made the completely outrageous and untrue statement, “A black afroamerican person has more DNA similarities with a guy from Korea than fulani from Nigeria with a guy from Malawi.” All I did was prove you wrong.
LikeLike
You did? Ok.
But does this then mean that all black people in the world are africans genetically?
LikeLike
Its culture , Sam, drum dance culture
The ties to Africa from descendants of slaves brought from Africa are drum dance culture
Forget DNA or genetics, the slaves brought from sub Sahara Africa who were black, to the Americas, were a snapshot of the traditional ancient cultures of that time from the territories they came from.. Pygmies have a far differant genetic code than their neighbors, but, their drum dance cultures have more similarities than anything in Europe or China etc
There is Candomble, Voodoo, and Santaria all from differant countries and languages in the Americas, but, there are very heavy cultural tie ins to the origins of where the slaves came from including dieties hidden behind Catholic Saints and many words in Yoroba, and those cultural tie ins are in the USA also, just more hidden
Exactly because of this culture brought over in slavery, you even have pockets of black muslim culture that came to the Americas, but basicly, , culture brought from slavery to the Americas, is a West African ancient pre colonial , pre Arab sub Sahara African story
That doesnt mean all black people in Africa or the Americas has this culture, but , this drum dance culture survived the most heavy represion, and attemts at destruction and being buried but has survived through all that and dominated the cultures it has been brought to
Individuals can say all they want, but the culture is there and actualy waiting to be discovered by anyone who wants to find it, including black individuals who want to discover elements in their cultural past…most black Americans are inundated with white American culture as soon as they can watch TV, or go to school…but, there are tremendous African cultural ties in black American culture that are there to be discovered if they want to.
And the people from the countries in Africa you talked to can claim no ties to black American culture all they want to, but, modern Afro pop is just teeming with huge influences of James Brown and black American culture
Culture, drum dance ancient black sub Sahara black culture, is much bigger than any individual’s opinion…any individual can decide to not know about culture, and what it means in the breakdown in their life in society, but , these cultural influences exist independant of any individual’s orientation or opinion
As for the black American who might be 20 percent black, racist society dictated they were black, therefore , would be raised in a black community and exposed to more black culture
There sure are plenty of black people who werent raised with black cultural ties…the abheration of what racism has become will mean they will be classified as black, even if they have no black sub sahara cultural ties
Very interesting this theme that keeps popping up on here about how Europeans keep reffering to “American thinking”…living in a country outside of America, I do understand this line of thinking very well
LikeLike
@ Sam
You use words like black Americans, so the question I was to ask is If you believe in the notion of one human race, then why in the dawn of the 21st century—with computers the size of pinheads, with the ability to communicate with anyone on the globe within seconds, with the ability to map every gene in the human body, are people like who promote this false hypocritical notion of on human, choose to continue to define ourselves within the framework of racist classifications created by long-dead whites from the 18th century? Even more importantly, why aren’t people like you, who “by their very existence, embody the fallacy of race taking a leading role in guiding us to a post-racial future? You see Sam, humans have a tendency to rationalise things that serves in their interest.
Yes Sam, there are lots evidence to back the assertion that biologically the concept of race doesn’t make sensense, but it is a social construct contingent on collective acceptance, agreement, and imposition. The reality is that race has always been defined by the dominant group aka whites in society. So I find it laughable that you are trying to false this concept of one human race on us, whilst promote the utopia of racial peace and the dismantling of race pride, whilst your race (whites) are concurrently busy exploiting and expanding their Eurocentrism via the very same mechanism of race. I think that your concept of a colourblindness and one human race is hypocritical.
Chester Higgins, Jr. was very correct when he said ‘’ We are not Africans because we are born in Africa, we are Africans because Africa is born in us’’. Afrikan American are Afrikans just like other Afrikans in born and brought up in Afrika. And your rhetorics wouldn’t change. Black is a racist and prejorative colonial term and there is no such thing as a transhistorical African identity. So there is no such thing as Black race, but Afrikan race. And Afrikan Americans are part of the Afrikan race, there have every right to take pride in Afrikan culture and history. Afrikans refers exclusively to the historical people of Afrika and their descendants in the Diaspora. So in plain language, no one is an Afrikan unless they are also considered a Black person. But not every Black person is an Afrikan. Unfortunately the most distinctive feature of this Afrikan identity, beyond relative phenotypical similarities, is the history of global race-based oppression.
An Afrikan race-identity is necessary for the authentic notion of ones community as an autonomous agent, and this something that blackness doesn’t provide. Without identity, there is no agency, and certainly no history to draw from. Regardless of how identity is formed (race, religion, geographical) it always shares the same objectives and has similar personalities in instructing a stronger group bond. And I realise that Afrikan racial identity is not monolithic, and I also as far as saying it cant be defined because of its diversity. Afrikan identity does not rest on negation for its parameters but on inherent social, cultural, physical trends subjectively identified— for political reason— across diverse communities and nations. But belief in difference should never, be an excuses for antagonism.
May I also remaind you that one cannot talk about slavery with out discussing Afrikan identity, It is impossible to do this. In every instance, slavery, colonialism, apartheid, identity was the criteria for those systems: And lack of a Pan-Afrikan identity is what allowed all those systems to be so effective. Whilst you might want to escape to the hills of a raceless world, know that wherever we go, someone is seeing us by our race identity. Race in the case of the Afrikan, is the first thing people see when you show up at an immigration border, long before Islam, Massai, South African, PhD. or social-economic status.
So please don’t tell me about a raceless world, when your race have and continue to benefit as a result of race invention.
Am sorry Sam.., but you have meant an Afrikan, who fight the whiteness as an expert on everything Afrikans and Afrika.
Goodness.., the highlight of my day, is reading a white person telling how colourblind they are. Lol..
LikeLike
Excuse the Typo..
LikeLike
@ajakenza:
“You use words like black Americans, so the question I was to ask is If you believe in the notion of one human race, then why in the dawn of the 21st century—with computers the size of pinheads, with the ability to communicate with anyone on the globe within seconds, with the ability to map every gene in the human body, are people like who promote this false hypocritical notion of on human, choose to continue to define ourselves within the framework of racist classifications created by long-dead whites from the 18th century? Even more importantly, why aren’t people like you, who “by their very existence, embody the fallacy of race taking a leading role in guiding us to a post-racial future?”
If I understand correctly,( english not being my first language so I may misunderstand some things sometimes), you are saying that I as a white person can not talk about the fact that there is only one biological human race on the planet simply because I am white? So basically what I say is fallacy because of my… race? Is that what you are implying?
I have said many times that I refuse to believe in races. It is not easy, it is not simple. But I do so. I refuse to be a white or any other. I refuse to accept the key elements of racism. As for the word “black american”, I am using it here only as a defenition from “white” americans in the general framework of the discussions on this blog.
“The reality is that race has always been defined by the dominant group aka whites in society. So I find it laughable that you are trying to false this concept of one human race on us, whilst promote the utopia of racial peace and the dismantling of race pride, whilst your race (whites) are concurrently busy exploiting and expanding their Eurocentrism via the very same mechanism of race. I think that your concept of a colourblindness and one human race is hypocritical.”
So at the same time as you condemn the racist system of race classification, you promote race pride based on that very same system? How that works? What is the difference between white race pride and black race pride on principle, other than the white one has been around for some three hundred years and is seen as a architype of racism?
I think we all should be proud of our humanity. We should be celebrating our diversity, how different we all are. We should all say we are the same instead of keep bringing up how different we are. We should be blending, mixing, living all mixed up, all languages and cultures. That is how we live on this planet all ready.
We should do away races, the whole concept. Unless we do so, racism is here. As long as it is been promoted in any form, there is no end. BUT once people quit, refuse to believe in it, it begans to whither away. Eventually it will become so weak that it can be done away. But only if we all refuse to participate in it. Actually, that could haste the decline of racism. It will dissappear one day anyway.
For me “racial peace” is not utopia. I live it everyday. I know my behavior does not make too big a diffefrence but like even Nelson Mandela once said in an interview years ago, change one person and you change the world. We have to start somewhere and the only place I can start is myself. I have to practise what I preach. And I do it everyday. Granted, I am white BUT all the more I must be more alert and awake if I am going to do away the racism in me.
As for colorblindness, that is ridicilous accusation from your behalf. Where did I say I was colorblind? Nowhere. Of course I see skin colors. I see hair colors too. I see height and weight also. Yes I know it is funny, but that is how it works. For me your skin color does not mean anything else than your height or weight. It is just a physical feature, the way you look. You and I still belong to the same humanrace biologically. I can not help it. I can not change that. It is a fact. There is only one humanrace on the planet, like it or not. And to claim that there are more than one, is racism. So I do not. I claim there is just one humanrace. Not because it makes me feel good or excellent, it is just a biological fact.
“Chester Higgins, Jr. was very correct when he said ‘’ We are not Africans because we are born in Africa, we are Africans because Africa is born in us’’. Afrikan American are Afrikans just like other Afrikans in born and brought up in Afrika. And your rhetorics wouldn’t change. Black is a racist and prejorative colonial term and there is no such thing as a transhistorical African identity. So there is no such thing as Black race, but Afrikan race. And Afrikan Americans are part of the Afrikan race, there have every right to take pride in Afrikan culture and history. Afrikans refers exclusively to the historical people of Afrika and their descendants in the Diaspora. So in plain language, no one is an Afrikan unless they are also considered a Black person. But not every Black person is an Afrikan. Unfortunately the most distinctive feature of this Afrikan identity, beyond relative phenotypical similarities, is the history of global race-based oppression.”
So it is a race based ideology? This pan-afrikanism? And, if I understand this correctly, there is a race called africans? Not a race of blacks, which is racist term according to you, but afrikan race? Well, if you really believe in that, then you believe in the same way as the guys in KKK. They also believe that there is a separate race of africans. They also believe that these africans are lesser beigns simply because they are not racially white.
I do not believe that for a second. There are african cultures and nations and languages and people, but a race of africans? Not so biologically. Only in ideological sense, in racist ideology. White or black.
“So please don’t tell me about a raceless world, when your race have and continue to benefit as a result of race invention.”
So your answer is to enforce the race concepts, invent new ones, give new meanings on the racist ideas of separate races? You think this will work? How well racism has worked for any of us?
The most horrendous crimes against humanity were committed because of the very idea of races. You mentioned race pride. That is it. The nazis were proud to be pure germanic race. They were the “historical people of” german race. That gave them a carte blanche to kill millions of russian, poles, jewish, hundreds of thousands of roma etc. All in the name of race pride.
It was the very idea of races which was invented to explain the horrors of Atlantic slave trade, conquest of Americas and Africa and other parts of the world. People were horrified when they heard what Columbus had done, even the church was horrified, untill the idea of race was invented. That was the explanation: the races. All those genocides, colonialism, destruction, exploitation, wars and murders were done in the name of races. Millions and millions of people have been murdered in the name of race. Even the horrors of the religious wars pale out.
I just find it very strange that anyone suffering from racism wants to strenghten it, wants to make it stronger. I refuse to do so. I refuse to play that game. Perhaps it is childish, stupid, perhaps I am hypocritical, but I refuse to participate in racism. I can do that. That is up to me. It is my choice.
Racism is not our destiny. It is not godgiven. It is not biological. It is an ideology. An idea. And just like any huma idea, it too can be done away. It can be squashed, thrown in to the garbage. I can do it for my part. I can start from myself. And I make the desicion to do so.
There has been great ideas, great and powerful ideologies trough out the human history which have dissappeared. Racism has been hauting us for roughly 400 years. Ancient Egypt and its great ideas, ideologies lasted for thousands of years. And today, what is left of those ideas are very pale memories at most.
Racism won’t dissappear in my life time. But I can be one of the drops in the huge wave which is coming one day in the future. That wave will drown all the trenches of racism, all the temples and monuments, all the priests and their books of racism. I will not see it, but it is coming. I can hear the rumble beyond the horizon.
Those who will hide in their ideologial caves, who long for the past and its old consepts, those who take hold on the old conventions of racism will be drowned. They will lose, dissappear. It is anvoidable. It has started already.
Millions and millions of people are moving around this globe faster than ever in the history of humankind. Just think how many mexicans move to live in USA every year. Millions of turks have moved in to the west since WW2. In mere thirty years actually. Millions of africans have done the same. Millions of indians too. Millions of chinese. Millions, tens of millions of people all over the planet.
Never ever in the history of mankind there has been such mixing of people, or “races”, cultures. There are millions of children who can not be cathegorized by racial definitions. There are hunderds of thousands who refuse to belong into any “race”. The scale of this change is staggering and it is happening around us as we speak. it can not be stopped. It can not be reversed.
Racism is on its last legs. We see the spams of dying ideology. Racist system of USA, eurocentrism, white pride are all the stuff of yesterday. They are of the past, not even of today. The very idea of racial purity, any racial purity, is becoming more and more hollow, dead and lifeless, useless. Meaningless. Insane.
Millions of people today have no other racial definition than humanbeigns. They can not be defined by the racist cathegories. And their number is growing and growing all the time. Every day thousands and thousands of babies are born from parents who themselves are “racially mixed”. Every minute. That is the future coming upon us.
We can act as if it is not happening. We can salute the old flags. We can even wish it does not happen. But it is. Nobody is asking our permission. Nobody is asking our acceptances. There is nothing we can do to stop it.
Racial pride? Pure race? White? European? Black? African?
In the next century all those words will be meaningless. In the late 2100’s there will be very few people who can even make a claim of racial purity based on their appearances. 2200’s there will be even less. in 2300’s there are none left. Racism is gone. Finally. Simply because there is only one humanrace on this planet.
Sorry aboyt the preaching.
LikeLike
@Sam
Are we talking about the real world or the “here-after”? Afrikan people, that have bought into this we are one ideology, are the ones that are at the end of the spectrum as usual. How does that benefit the Afrikan race in self-determination? It is real easy for whites like you to say this when the race is at the top of the food chain. It is real easy to say this. I would think it is very difficult to tell Afrikans that “we are all one”, when our humanity is under attack in every aspect of society for illogical reasons. Your very own Greek philosopher in Mousonious said “You will be respected by everyone if you first start respecting yourself. Another Greek philosopher in Pythagoras said “Among all human beings, first respect yourself”. This is what I’m about when you want to talk about falseness of one human race ideology especially for Afrikans in general.
We as Afrikan people have to accept ourselves first and lift ourselves first before there can be any of this We are One philosophy. That will be great when Afrikan people lead the way to their own definitions of freedom, justice and democracy. Someone else fighting for them claiming to be “experts” is not the answer. We have seen this song and dance the past 600+ years and the improvements are minimal to say the least.
I dont think any people of Afrikan descent has never been anti-One Human Race ideology, we just question and challenge the authenticity of it because in the real world. It is pure hypocrisy by the ones that preach it.
Sam, race is a structure of oppression. So long as the structure remains, so does race. It is a privilege to believe that racism is a reaction rather than a catalysing agent of oppression. Meanwhile, all of us are variously implicated in this structure of oppression called race.
You must realise that all human beings act in self-interest. Because of the global white power balance, whites as a collective have traditionally acted in a way which is hostile to the other races of the planet. Generally speaking all people defend privilege and the opportunity it brings. So if you want the one human race philosophy to realised, the solution then is to dismantle white privilege and create a world where there is no direct relationship between race and power. A world of plurality and multi-cultural diversity where self-determination is the backbone of how we interact with each other as humans.
This world belongs to all people and I realise in our world, but we humans must first engage change which profits humanity. However my primary objective is off Afrikan-Afrikan partnerships, every ever in the world we are. Along time ago.., I could be bothered with the one human race philosophy. but now, I focus on my people the Afrikan race.
”Racist system of USA, eurocentrism, white pride are all the stuff of yesterday. They are of the past, not even of today”
Only to whites..
How is believing in a concept of Black race different from Afrikan race?
And how can this believe of an Afrikan race, be familarise with that of KKK? It doesnt make sense at all. Afrikan race is more than a name, it is linked to indigenous rights and issues of sovereignty. ‘Blackness’ fails at every level in both the historical and political context. Africans (politically black) are the natural people of Africa: The hair, the skin, are all specific adaptations to living in the Afrikan landscape. Afrika of these adaptations and the cultures is primarily Africa; hence the relevance of the name Afrikan race, as it connects Afrikans (politically black people) to our motherland. It has nothing to myth of racial superiority. The term Black race, also doesnt illustrate the genetic diversity in Afrika either.
LikeLike
[…] What “world” history has taught me […]
LikeLike
I don’t think either Sam or resw77 proved the truth or falsehood of that statement, at least based on the supporting evidence they offered. I don’t think we can say it is outrageous or a definite fact. But it is a possibility, at least for some individuals. If it is possible, then we can form a hypothesis about it.
I guess we have to do a real statistical hypothesis testing on thousands of individuals to verify the “likelihood” of the statement (still won’t be able to ascertain with certainty if it is a fact or not, but we might be able to assign a probability of likelihood). The result might be that we can neither prove the null hypothesis nor reject the alternative.
Anyhow, our DNA is so closely related anyhow. I read that neighboring chimpanzee bands have more DNA variation than entire mankind. But I haven’t scrutinized the analysis. 😛
Sometimes it is nice to see people passionate about their ideas as long as they do not use ad hominems. Then it breaks down.
LikeLike
@jefe
Hmmm…I showed with genetic studies that the African groups we aforementioned are most commonly haplotype L. Since Koreans are most commonly D and O, which I knowingly did not explicate, it clearly proves Sam’s foolish statement wrong.
LikeLike
@resw77
Look, I am not supporting Sam at all, but that kind of statement does not indicate anything about the truth or falsehood about what Sam said or about what you said.
“genetic studies that the African groups we aforementioned are most commonly haplotype L”
It would not seem reasonable to use haplotypes from across Africa to determine the haplotypes of African-Americans, given the limited African genetic pool they hailed from and after centuries of mixing with other peoples.
You would have to compare the haplotype groups of specifically African-Americans to haplotypes across Africa. I didn’t see where you mentioned haplotypes of African-Americans. Sam mentioned that Africans brought to the US during the slave trade would represent only a small sample of the genetic diversity on the African continent, and that would make sense. But neither of you took that further to confirm your claims.
Also, since African-Americans are so mixed with Europeans and Native Americans, and even Asians (and 30% of “whites” are also part African, not to mention even more who are part Native American and Asian), I would also expect African-Americans to be more similar genetically to white Americans than to most Africans. That feels intuitive to me, but of course we would have to do research studies to confirm. I only read one study about a county in Georgia where they compared the white population (about 90% European ancestry) to the black population (about 85-90% African). Even though there was almost no intermarriage, they postulated that, at least statistically, the blacks and whites did not constitute separate breeding populations. Enough genetic information had passed between them that the combined black and white populations, at least statistically, only consisted of one breeding population.
How about genetic studies other than haplogroups?
I am not saying that you are wrong. It is just neither you nor Sam seem to be going anywhere with all the claims you are making. It just shows that we need to do some more research.
LikeLike
@jefe
“It would not seem reasonable to use haplotypes from across Africa to determine the haplotypes of African-Americans, given the limited African genetic pool they hailed from and after centuries of mixing with other peoples.”
And similar to Fulanis and Malawians, African Americans are most commonly haplogroup L according to genetic studies. Haplogroup L is least common among European Americans.
LikeLike
I have been doing a little bit of reading on haplogroups to make sure that I understand a little bit more of how they are used.
Haplogroups most commonly studied are Y-chromosome (Y-DNA) haplogroups and mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplogroups, The Y-DNA is inherited solely through the patrilineal line. The mtDNA is inherited solely through the matrilineal line.
Haplogroup study is most useful when used to postulate about human migration. And analysis of the differentiation of subgroups, one can also attempt to estimate how long ago the differentiation occurred and hence how long ago the related migration occurred. It is a useful tool, but as humans have always been on the move and have intermingled, it is also limited in the information and the accuracy of conclusions it offers. And, as it is based on random sampling, we can only hypothesize conclusions and test them statistically.
Haplogroups L, but esp. L1 and L2 are mtDNA concentrations are high in Africa, but almost non-existent in aboriginal populations outside of Africa. L1 is especially highly concentrated in Equatorial West Africa. They are still relatively high in African-Americans, but can also be found among white Americans at low frequencies (about 1%).
Y-DNA haplogroup E-V38 is particularly highly concentrated in the West Africa Guinea coast, and is still quite high among African-Americans (over 55%). But many African-American men also belong to Y-DNA haplogroups more commonly found outside African, including Europe (about 30% of African-Americans).
Haplogroup study lends credibility to the “Out of Africa” hypothesis of human migrations and can help us estimate where and when some of the original human migrations occurred. It can also help us postulate from where more recent human migration occurred from Africa to America, e.g., estimating where most ancestors of modern day Americans came from, including those that trace back to Equatorial or Southern or East Africa.
It can also lend *some* supporting evidence about frequency of gene flow between different racial groups in the USA and the rest of the Americas. For example, Y-DNA haplogroups that are highest in western Europe can still be found in a significant portion of modern-day African-Americans, indicating that much of the European ancestry of African-Americans entered on the paternal side, and considerably less on the maternal side. It might be able to help us estimate the degree to which multi-racial individuals “passed” into the white population, but that would be less accurate as many of the multi-racial Americans who did that might still have white patrilineal ancestors.
In any case, its major drawback is that it traces only *some* of the genetic information inherited strictly through the patrilineal or matrilineal lines. So, if an individual has 10 generations of ancestors in the USA, for example, the Y-DNA haplogroup only tells us something about 1 of those 1024 ancestors of that individual, and the mtDNA haplogroup only tells us something about 1 of those 1024 ancestors as well. And it tells only “some” of the information as it can only be compared to frequencies in modern groups. It tells us nothing about 99.8% of the ancestors of that individual for the past 10 generations. For example, if we found an individual who was 99% of European descent, but exhibited markers for L1 and E-V38 haplogroups, would that indicate that that white person was more genetically related to west-African ethnic groups and NOT Europeans? Of course it does not.
To help make up for the lack of information, autosomal DNA tests could be conducted. But this can only try to compare the relative frequencies of DNA sequences. It can defniitely tell you something about how much individuals might be related, but can only make reasonable hypothesis about actual DNA ORIGIN.
Resw77’s use of haplogroups neither proves nor disproves his assertion, nor prove or disproves Sam’s. It can only lend supporting credibility to studies which trace the African origin of modern day Americans to regional and ethnic heritage areas, and also attempt to trace patterns of gene flow between America’s various racial groups. It cannot really be used in isolation to confirm the degree of DNA commonality between individuals. And given the higher degree of DNA similarity between people outside Africans vs. within Africa, it would be spurious to use haplogroups to prove DNA similarity between individuals given how little of the DNA information is provided by haplogroups. I am not saying that resw77’s assertion is wrong, just that haplogroup analysis would not be able to confirm it.
Unfortunately, it does not disprove it all. It says almost nothing about Sam’s statement either way.
LikeLike
Are you joking!?
Many if us could Not Survive Without Many White People’s inventions! STOP BEING RACISTS!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Missvegablog
We’ll thank goodness that most “white” people’s inventions are nothing more than some poc invention that they took credit for.
LikeLike
@missvegas:
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArSLNJNUEIM)
LikeLike