Spotlight History is my name for the way “world” history in America is mostly about particular times and places, not about the world as a whole.
Here, roughly, are the important periods and regions:
- 3500 to 500 BC: Middle East
- 500 BC to AD 500: Greece and Rome
- 500 to 1500: Western Europe
- 1500 to present: North America
Other parts of the world make “contributions” from time to time, like gunpowder, millions of slaves or the continent of South America.
It is a narrative fiction: No people, language, culture or even piece of land is always in the Spotlight. Even the Anglos do not matter till they cross into the Roman Empire, into the Spotlight, at the end of Act II. What is being followed by the Spotlight is the development of the American branch of the Western branch of Afro-Asiatic civilization. The “we” is made up. The Spotlight is an effect of hindsight. Even the idea of history being about “civilizations” only goes back to the 1800s.
It is not the history of a culture. If the Spotlight followed Anglo cultural history – “because that’s our heritage” – it would go something like this:
- 3500 BC to 1700 BC: Eastern Europe
- 1700 BC to AD 500: Scandinavia
- 500 to 1500: Britain
- 1500 to present: Anglosphere: Britain, North America, Australia, South Africa, etc
Because that is where English and the people who speak it come from. Not from Greece or Rome or Egypt or Mesopotamia.
The Spotlight does not even cover the most advanced parts of the world much of the time. For example, the largest city in the world often lies outside the Spotlight – places like Baghdad, Beijing, even Constantinople (after the fall of Rome).
It is highly Eurocentric. A pure Spotlight history would be 75% Western. In practice, people throw in stuff on India and China and so on, lowering the percentage:
How much attention some “world” histories spend the West:
- 41% 1963: William McNeill (Canadian), “The Rise of the West”
- 50% 1987: Fernand Braudel (French), “A History of Civilizations”
- 50% 2003: Michael Cook (British), “A Brief History of the Human Race”
- 78% 2005: E.H. Gombrich (Austrian), “A Little History of the World”
- 76% 2007: National Geographic (American), “1000 Events That Shaped World History”
How much attention some news magazines (= current history) spend on the West:
- 61% 2013: The Economist (British)
- 97% 2013: Time (American)
How much of the world, in fact, lives in the West:
- 25% 2010: Earth
Here I am counting the West as being roughly Europe, the Americas and Oceania.
The size of the West through the ages:
- 1500: 28%
- 1600: 22%
- 1700: 21%
- 1800: 25%
- 1900: 35%
- 2000: 26%
- 2100: 18% (projected)
The Muslim world, India, China and the West each have about 1.5 billion people, give or take 300 million. By 2020 Africa will be that big too and pass the West in 2040. (Note that there is some overlap between these regions.)
Throwing in a few token chapters on China and so on does not work because the West is only a fourth of the world. World history is not Western history with some stuff added. Not anymore than it is Chinese history with some stuff added. The world is way bigger than that.
See also:
Abagond 
You know, I saw that map on the Washington Post site, and was thinking about putting it into a comment. You beat me to it!
I watched the first 4 episodes of History Channel’s “Mankind The Story of All of Us”. Although the series started with the “Out of Africa” premise, I swear that it evolved into a history of western civilization (about 80-85%). China only seemed to make a few minor “contributions” to the “History of Mankind”. The History of the Americas begins with the fall of the Aztec empire and the with the Pilgrims.
Oh really.
LikeLike
@ Jefe
Yup. You would think that kind of thing would have been shamed out of existence in the 1960s. I thought maybe I was kind of just imagining it. That is why I went through some world history books and counted pages.
LikeLike
Seems rather unsurprising.
There’s only so much time and space available for a given subject, thus compromises between the spotlight (narrow focus) and the floodlight (broad focus) need to be made.
That the “centricity” of a region’s histories (even those dubbed “world history”) would have a strong focus and narrative connection to that region also seems normal, though perhaps not ideal.
Abagond:
The Economist is notable for reporting on stories from a remarkable array of countries week in and week out.
By way of comparison, how much of the content of say, the “South China Morning Post” is Asia-focused?
LikeLike
That is not a fair comparison. That is like asking how much of the Washington Post is North America focused. The SCMP is much much more a local periodical, whereas the Economist does try to be global.
LikeLike
@ Randy
“Normal” is an extremely bad argument. In fact, it is circular since your idea of what is “normal” was created by the very thing that I am faulting. It sidesteps moral issues. It is an argument that will always favour the status quo, no matter how screwed up. Slavery. Jim Crow. Housing segregation. Racism. Etc. It is like those white Southerners who excuse whites-only proms by saying, “This is the way we have always done it.”
LikeLike
I am sick of Americans thinking the world revolves around them when they only make up 5% of the world’s population. Most Blacks don’t live in AmeriKKKlan, most of them live in the Caribbean, Latin American and Africa. The things you see in AmeriKKKlan is not normal and not what makes a normal civilization or powerful country.
A good example of this is Blacks in AmeriKKKlan integrating with White devils in the 1960s. Why did they want to integrate with these people? These people were the ones who oppressed us and still continue to oppress us. And integration made things worse for us not better!
You separate from your enemy not integrate with them!
Yes I haven’t commented in a while but I am back. I don’t care if people label me racist for pointing this out. It is the truth.
LikeLike
@All
Why does everyone think that AmeriKKKlan decides what is normal and what isn’t. This country only makes up 5% of the world population not the whole world! This country is not centered on AmeriKKKlan.
Yes I haven’t comment in a while and I do call America AmeriKKKlan for a good reason.
LikeLike
Jefe:
Good point. That wasn’t a great comparison.
abagond:
There is merit to that criticism, but I think it requires additional arguments to be complete. I’m thinking out loud here, so bear with me.
Perhaps we could consider a difference between the concepts of “deficient morality” and “insufficient morality”.
Deficient morality might be defined as the moral gap between a situation being studied and standards of the time/place.
Insufficient morality on the other hand might be defined as the moral gap between an idealized morality (how one thinks people “ought” to behave to live up to higher aspirations of humanity) compared with the standards of a given/time place.
Using this paradigm, “spotlight history” may be not be guilty of deficient morality, since it’s just an example of folks being folks, but may be guilty of insufficient morality, as one takes a step back and considers that people ought to aim higher.
I’m not sure that all came out as envisioned, but I’m a bit pressed for time at the moment.
Side thought:
Couldn’t one claim that a main editorial narrative of your blogging oeuvre is symptomatic of “spotlight immorality” by your focus on the the US and the West in general?
LikeLike
[…] Spotlight History is my name for the way “world” history in America is mostly about particular times and places, not about the world as a whole. […]
LikeLike
First, dividing the world by landmass or population and saying “this region/population comprises X% of the landmass/world population therefore it should comprise X% of a world history text” is unreasonable. Antarctica is an entire continent. How much of a world history text should be dedicated to a continent without people? Australia is an entire continent. People have been there for 50,000 years. But there wasn’t much happening. Certainly not that affected the rest of the world.
Second. a moderate amount happened in the pre colonial Americas and Sub Saharan Africa but not much that affected the rest of the world. A lot happened in India and China. But those regions are so large and populous with such complex cultures that it would be difficult to do them justice in a world history text without spending the majority of the text on only those regions. Besides, a world history text should focus on events relative to world history not those in which the effects were limited to a specific region. Large and populous as they may be, China and India didn’t have a large impact outside their regions until recently. So they would be better covered in text that focus on them specifically.
Third, you correctly point out that Western Europe was of little importance to Ancient History. Consequently, Western Europe gets little mention in ancient history texts. So why don’t world history texts spend more time discussing ancient istory? Because ancient history is more regional not to mentioin it’s already covered in ancient history texts.
Fourth, most of world history doesn’t start until a few hundred years ago. That’s not to say stuff wasn’t happening earlier but it was more regional. Events didn’t start to take on a global dimension until later. It makes sense that most world history would focus on Western Europe since Western Europe has played the largest role in the events that effect the world since history has taken on a global aspect.
Last but not least, a world history emphasizing the western role in world history is simply more relevant to western readers. If someone is interested in another region they’d get a text on it.
LikeLike
@ Randy
1. Your views on morality would give a pass to almost any common form of racism or persecution.
2. You said:
Of the books I listed, “The Rise of the West” has an excuse to focus on the West. I almost did not list it. But the others do not: they use words like “world”, “human race” and “civilizations” in their title.
Unlike them, I do not claim to be writing about the whole world. I think to the casual reader it is pretty clear that I am mainly concerned with Black Americans – for whom the U.S. and the West are not a case of “spotlight immorality” but the main immorality.
I have made it very clear who I write for, why and why I talk so much about the evil White Americans do:
https://abagond.wordpress.com/2011/04/06/i-do-not-write-this-blog-for-white-people/
https://abagond.wordpress.com/2012/05/30/whites-are-not-uniquely-evil/
Also, I try to make sure to scope my posts properly, to not assume everyone is Western or American, though no doubt I make mistakes. I avoid “we” for the same reason.
That is not to say I am not Eurocentric. I know I am. It is why I write posts like this.
LikeLike
@ Da Jokah
Even if you limit “world” history to things that have a world-level effect – I could accept that – the West is still covered to a depth not required for that. Like all that stuff about the Dark Ages and cathedrals. That would be better covered in text that focuses on Europe specifically.
Also, just as the West was a dominant world civilization in the 1900s, so was the Muslim world in the 1300s. And point that seems to barely known in America even though it affects the world it acts in.
LikeLike
“Da Jokah,
Second. a moderate amount happened in the pre colonial Americas and Sub Saharan Africa but not much that affected the rest of the world.”
Linda says,
After I read this, stopped laughing and dried my eyes…. I just felt the need to say:
Thank you Da Jokah for demonstrating how ignorant you Americans are — and for highlighting why the rest of the world think you all are dumb!!
but I will say, Thanks to the Jews, you all are (or rather used to be) financially affluent — so it was/is easier to overlook your ignorance…God save the Queen.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Da Jokah
You are trusting a clearly slanted history to give you a full picture and it is not. That is the point. (Randy, meanwhile, is fine with it because it is “normal”.)
LikeLike
Abagond,
I know you briefly touched on Mansa Musa on your Mali thread, but I don’t know if it’s possible to substitute Music with threads with Positive modern day information and information about AFRICA –north, south, east and west
so that not only can Ignorant white people learn something about World history but also western black people as well… there is just TOO MUCH ignorance floating around because white western scholars only give a sh’t about white western history….
this continued dumbing down has to stop somehow and at least on your blog, it reaches a decent size audience (it must, since you have so many race realists popping their heads in…
LikeLike
I like this concept! I may re-use it later.
I’m not entirely convinced of the “this is not a cultural history” argument, though. I’m sure Anglos did their best to advertise themselves as the true spiritual heirs of the Roman Empire. After all, they abandoned their barbaric runes and religion, besides adopting a myriad of Greek-Latin words. Last but not least, they inherited much of the imperial arrogance as well.
Also, it was much gracious of yours to count all the Americas as the West. There’s many a scholar who would happily write everything south of the Rio Grande off as too poor for civilization, leaving us in a taxonomic limbo.
LikeLike
@ L’Ane
I also included Eastern Europe, parts of which some would not count as Western either. But relative to India, China and the Muslim world I think it is right to lump Eastern Europe and Latin America together with Western Europe and Anglo America.
But if we are naming the Muslim world according to its main religion, the West by rights should be called the Christian world. The West used to call itself “Christendom”. In that case it would take in parts of Africa as well.
LikeLike
In my courses I cover Africa and Asia significantly. There are hurdles in teaching that material that only become evident one you’re in too deep. Ironically, teaching non western history and attempting objectivity is the surest way to destroy someone’s left wing idealism. It’s like reading Chiop. Sure, those who are content skimming the material use him to support a black Egypt, but if they read him more closely they’ll find a description if a black slave owning state ripe for revolution.
When you study world history for years you realize that it was the West, with its Enlightenment values that lit the spark for social justice.
LikeLike
“Asplund,
When you study world history for years you realize that it was the West, with its Enlightenment values that lit the spark for social justice.”
Linda says,
Is ancient black/brown Egypt the only African country you can talk about?
The same Egypt that TAUGHT Greek scholars so that your “enlightened” European elite could Study and Learn, knowledge by way of Africa that lead to your European ancestors enlightenment?
If you teach and study all this, then you are Fully aware of the other African dynasty who “assisted” in the enlightenment of southern Europeans who then passed it on to the north-western tribes who were struggling to come out of the darkness.
LikeLike
and I mean: north-western “European” tribes who were struggling to come out of the darkness…
Europes pioneers in their “age of enlightenment” never did “Thank” African and Asia properly for all the information, minerals, gems, and spices which assisted Europe to form their “free market”
LikeLike
@Abagond,
Asia also contains much of the Muslim world (esp. Indonesia, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Central Asia, parts of Thailand and the Philippines) and the Christian world (Philippines, South Korea, East Timor, Guam).
LikeLike
@ Asplund
“When you study world history for years you realize that it was the West, with its Enlightenment values that lit the spark for social justice.”
Because we all know the myriad revolts against racist slavery and colonialist systems, much of which post-dated your fetishized 18th century Enlightenment, had nothing to do with that.
LikeLike
OMG, is DJ on the Texas School board as well? 😮
LikeLike
Brandon –
Abolition only gained serious clout post enlightenment.
It’s a little hard to argue that you’re violating someone’s liberty when you don’t believe in principles of liberty to begin with, and believe that God’s design is the source of any individual’s woes.
Like it or not, the first country to significantly turn against slavery was Great Britain, and the last societies to abolish slavery were in Africa.
LikeLike
@ Asplund
You don’t need a belief in 18th century “principles of liberty” to resent being abused and exploited for having the wrong skin color. Or are you so fucking stupid as to believe that Africans and other victims of Western domination didn’t mind their own suffering at the hands of racist power structures? Sure, African civilizations had slavery of their own, but those systems didn’t have the RACIALIZED oppression component inherent in the New World colonial system (which Great Britain very avidly participated in for a few centuries before finally abandoning it in favor of less direct exploitative methods). In Africa, both slave-holders and slaves were African, so there wasn’t a clear-cut racial hierarchy.
LikeLike
“Asplund,
Like it or not, the first country to significantly turn against slavery was Great Britain, and the last societies to abolish slavery were in Africa.”
Linda says,
Yes, beacons of truth and light, while “slavery” aka, human trafficking is still going strong Globally,
Infiltrating Europe’s shameful trade in human beings:
“In Europe alone, officials estimate that more than 200,000 women and girls — one-quarter of all women trafficked globally — are smuggled out of Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet republics each year, the bulk of whom end up working as enslaved prostitutes. Almost half are transported to Western Europe. Roughly a quarter end up in the United States.”
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3071965/ns/us_news-only/t/infiltrating-europes-shameful-trade-human-beings/
so much for white “western” society being champions of “liberty and freedom” — I guess they are just as “soiled” as everyone else in this mostly non-white world.
LikeLike
Brandon,
You don’t need any intellectual framework to resent being enslaved- I never said you did. The socio-political movement to abolish slavery by law, however, is a product of the enlightenment. And believe it or not, there were negative reactions in at least a few palaces in West Africa when the British abolished the slave trade in their empire. A huge source of profits dried up for some West African states dependent on exporting captured enemies and unruly minorities as slave labor.
Slavery in Africa may not have been “racial,” but in many instances it was (and still is) utterly ethnic. There are hundreds of distinct ethnic groups scattered throughout Africa, and they have often savaged each other, just like kingdoms on the continent of Europe.
LikeLike
So, the West had their “Age of Enlightenment” and the rest of the world is somehow still in the Dark Ages.
Wow!
LikeLike
Damnit I can’t believe I typed “Chiop” earlier. I meant Diop.
LikeLike
Jefe
Where did I say that? Where did U say that any part of the world was or is in any dark age.
All I stated was a fact. Abolition owes its existence to ideas about natural law and social contracts.
LikeLike
I meant I and not U. Damn phone.
LikeLike
Asplund, can you tell us what you teach?
I apologize.
It is just that you kept on referring to the “Enlightenment” which I assume refers to self-termed “Age of Enlightenment” by western historians. It seems like a very Eurocentric term where westerners recognize their own “cultural flowering. The idea of the Declaration of Independence is often attributed to the Enlightenment.
Indeed, we probably can attribute much of the development of *modern* western culture to this period.
However, the period of the Enlightenment corresponded to the period of European imperialism (seizing the world’s land, labour and natural resources at the barrel of a gun), the Middle passage, and the establishment of Slavery in the USA. So, I am not sure it is balanced to attribute the concept of abolitionism to western Enlightenment and overlook (or de-emphasize) the rest.
If the West had its Enlightenment and the rest of the world did not have some kind of cultural “Dark Age” what do you call what the rest of the world experienced then?
LikeLike
@Asplund
When you study world history for years you realize that it was the West, with its Enlightenment values that lit the spark for social justice.
You aren’t wrong, but that is not the entire picture. While it’s true that liberalism brought the ideas of individualism, social justice, and equality of men into the world, it’s all just lip service if the definition of “men” is limited to White Anglo Saxon males as it is to this day. Charles Mills puts it better than I could. . . .
LikeLike
Reblogged this on donatelloturtle.
LikeLike
@Asplund
“When you study world history for years you realize that it was the West, with its Enlightenment values that lit the spark for social justice”
Either you need to study more world history or admit to your arrogant misbelief that everything good came from the “West.”
There is much older evidence of “social justice” in the 12th century BC in which Nekhemmut and 150 workers aired their grievances before the
Vizier of Waset; the labour strike at Deir el Medina as recorded by Amennakht; and the tale of a peasant named Khnun-Anup who successfully petitioned the chief steward.
And, over a thousand years prior, the Instructions of Merikare clearly show a regard for “social justice”:
” Do justice…Calm the weeper, do not oppress the widow, do not oust a man from his father’s property, do not degrade magnates from their seats. Beware of punishing wrongfully; do not kill…”
LikeLike
ah man this is kind of a jumble for me but i cannot accept dj argument ‘just buy a book on the other cultures’ because i remember high school fairly well, and well it was pretty hard, i mean i had 6 ap classes and crap but i assume that was the ‘water seeks water’ and everyone else was working to their capacity and i surely had no time to be reading extracurricular books during the school year. it IS a spotlight approach, due to all the other crap we had to do besides learning, the sports etc in high school.
it is the curriculum that is certainly in a black hole between a local school board and state regulations and ‘no child left behind’ et al. from the federal level so navigating that should prove difficult at best.
but yes, it is interesting to think of the great enlightenment as sort of the precedent setter for modern ‘philosophical’ viewpoints of the ‘western world’ as africa was getting set up for colonialism and the triangle trade was going on as in one hand the ‘modern consumer’ ie income taxpayer-to-be is getting to feel he has some discretion over his surroundings through purchasing stuff, and on the other hand it is big business tryin to save money to the obvious documented conclusion
LikeLike
@Adeen
I am a God loving man. I suggest you read Psalms 23:5. Granted, wisdom is the principle thing and being at peace with your enemies and even showing them love is separate from showing them trust and being a fool. But one can not live with hate in their heart, for it will consume you and you will never see through or around it.
@Da Jokah
Who determines what is a contribution? With the exception of the rule of Oda Nobunaga, Japan resisted Western influence well into the mid 1800s, seeing Western ideas as unimportant and destructive to their way of life. Under “Sakoku” (literally: “chained country”), Japan had no real influx of Western ideas until the year 1853, the year in which U.S. Naval officer Commodore Matthew Perry threatened to bombard the Japanese coast with cannon fire unless Japan “consented” to Western trade.
Shaka Zulu, King of the Zulu Kingdom, famously dismissed writing and guns as useless technology. Incidentally, Shaka made those remarks in the early 1800s. So even when exposed to Western “contributions”, the Zulu Kingdom went wtihout them for a very long time.
Consequently, if you were to ask about “world contributions” from the view of other cultures, you would not only learn that not all of the world shared the same views on what things and ideas constitute a meaningful contribution, you’d also learn that globalized society is by and large a very very modern phenomenon. It has only been the last 150 years of human history in which a global culture has existed. Prior to this time period, most regions were technologically and culturally isolated with few exceptions.
If we shift away from the flawed model of “world history as world contributions”, you would find that there was more going on in the world than your limited knowledge asserts. Many cultures had developments that were no less relevant for their region or history in general than many of the movements that occurred largely in Europe. The Renaissance, The Inquisition…how meaningful were those periods to the rest of the world? yet they are often taught in world history courses. Consider events going on in the rest of the world.
For instance, the largest manmade structure in history was the Walls of Benin. The combined size of the entire structure was four times greater than that of the Great Wall of China. The development of this structure occurred over several centuries, from 800AD well into the 1400s. The structure was destroyed by the British in 1897 during a “punitive expedition.” Incidentally, this same “expedition” led to the theft of the Benin Bronzes, which are currently located in the British Museum in London, England.
In Zimbabwe, there is a stone ruin known as Great Zimbabwe (from which the name of the country is derived). Great Zimbabwe was a trade-post and city which not only features mortarless construction, but a castle-like structure and roads. Artifact evidence demonstrates that this post was a site of trade between the natives of Zimbabwe, the Chinese and the Arabs. This trade post was (as far as evidence shows) unknown to the Western world until explorers under the auspices of Cecil Rhodes had stumbled upon it.
Rhodes was so impressed by this structure that he commissioned a study in order to determine who built it and for what purpose. When successive teams of archeologists concluded that the native population had built this structure and that it was a trade post with a far reach, Rhodes ordered the destruction of all evidence that corroborated these findings. Rhodes refused to accept that Blacks were capable of such a feat. It was not until Zimbabwe regained its independence that this conspiracy agaisnt history came to light.
Then you have Mansa Musa and the Malian Empire. Mansa Musa was the renowned African (by which I mean “negro”) ruler of the Malian Empire during the early 14th century. Musa was a devout Muslim and built several mosques across northern Africa and the Arab world whilst on his journey to Mecca. In other words, Mansa Musa helped spread what is today the world’s second largest faith system (as determined by total global number of adherents). Mansa Musa engaged in heavy trade between Africa and the “Middle East,” continuing a long history of cultural exchange between those two regions of the world.
Incidentally, it was during Mansa Musa’s reign and expansion of both his Kingdom and the influence of Islam that Europe was still experiencing the rather localized period referred to as the “Dark Ages.” In fact, it was during Mansa Musa’s reign that Europe was enduring the spread of the “Black Plague,” which wiped out 1/3 of Europe. Meanwhile, Africa and the Middle East were experiencing a period of propserity, health and wealth.
Models of history that look solely upon one region of the world and then generalize that history, tend to skew global history as having shared a similar experience. So whle some regions suffered, others propsered and vice versa. But one will rarely know otherwise if history is always taught as regions and periods rather than as a fluid.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Asplund
The American Founding Fathers fought for and thought about the freedom and equality of – white men of property. Washington fought for the freedom of White Americans men alone, no one else.
Even today in America, particularly on the right, the idea of “freedom” is limited to white men with money. Da Jokah is a good example of that: he wants “free markets”, black people be damned. Or: rich men do not want their money to be controlled by the government, but they want to control the wombs of women. Or: the courts are free institutions that uphold the rule of law – for those who can afford a good lawyer. Justice is for the rich.
American institutions are by and for rich white men. They kind of work or are outright broken for everyone else. Obama’s speech on the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington was a chilling reminder of that: he gave himself and Congress a huge pass for doing little about inequality.
LikeLike
@ Jefe
Right. That is why in the post I said (emphasis added):
and:
In the post I was not thinking of the West as being the Christian world (countries where most people are Christian), because the bias I was talking about I felt to be Western, even racist, not Christian. But in my own “world” history, if I had the Muslim world, then by rights I would have a Christian world too.
LikeLike
Jefe,
I teach usually two world history courses, a course on medieval Europe, and 1-2 courses on Asian history.
I don’t believe that the rest of the works was in a “Dark Age.” The term “enlightenment” has value in that it describes the West’s development of the scientific method and the application of natural laws to government. The Qing Dynasty, as an example if the non Western world, enjoyed a higher standard of living than much of the world, but they did not have “the ball” in 1800 the way they did in 1500. There’s value in all social systems, including that of the West, which is responsible for imparting democracy large scale to much of the world, along with all of its problems.
LikeLike
Res-
There is no way you are going to convince me that the roots of democracy and the abolition of slavery were planted by the Pharoahs. Egypt was the quintessential “slave society” and one of the earliest imperial states.
LikeLike
Absgond, D, Jefe, Res-
My argument isn’t that western states were exempt from social evils l- It’s that the abolition of slavery to the enlightenment. Abolition of slavery is the extension if natural law rights to blacks. Damn near everyone was ethnically minded in 1700. By 1900, slavery was abolished in the Western world. It’s true Washington was only fighting for his own ethnic group, but there were many Americans even in 1776 who were opposed to slavery. Thomas Jefferson’s rough draft of the Deckaration of Independence contained during language condemning slavery. It was taken out at the behest of delegates from the southern colonies as unity was deemed too important to risk in the face of British power.
When abolitionists from Equiano to Douglas condemned slavery, they used the language of the enlightenment, pointing out hypocrisy and failure to live up to stated principles.
That doesn’t mean there were no positive developments coming out if Africa at the time. The slaves themselves disprove that.
LikeLike
@ Asplund
Huh?
Ancient Athens practised democracy, slavery and imperialism and, according to Thomas Hobbes, was where the West got its ideas about democracy (which he was against). Some of the most famous American revolutionaries were slave owners: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry.
LikeLike
Too hard to type on my phone.
My original point was thus: covering no western cultures significantly means mob western imperialism, racism, religious intolerance, and economic exploitation have to be added to the mix. A lot of people can’t take that. The white, hetero, Anglo, American, able- bodied, 6′ plus person is supposed to be the root of all evil. The fact that most if history doesn’t jibe with that rubs some folks wrong.
The way people view Obama is a perfect example of this attitude. He kills people with drones, serves corporate interests, and is just as militaristic as every other president, and suddenly he’s not black.
LikeLike
@Lwanda Magree
I don’t hate Whites at all. I don’t hate any race or culture. However, I am sort of biased against them because of what they did to my ancestors and what they continue to do to people they feel they are superior to. And many Whites have wronged me too with White girls bullying me in my freshmen year of high school and my White neighbors annoying the hell out of me etc. I live around Caucasians and I just don’t care for them or trust them is all.
@Asplund and all
Western civilization was built on the backs of Black slaves. If it wasn’t for them, AmeriKKKlan and the Western World wouldn’t be what it is today. And much of the inventions you enjoy today is because Blacks thousands of years ago created them and was recycled again as new inventions. It was Black people who created civilization as we know it today.
LikeLike
Abagond- that’s true, but Egypt was ruled by a god king. Not a formula for democratic advancement.
LikeLike
@Aspund
Your name is pretty funny : P
OT: I mostly agree with you; the ideas of the Enlightenment contributed immensely to Abolition, the Black Freedom movement, Feminism, etc. I’m just not sure if Western Civilization is really more Just in practice than the others precisely because of the double standard of liberalism that operates across lines of gender, race, class, nationality, and sexuality. In spite of all the grand ideas and dreams of uniting humanity in a union of brotherhood, it seems like more of same: War, famine, poverty, bigotry, and a host of other sufferings as old as civilization itself.
I’m beginning to wonder if humans as a species are limited in the amount of empathy we can extend to the proverbial Other, and that this limitation is the root of all evil. (this is, by the way, why my liberal ideals came to an end).
LikeLike
“”Western civilization was built on the backs of Black slaves. If it wasn’t for them, AmeriKKKlan and the Western World wouldn’t be what it is today. And much of the inventions you enjoy today is because Blacks thousands of years ago created them and was recycled again as new inventions. “” Are you some sort of parody?
LikeLike
@Kirkwall
Nope, it is the truth. Black people did help create AmeriKKKlan too. Not just Whites alone. I think you are some sort of parody! LOL. I don’t see why you guys think you are the dominant race! No race is dominant over the other at all.
LikeLike
With their historical narrative many have become fooled by their own lies. It is almost comical. The world did not revolve around mendacious ‘Western See-evil-ization’. In fact, it will be a mere footnote to eternity and will be remembered primarily as the quintessential manifestation of evil. For example, though the Bible has been claimed as a product of ‘Westerners’ and horribly corrupted with some parts best ignored, its very name betrays its origins.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=bible
”
early 14c., from Anglo-Latin biblia, Old French bible (13c.) “the Bible,” also any large book generally, from Medieval and Late Latin biblia (neuter plural interpreted as feminine singular), in phrase biblia sacra “holy books,” a translation of Greek ta biblia to hagia “the holy books,” from Greek biblion “paper, scroll,” the ordinary word for “book,” originally a diminutive of byblos “Egyptian papyrus,” possibly so called from BYBLOS (modern Jebeil, Lebanon), the name of the PHOENICIAN PORT FROM WHICH EGYPTIAN PAPYRUS WAS EXPORTED TO GREECE (cf. parchment). Or the place name might be from the Greek word, which then would be probably of Egyptian origin.
”
There are various other giveaways in the Bible such as the term Amen (also Amun/Amon) which is a name for a KMTic deity whose name also appears in the name of rulers such as Amenhotep III. http://denver.about.com/od/photogalleries/ig/King-Tut-Image-Gallery/King-Tut–Amenhotep-III.htm
(Yeah, he’s so white sporting that Afro with carefully depicted helical hair coils. *gigantic rolleyes*)
And that brings me to another lie. There weren’t primarily Adam/Tamahu/Edom turning pink from exertion bulding civilziations in the hot Nile Valley of so-called Ancient Egypt (which the ancient ‘Egyptians’ didn’t call it). They were BLACK people. BLACK people are not of slave origin nor were we known in antiquity as a ‘lesser race’ of servants. Quite the contrary! The very word slave comes from the SLAVS (white Eastern European people) who were frequently enslaved by the Holey Roman Empire. Whereas Negro and thus N****r/N***a is related to Netjer, Nezzar, Niger, Ngola, Negus, Njinga, Nzinga, Naga, etc. all of which mean either rulership, kingship, the crown/consecration, even godship. Really, we should laugh heartily at the pathetic abyssal depths of their ignorance when they attempt to demean us with that word. They stupidly utter praise in their intent to curse! That’s to show you how much these supreme white people know. Yet we were destroyed culturally/linguistically/spiritually and our ancestry deliberately concealed and our minds confused. But only for a while.
Ancient BLACK people in their technological transcendence and foreknowledge (even Einstein’s relativity says past/present/future coexist in the space-time continuum) wrote much of what came to be in the Bible as obscure allegory and prophecy for the benefit of their own descendants. By saying this I’m not encouraging blind belief in it (or belief in biblical doctrine currently promulgated) as it came to us through the sieve of white deception. But with the third eye of discernment it is possible to see whose experience and future it is talking about. Example Joel 3. The recollection of horrors and yearning for the justice consistently denied should resonate with most of us.
http://biblehub.com/niv/joel/3.htm
Many of the things commonly interpreted as history (eg the Exodus) have scant evidence of ever occurring. So who really are the ‘chosen people’ Isis-Ra-El? Inside of who does the ‘Kingdom of Theos’ really reside (Luke 17:21)? Who is collectively the temple of Theos in which the spirit dwells (1 Corinthians 3:16)? Time will reveal all since the future has already happened and is just waiting to be made manifest. But,
Revelation 2:9
“I know your afflictions and your poverty–yet you are rich! I know about the slander of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan[Set].”
Revelation 3:18
I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews though they are not, but are liars–I will make them come and fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you.
Do not automatically believe ANYTHING the DEVILS (liars) tell you! I’m not even saying this to insult them. But how can we trust the very people that have systematically erased most of our cultural heritage to tell us the truth about ourselves? It would be foolish to do so! One should be willing to completely disregard anything white people tell you. If you eventually come to believe something that they also believe it should be mere coincidence. Basically, I say these things not for anybody to blindly accept them but to encourage each to do research and rely on their own intuition.
But I also know that not everybody can be prodded to do this. And I can’t comment with hope for the present world’s peace and for America because I believe that its fate is exceedingly unpleasant. So I’m definitely taking a break from posting on this great blog. It helped to wake me up to the unremitting collective evil of white people and made me ask important questions.Thanks for that abagond! But now I don’t want to think about their past activities so much…lol. It’s time for me to reside in mental peace and contemplate the future as their own bad ways ensnare them.
Hotep!
LikeLike
BTW, you don’t have to let the other post through if you don’t want aba. It’s kind of long but, of course, it’s up to you as usual. I started out with a small comment then thanking you for the blog and announcing a break then I ended up analyzing many things.
Take care!
LikeLike
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_paper
LikeLike
it says egyptians made papyrus way eriler than china made paper but doesnt go into it
LikeLike
@Asplund
“There is no way you are going to convince me that the roots of democracy and the abolition of slavery were planted by the Pharoahs. Egypt was the quintessential ‘slave society’ and one of the earliest imperial states”
When the heck did I say it was? I refuted your notion that the “West” championed “social justice” with examples of how “social justice” was alive and well in ancient “Egypt.” I’ve got many more examples too.
And, Egypt was not a “slave society”! That is the biggest myth people like you have, all stemming from the big lie that jewish slaves built the pyramids. I mean, there are countless documents from ancient Egypt and they never mentioned keeping slaves! I don’t have time to educate you on this but here’s a starter:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jan/11/great-pyramid-tombs-slaves-egypt
“that’s true, but Egypt was ruled by a god king. Not a formula for democratic advancement.”
Again, you are extremely mistaken. Egypt’s “pharaoh” was not the only authority. There were the priests, governors, nomarchs, viziers (judges), as I mentioned above, who heard the common man’s complaints and dealt justice.
LikeLike
@Asplund,
Do you teach at university? What is your specialty or greatest area of expertise?
LikeLike
@abagond
Indeed, I also wonder how they managed to cherry pick ideas from the Enlightenment and yet supported the practice of owning and trading slaves as chattel.
And I really have trouble believing that the Western enlightenment was the first time anyone contemplated the morality of slavery. But, of course, I have not researched the area, esp. from non-western sources.
LikeLike
@jefe
IIRC, the Persian Zoroastrians outright forbade slavery. But, they’re also responsible for Manichaeism; the reason why “White” is associated with all things good, but “Black” is associated with all things evil. You win some, you lose some.
LikeLike
It is somewhat offensive that you are only considering world history in the U.S. Would be interesting to study world history from around the world. For instance, do Japanese and Iranian history books also focus mainly on the history of the “West”? or could it be that they focus on history of the “East”/Middle East? If so, isn’t this all a bit racialist?
Even if say the pygmies in Africa didn’t “achieve” a lot by “Western” standards, they should still be studied by everyone in the whole world in exact proportion to their percentage representation in the global population. Otherwise, that is also racialist. (The Bantus treatment of pygmies is especially racialist because they would often enslave them and/or eat them because they believe pygmies to be subhuman. That should also not be left out of the history books.)
For those that left no written records (don’t call them uncivilized, they are just civilizationally challenged), THEY STILL DESERVE EXACTLY EQUAL COVERAGE, even if it’s difficult to do without written records. We should dig up fossil evidence and invent stories that are compatible with the Narrative (TM), i.e., to show that such peoples all basically lived happy idealized, self-actualized lives before the evil westerners arrived on the scene and ruined everything like they always do.
LikeLike
“Asplund,
I don’t believe that the rest of the works was in a “Dark Age.” The term “enlightenment” has value in that it describes the West’s development of the scientific method and the application of natural laws to government.”
Linda says,
These “enlightenment” concepts of applied sciences, art, and philosophy that you are alluding to, were not developed out of a Vacuum by your white European elites – besides the Greeks, many scholars freely admitted that they got their knowledge from “other” cultures and from distant lands ie Africa and Asia (just like the Greeks)
The British “Americans” in the 13 colonies learned about “democracy” from the Iroquois Nation, because for dam sure, they did not learn about democracy from England or any where else on the European continent.
“In 1987, the United States Senate passed a resolution which acknowledged the contribution of the Iroquois Confederacy of Nations to the development of the United States Constitution. Furthermore, the resolution acknowledged the historical debt which the United States owes to the Iroquois Confederacy and to other Indian nations for the demonstration of enlightened, democratic principles of government.”
http://www.nativeamericannetroots.net/diary/420/the-iroquois-confederacy
You can ignore me all you want but I won’t let you get away with ignoring how it came to be that Europe was able to achieve their Renaissance and slide into their Age of Enlightenment — “enlightenment” which their Churches opposed because the knowledge originated out of Africa/Asia/ foreign lands and were considered Heathen.
Also, In my previous comment, I stated that you only mentioned Egypt; while ignoring another major foreign dynasty that impacted Europe and helped to further alleviate the darkness:
the African Almoravids (Sanhaja, Lamtuna, Zenata, Hausa, Malinke, to name a few) who ruled Al-Andalus/Iberia and this Empire was financed by the Gold and riches of the Ghana Empire (a black African empire)
The “Mauri’s” maintained a Strong link back to Africa and brought their knowledge (and African money) with them. (Christopher Columbus had the black African “Iberian” moors, the Nino brothers, to Thank because he used their ships)
The Portuguese were able to become a powerful player in Europe because they managed to form trade links with western Africa…this is were they got money to finance their trips to Asia and bring back knowledge from India and China.
So, to run past this fact of history that gave Europe So Much, is very glib of you and as a teacher, to not correctly link Africa and Asia to Europe’s enlightenment is disingenuous of you.—but I guess that is why this post speaks about “spotlighted” history.
Many kingdoms in Africa and Asia were VERY enlightened before, during, and after Europe discovered that the world wasn’t Flat — without these Kingdoms for Europeans to learn from, they would not have achieved the many things they did.
I thought as a Teacher you are supposed to be impartial and teach the Whole story, not just the parts that you like.
LikeLike
Res-
Our dispute is based on what we mean by “social justice.” What you are talking about is rule of law. I’m talking specifically about the modern use of the term- equality under the law.
LikeLike
Biff-
If you want to see a racialized textbook, go to China, Korea, and Japan.
LikeLike
The problem with groups like the Zoroastrians is that they don’t represent a lasting development. The Chinese emperor Wang Mang also abolished slavery, but the Eastern Han revived it. It’s like Kievan Rus abolishing capital punishment. Sure that happened and Its fascinating, but it doesn’t have a long term impact.
LikeLike
@Biff,
Pointing out that other societies, such as Japan, racialize their version of world history is actually quite irrelevant from the point of the blog post. The same goes for Bantus looking down on pygmies. That is using another version of the “Arab Trader Argument”
https://abagond.wordpress.com/2009/10/03/the-arab-trader-argument/
The fact that others do it does not mean that it is OK if anyone does it. The point of the post is that it is being done in the Western historical narrative. It didn’t say that others were not doing similar things.
LikeLike
Linda,
I’m not ignoring your post I promise, but to give you an adequate reply I will need to be on a computer, not a phone.
LikeLike
“jefe,
And I really have trouble believing that the Western enlightenment was the first time anyone contemplated the morality of slavery. But, of course, I have not researched the area, esp. from non-western sources.”
Linda says,
because no one was questioning the morality of slavery during that time, Especially not the godfathers of social justice… one set of rules for them, and one for everyone else.
Most of the philosophers back then, were advocating for religious tolerance and the “rights of man” but the rights of “which” men is the question.
look at John Locke — his whole premise had the underlying understanding that men operated in “a natural state”, where they have the right to defend themselves, their liberty and their property.
John Locke’s “Life, health, Liberty, or Possessions” but we all know he was not directed towards non-white people
He helped to draft a document that established “a feudal aristocracy and gave a master absolute power over his slaves” in America but yet publically, he opposed slavery and the aristocracy.
LikeLike
Linda-
I hope you don’t mind my long reply.
The Almoravids had an impact on European history, that’s true, but I don’t think they themselves were nearly as influential as you’re thinking.The name “Almoravids” only applies to the faction of African Berbers who entered the peninsula in 1085 after the fall of Toledo. They came first as saviors of Islam but soon revealed themselves to be conquerors. Then they ruled over the native Andalusi (the original mix of Arabs, Berbers, Slavs, and Visigoths), who came to resent them. The same thing with the Almohads in the twelfth century. The Christian kings simultaneously warred with some and allied with others until the thirteenth century when the Papacy began to organize under a crusade banner. Both the Almoravids and Almohads were rigorously pious, and
contributed politically and militarily to the presence of Islam on the peninsula, but their rough warriors considered the Andalusi culture soft and even semi-heretical.
It was the Andalusi who had the most impact on European thought. They originated in Africa, so your point still stands there. It was Averroes who had the most influence. He translated works by the Greeks into Arabic, and then commented on them using dialectical methods. Those works were translated into Latin and had a huge influence on Thomas Aquinas. Scholasticism had already taken root with the works of Peter Abelard, but Averroes played a significant role in its development through Albertus Magnus and Aquinas. Averroes was eventually banished by the Almohad state for threatening Islamic orthodoxy.
But that’s scholasticism, ca. 500 years before the period I’m talking about. The Renaissance was in part a revolt against scholasticism 200 years later, and actually owes a great deal to Byzantine Greek influence after the fall of Constantinople in 1453. And again, Averroes had an influence because he was an important figure in the past, but to say that the Renaissance was not a European achievement is not justifiable, in my opinion.
The Portuguese did get a significant portion of wealth from Africa. The conquest of Ceuta and participation in the African slave trade were the major sources of income for the Portuguese in that region, but that post dates the advent of the Renaissance.
But I am talking about the period post Renaissance, post Reformation, post Counter Reformation. I’m talking about the “Age of Reason.”
I think its great that the state acknowledges that the Iroquois Nation had an influence on the development of democracy in the U.S. It’s true, but the main ideological thrust of the development of the American republic- the idea of inalienable natural rights, social contract, separation of powers, and representative assemblies can be traced back to the Magna Carta, through the development of the English Parliament, to the work of Locke, then the Frenchmen: Rousseau, Voltaire, Montesquieu- all of that laying the groundwork for influencing the founding fathers.
I’ve never argued this much about the eighteenth-century in my life. I hate that time period.
LikeLike
An example of what I’m talking about can be taken from Frederick Douglas’ “What Does the Fourth of July Mean for the Negro?”
Douglas uses rights language, leans on the declaration of Independence, and uses enlightenment principles to prove that pro-slavery Americans were hypocrites, in direct violation of their own principles.
I hope no one thinks I’m some kind of White supremacist, or that I don’t value non-Western cultures. My main interest is East Asia, primarily Confucianism ( I personally follow Catholicism for spirituality and Confucianism as a philosophy).
My original point is that just as white supremacists wrongly deny that anything of note happened in sub-Saharan Africa, a lot of left wing people can’t handle the fact that wars of extermination, slavery, and the like, are human problems, and great thinkers in every culture have tried to improve our lives in their own way.
It’s really sad when you think about it. Because white Americans co-opted a lot of Black American music and culture, we now have to contend with this idea that whenever a black person influenced someone in 500 B.C.E., that means a European “stole” something.
The greatest achievements that African civilizations had was that they managed to build complex civilizations that were in equilibrium with the natural environment. They had to do this, since environmental problems could out right destroy societies in Africa. Unlike in Europe or Asia there was little margin of error. If you recall Europeans couldn’t even enter the interior of Africa until the development of quinine. The fact that anyone was able to build universities, palaces, mosques, etc. in such hostile territory is proof of human ingenuity. You’d think more people would be content to explore what we can learn from African societies that can actually improve our lives. The achievements of real African empires like Kanem Bornu get ignored in favor of ancient Africans flying melanin-powered space planes.
LikeLike
@Asplund,
Appreciate how you have “enlightened” us here with your knowledge and research about European history and philosophy. Thank you for bringing us up to speed at least on one side of it.
Still, just reading what you wrote sounds exceedingly Eurocentric, like how Europeans would like to write their own history. I wonder if we could see how a non-Eurocentric depiction of the development would be presented. I am sure it would be different.
Likewise, I am sure that the Founding Fathers (and later generation Anglo-centric historians) would prefer to indicate that they got their inspiration and ideas from the Magna Carta and John Locke, not from the Iroquois (after all, that is what was taught in my history textbook). But, how can we actually know for sure? Who is it that wrote that narrative anyhow?
LikeLike
I really don’t mean to be nitpicking, but even when you are trying to give credit to the cultures of interior Africa, the following:
is very Euro-centric, ie, terming the interior of Africa as “hostile territory”. What made it “hostile”? Did the cultures of interior Africa refer to it as “hostile territory”? Can you think of a way of saying a similar idea without it coming across as so Euro-centric?
LikeLike
“Hostile” isn’t a good choice of words now that you mention it, and I admit to being Eurocentric. I think some of that bias I can never eradicate.
When I said hostile I meant solely on terms of environmental conditions. For example, Africa has 1/3 of all the arid land on Earth, it has greater contrast in precipitation of any continent, with more areas negatively saturated or lacking in rainfall than any other part of the globe. On top of that you have more organisms harmful to humanity than anywhere else, the tsetse fly, and especially malaria, the existence of which radically hinders urbanization and thus empire building. Do I certainly was not trying to be an ass to any people, but yeah, it’s not good wording. “Inhospitable to urbanization” is better.
I feel like I’ve hijacked an important thread.
LikeLike
Ha-ha, even your explanation of “hostile” is still very Eurocentric. I thought humans developed genetic resistance to Malaria in Africa. Isn’t the climate in Scotland and Denmark quite hostile, since the long periods of gloomy weather and lack of sunlight would cause people to get Vitamin D deficiency unless their skin pigment had been optimized to absorb more sunlight? Certainly the short growing season in Finland is also inhospitable to any extensive amount of urbanization.
We haven’t really studied the Amazon enough to confirm that it has less “harmful” organisms than “the interior of Africa.” And even if you call those organisms harmful, many cultures and civilization could still develop and thrive there. Would a historian from the “interior of Africa” write that their cultures were able to flourish despite a plethora of harmful organisms?
Maybe the term you mean is “hostile to Europeans”.
It is good that you are enlightening us with your knowledge, but if you go through your whole discourse, you will find it peppered with many Euro-centrisms. Curiously, by doing that, you are proving one of the main points of the original blog post.
LikeLiked by 1 person
jefe
@Biff,
Pointing out that other societies, such as Japan, racialize their version of world history is actually quite irrelevant from the point of the blog post. The same goes for Bantus looking down on pygmies. That is using another version of the “Arab Trader Argument”
https://abagond.wordpress.com/2009/10/03/the-arab-trader-argument/
The fact that others do it does not mean that it is OK if anyone does it. The point of the post is that it is being done in the Western historical narrative. It didn’t say that others were not doing similar things.
—
The point is that it is RACIALIST to not cover what other countries are saying about world history. This article therefore perpetuates what it condemns. Let’s not just talk about the U.S. in a discussion of world history! We should talk about the whole world and their practices. Who can disagree with that? Talk about Spotlight History, this article is a blatant example of the same… It’s obvious if you have eyes to see.
No Arab trader argument here of course. If everyone else does something that is the same or worse than what I do, that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t ignore everyone else and focus on my wrongdoings if it will advance the Narrative (TM). The Narrative is sacred and must be preserved at all costs.
I do not say that because Bantus often look down on and eat Pygmies that we should do the same (though, according to Wikipedia, many Bantu believe that Pygmy meat has magical or medicinal properties). I am not justifying what they did/do at all. Instead, I am saying this is as important a part of global history as anything else, so it should be studied and not left out of world history books. Take out the story of the Roman empire if you have to–that would be real affirmative action in practice.
LikeLike
@Biff,
Abagond aims to keep his posts to 500 words. His point was that the world history Americans have been taught is mostly spotlight history and to illustrate what is meant by spotlight history. He was not making comments about how other cultures use spotlight history to depict world history. He was not even discussing world history, but how spotlight history is used to depict it.
Abagond said that there is a problem with it. I am sure it would say that there is a problem when ANYONE does it. He did not say that Anglo-American depiction of world history is the only one that has a problem.
Indeed! Let’s not. Would you kindly consider formulating a post on how other cultures depict world history? We would all like to learn that perspective.
LikeLike
jefe:
I have lived outside of the U.S. for many years. However, I don’t think that makes me qualified to tell another country’s rendition of world history (I was educated in the U.S.). Actually, I don’t believe the readers here “would all like to learn that perspective”–some might, but some would prefer that this forum only serve as a place to bash the west/white people/western culture. I haven’t seen any posts at all focusing on racism in countries outside of the U.S. for instance (that’s not my job/problem, the reply goes).
The fundamental points of my facetiousness (not sure if you could tell) are 2 things:
1. Fundamentally, not all events/things are as historically significant as others. Relative significance is debatable and highly subjective, but there is no history that you could ever call truly “objective”. It is fundamentally a story, designed to focus on “important events” with what are deemed to be significant implications and to serve an educative function. Criticizing world history as taught in the U.S. without delving into this key fact is kind of ridiculous IMO.
2. Current history as taught in the U.S. spotlights certain “advantaged” groups. It also serves as a stage to paint westerners, specifically whites, as the villains of history. Therefore, any focus on non-western elements that show negative events, e.g., treatment of Pygmies, tribal warfare, corruption, mismanagement, etc. is minimized and marginalized because it is not politically correct. This is a key part of the Narrative (TM).
(Side note: Who determines the curriculum in our schools and universities? By and large liberal elites. As a history major with a degree from a top U.S. school, I can tell you that history as taught now in the U.S. is pretty much thoroughly infected with liberal bias, but you won’t find an article on this site to address that.)
LikeLike
Thank you Asplund for your views and at least acknowledging that Eurocentric viewpoint of history (and yes, I did think you were a white supremacist) — and you are not alone seeing things from this angle, everyone who lives in the “west” is affected… that’s why I try my best to present “the other side”.
I brought up the Arab Muslims/Berbers/Africans all together, from the first invasion into Iberia in 700 AD until the end of the Almohads in 1492, to demonstrate the Deep impact that they had on Europe — it was not as fleeting as western history tries to portray it —
besides inspiring the Christian crusades, where a wealth of information travelled back to the Church and scholars, such as architecture and knowledge in the sciences, medicine, and agriculture (such as making sugar from sugar cane)
but this period, I believe, also created the deep-seated fear and hatred that the southern Europeans had/have for Arabs and Africans due to them (white Europeans) being enslaved and persecuted for being Christians…
this period in Europe’s history gets glossed over in favour of shining a positive “spotlight” on the Christian crusades and how they overcame their oppressors. (and that’s understandable, but then many things get omitted)
Many people don’t realize that the Ghanian empire and Mali Empire (black Africans) and various Berber/ northwest African dynasties controlled vast amounts of wealth that bankrolled many of these “northern” expeditions — these people controlled the trade routes through the “arid sand” that you referred to as being “hostile”
Jefe, hit it on the head… it was hostile to the Europeans but not to the north, west, or east Africans — who travelled these traditional, ancestral highways – invading a foreign land is always dangerous to the invading armies health…
.. that’s why the Portuguese were very careful to develop their relationship with the Africans in the beginning in order to establish trade, which lead to their wealth.
and also, the Portuguese did not initially get into the slave trade, they started making money way before that by marrying into the coastal rich, African (Benin) families and getting into the family businesses —
that’s how they won the trust of rulers of the Mali empire. The Malians traded in spices, silks, salts, minerals, and Gold with the Indians, Chinese, and Middle East — Portugal was able to get their foot through the door of this trade route, thanks to the west Africans. (and then of course, they got into the other family business, African slaves, and the rest is history)
the relationship between Europe and Africa goes Way beyond slaves (both black and white) but it tends to gets over-shadowed and lost in the voices of people who only want to remember the Africans “as slaves” and “victims”
and not as the builders, scholars, businessmen, agriculturists, and practitioners of the applied sciences that the Africans really were.
As you said, they put up massive structures in the middle of deserts and jungles that left the Europeans wondering “how?”
and generation after generation of white and non-white westerners and easterners are walking around thinking that the only thing that black Africans have contributed in modern world history — is slave labour ….. the truth needs to be told more clearly.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“biff,
I do not say that because Bantus often look down on and eat Pygmies that we should do the same (though, according to Wikipedia, many Bantu believe that Pygmy meat has magical or medicinal properties). I am not justifying what they did/do at all. Instead, I am saying this is as important a part of global history as anything else, so it should be studied and not left out of world history books.”
Linda says,
“Bantu” is a made up name created by the white Europeans.. if you have the information, which particular African ethnic are you talking about?
and how did their killing an eating the pygmies affect the socio-economic or political structure of the region?
in other words, why should it be “spotlighted” in western history and what is it’s importance to global history?
LikeLike
I do have a Eurocentric view, but the reason that I focus on malaria is that it’s more destructive in areas with high population density. I only mention to explain why African societies tend to want to minimize population density historically. But yes, a man living there would take a different view.
LikeLike
@Biff
Reason enough to have it then. 😛
You haven’t read very much of this blog then.
https://abagond.wordpress.com/2007/03/08/maori/
https://abagond.wordpress.com/2013/06/21/linda-tuhiwai-smith-on-history/
https://abagond.wordpress.com/2013/05/10/the-tasmanian-genocide/
https://abagond.wordpress.com/2013/03/16/japanese-history-textbooks/
https://abagond.wordpress.com/2012/12/03/warsaw-ghetto/
https://abagond.wordpress.com/2012/12/03/warsaw-ghetto/
https://abagond.wordpress.com/2012/03/05/democide/
https://abagond.wordpress.com/2007/09/15/race-in-brazil/
https://abagond.wordpress.com/2011/08/16/frantz-fanon-black-skin-white-masks/
(there are more, but you get the drift)
This is true.
Oh really now — not in the history I was taught in America. Even so, for every white villain there are a dozen white saviors taught in white history.
LikeLike
Asplund, I commented back to you but it’s in moderation for whatever reason.
but I did say, Thanks for sharing your viewpoint.
I come from the Caribbean and you’d be amazed about how much traditional African herbal medicine we use and have preserved in our culture –herbal medicines which American and Europeans are “discovering” everyday thanks to the Internet.
the Africans could handle Malaria and other diseases — their deserts and tropics were not Mysteries.
The Europeans dropped dead like flies because the Africans were not loose-lipped and didn’t share a lot of information with the Europeans .
— invading a foreign land is always dangerous to the invading armies health — hence it took them getting quinine from the Peruvian Indians to solve their problem
LikeLike
@Linda,
I also have a comment in moderation. 😛
Correct me if I am wrong about US history.
When Europeans first landed in New England, they also found it “hostile” and inhospitable. They also dropped dead like flies. They only managed to survive after Native Americans started to share “some of the secrets” with them.
LikeLike
@Linda,
Thank you for reminding me about quinine. Perhaps we should rewrite Asplund’s statement so that it will be easier to understand
“If you recall Europeans couldn’t even enter the interior of Africa until the development of quinine. The fact that anyone was able to build universities, palaces, mosques, etc. in such hostile territory is proof of human ingenuity. ”
–>
Europeans will recall that they avoided entering the interior of Africa until the Quecha of Peru taught them about how to develop and use quinine from the bark of the cinchona tree to mitigate the effects of malaria. The various peoples in this region were able to build universities, palaces, mosques, etc. in such territory that Europeans found inhospitable, which is proof that those people had developed sophisticated culture and civilizations in the absence of European intervention.
LikeLike
Well, if you find that perspective more acceptable, that’s fine with me. I still have to say I find it impressive relatively large cities existed in territories surrounded by malarial swamps.
LikeLike
For me. it is not a matter of making it more acceptable, but to experiment about trying to describe the same matter in a less Eurocentric way. The fact that you find it impressive is in itself, a very Eurocentric viewpoint. I am sure the people in the “interior of Africa” found it “normal” and might have been impressed by something as basic as a gun.
The way you described “until the development of quinine” made it sound like something that Europeans did independently.
Describing a place as “hostile” or “inhospitable to urbanization” was also from a very Eurocentric perspective. I am sure the people living there did not see their land and their home that way.
I read that 19th century European diplomats found Washington, DC to be a hardship post because of the swampy conditions and high humidity in the summer. But any native would simply find it “normal”.
LikeLike
@ Biff
LMAO. As if:
https://abagond.wordpress.com/2010/05/24/what-can-be-taught-as-history-in-texas/
https://abagond.wordpress.com/2012/09/13/hb-2281-arizonas-law-to-ban-ethnic-studies/
In my own experience the history I was taught at American public high school was highly Eurocentric, whitewashed and had a white Republican point of view.
Just off the top of my head:
– The slave trade was called the “triangular trade” and the main thing wrong with it was – “mercantilism”! I was tested on that and got it “right”.
– The Middle Passage? What’s that?
– Slave patrols? Huh?
– There were no American slave uprisings.
– Patrick Henry saying, “Give me liberty or give me death!” was not ironic.
– John Brown was a madman, a nutcase, not a hero.
– Blacks did not fight in the Civil War. Or any war before Vietnam.
– No black neighbourhood was ever bombed!
– Klansmen were part of an extremist hate group, not policemen, judges, and senators. No president was ever once part of the Klan.
– The Senate never debated lynching.
– Blacks were not shut out of unions or skilled trades – they just needed to work harder!
– America is fair and just, a shining example to the world!
– Blah, blah, blah:
https://abagond.wordpress.com/2013/02/11/why-there-should-be-a-white-history-month/
Total.
Utter.
Whitewash.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Biff
The post is clear that it covers only the American case. Unlike the history books I condemn, I do not act as if I am talking about the whole world.
I do not have world history books from non-Western countries, unfortunately. They could easily be just as bad, maybe even worse. I would condemn them too in that case, but I am not going to make stuff up.
If you or anyone has a world history book from a non-Westen country, I would love to hear about it.
LikeLike
@ Biff
I know you are being facetious, but I agree with that. That would be wonderful.
In practice, people without written records would not get much coverage. Not just because of the lack of material, though there is still ethnography and archaeology, but because such groups are small. There are way, way more Chinese or Americans than Pygmies, for example. Reading and writing helps to make large societies possible.
The Roman Empire would still get plenty of shine – it was huge for its time.
Covering parts of the world in proportion to their “achievements” is highly subjective and becomes a vicious circle. Part of why we know so much about Western achievements, as this thread should make clear, is that that is what we were taught at school, not because that is all there is.
As it is, Spotlight History does not even cover regions of the world according to Western standards achievement – something made plain by how it is more interested in western Europe in the Middle Ages than anywhere else – an utter backwaters at the time. Most Americans have no idea that two of the greatest poets who ever lived were – Chinese. Because they are too busy studying western Europe at that point in history. They know almost no Byzantine or Arab history for the same reason.
As voters in an imperialistic country, Americans have a RESPONSIBILITY to have a good, solid, general knowledge of world history. They do not. Not even at the top levels. It leads to a foreign policy that is constantly blindsided.
And, even apart from all that, knowing the history and culture of other parts of the world helps you to understand your own.
LikeLike
To jefe:
Thanks for the cites. I should have said racism not perpetrated by gentile whites, since there are certainly many references to the racial oppression of whites occurring outside of the U.S. There is even the one reference to Japanese racism, which I had not seen before, so thank you for pointing it out.
“not in the history I was taught in America. Even so, for every white villain there are a dozen white saviors taught in white history.”
You obviously went to the wrong school then. Don’t worry, leftists are getting more and more powerful in academia and media. Columbus day is no longer widely celebrated. We will soon be replacing Presidents’ day (it replaced 2 separate birthdays itself) with Al Sharpton day, as soon as he can find a way to get himself martyred.
To Linda:
“how did their killing an eating the pygmies affect the socio-economic or political structure of the region?
in other words, why should it be “spotlighted” in western history and what is it’s importance to global history?”
It seems like you got the point, though you may not have understood that I was trying to make it…
LikeLike
As voters in an imperialistic country, Americans have a RESPONSIBILITY to have a good, solid, general knowledge of world history. They do not. Not even at the top levels. It leads to a foreign policy that is constantly blindsided.
And, even apart from all that, knowing the history and culture of other parts of the world helps you to understand your own.
—
Just saw this.. we would probably disagree on content of history that should be taught (maybe more on tone, since I don’t have a problem with world history that goes continent by continent and tries to reconstruct what is known—I’ve had college level courses on African and Native American history–it’s a huge amount of guess work), but strongly agree that more history should be learned. Americans don’t know much of any history at all, period (it’s not a problem of over-quoting ancient Greeks and Persians or so called “founding fathers” of the U.S.). America is becoming the bread and circus society of decadent Rome. I and many others believe a collapse will occur sometime within say the next 50 years–maybe much sooner. I know I’ve said similar things before, but the future is also worth thinking about. No empire lasts forever.
LikeLike
@Biff
you said
yet abagond said
He went to a school in a different state. Was it the “wrong” school too? Neither of us went to school in Arizona, Texas or Alabama. I think most people went to the “wrong” school then.
@abagond
As late as 1973-74, the DC chapter of the IBEW (International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers) had exactly 1 non-white member (my father) out of over 2000 members. He had been used as the token since he joined in 1958, and the IBEW actually used him to demonstrate that they do not discriminate. DC at the time was about 71-72% black and the DC-MD-VA metro area was 30% black. The IBEW was very much a “good ole boy” club. As a child, I went to the IBEW annual family picnic. Not one single black person out of thousands of people attended.
I knew they filled us with lies in high school.
LikeLike
@ Linda
“After I read this, stopped laughing and dried my eyes…. I just felt the need to say:
Thank you Da Jokah for demonstrating how ignorant you Americans are — and for highlighting why the rest of the world think you all are dumb!!”—I read this comment you made to Da Jokah and I just could not stop laughing. LMFAO!!!
LikeLike
Is it about my Eurocentrism or about who has ownership of the information? Because I think that’s a legitimate area of discussion. I think it’s unfortunate that I as a white American an the inky one in my area teaching African and Asian history as part if the introductory surveys. The vast majority if academics are only interested in the west, and those with “unconventional” interests are only interested in black American history or lgbt history or something like that. I’m sure I’m making errors at times in my delivery and coverage, but I’m pretty damn alone, so I have to feel around for myself. I don even want other faculty to know I focus so much in Africa.
LikeLike
@Asplund.
You could try visiting an HBCU, or better yet go to Africa and contact historians there.
LikeLike
Wow. So Asplund is teaching college freshmen? and none of his colleagues are interested in non-western history and he has to hide his interest in Africa? I am impressed with his interest in the subject, but gee whiz, indeed, you have to network with academics outside of your institution and identify more credible non-western sources for non-western history. Sorry to have him spend so much time here.
It might be difficult at times to divorce the Eurocentrism from the actual information. Maybe one can gradually at least recognize the Eurocentrism of the non-western history one learned and teaches and identify alternative sources or descriptive modes for the narrative.
LikeLike
@Asplund
“Our dispute is based on what we mean by “social justice.” What you are talking about is rule of law. I’m talking specifically about the modern use of the term- equality under the law.”
Again, you are mistaken. The laws were the same for everyone in ancient Egypt, and the “pharaoh” and all other administrative leaders were charged with upholding such laws. That was the “pharaoh’s” purpose. If he/she did not do that, then he could be deposed. The vizier’s upheld the law at the local level, and even peasants could successfully bring claims against wealthy landowners (and it didn’t require an expensive attorney!).
Women also had equal rights in Egypt thousands of years before the concept was ever even considered in the West (and women still don’t have equal rights everywhere in the US).
And so, you’re not going to convince me that there has ever been a greater degree of “equality under law” exhibited in the West, especially not in the US.
LikeLike
Res,
No offense to you but I can’t dispute about the whole “Kemet Hotep Utopia on Earth” thing. It doesn’t have a basis in reality and its on the same level as belief in Atlantis.
LikeLike
Jefe,
There was bias in my original statement. I try to work out bias but I am definitely always face with it.
My bias in terms of viewing the Iand as hostile comes from the perspective of those trying to establish large-scale, intensive agriculture in W. Africa, generally a prerequisite for urbanization, which is an element of civilization based on my definition of the term.
Malaria is still a huge problem, as is water control, as is vegetation. Malaria alone reduces GDP growth in some countries significantly. Combined with sleeping sickness, cholera, tb, HIV/aids and other problems that emerge from high pop density, African states are overcoming a significant challenge.
LikeLike
@Asplund
“No offense to you but I can’t dispute about the whole “Kemet Hotep Utopia on Earth” thing. It doesn’t have a basis in reality and its on the same level as belief in Atlantis.”
Really? When did ever said it was utopia?
I gave you specific examples (which are each backed up by archaeological evidence that you can see for yourself) of the presence of “social justice” in ancient “Egypt.” See my first post addressed to you above.
No one is fabricating anything here, and you’ve not provided any evidence to the contrary.
LikeLike
@ Asplund
I would be curious to know why that is, like what are the mechanism behind Africa not getting much coverage, from your point of view as someone who actually teaches it.
LikeLike
Slavery was legal in ancient Egypt. The government was a divine absolutist state. That’s not a setting for what I’d call “social justice. ”
And even if Egypt was free of inequality and slavery, that civilization wouldn’t be a source of modern emancipation and liberalism.
LikeLike
Abagond-
When I teach about Africa it’s mainly as a part of a world survey. I have two specializations- medieval Europe and Ancient East Asia. I include quite a bit of modern East Asian history, as I’ve had a deep, personal interest in it since I was a child. When I was in my twenties I was a member of the communist party and was obsessed with both fascism and communism in Asia.
My interest in Africa grew out of interest in Ethiopian communism, then Ethiopian traditional society, then further out.
I’m scared to teach about Africa openly because:
1. A shit ton of academics are closet racists. Many academics are quick to harp self righteously about their white privelege because they believe it hurts the white working class. Significant numbers of black Americans would threaten prestigious institutions. That’s why academics can harp on white privelege after calling the cops on teenagers who have wandered on to campus grounds. I learned this the hard way. I was damn near ostracized when I brought a black American foster son into my home, even by a woman who adopted from Africa. People looked at that kid like he was subhuman.
2. In my opinion the reason that some people look at academia and see raging leftism while others see white supremacy is because academia is both anti-western and anti-black. Most of the academics I know would demand that the African civilizations be portrayed as patriarchal heteronormative sources of black male on female violence. In some parts of academia lgbt issues have nearly completely replaced discussIons of race and especially class. I try to portray African civilizations as legitimate, complex social systems that improved the living conditions of millions of people- powerful in their own right. Maybe this is just more of no 1 rehashed.
3. There is at least some awkwardness that a white instructor spends a lot of time discussing Africa. Sometimes I wonder if sone of the black students feel I have some sinister intent or something. I worry some professors might try to shut me down out of fear that I’ll step out if bounds.
4. I think simple jealousy accounts for some of it. Since I cover non- Western material and Western material, many students find my courses interesting which makes me a very popular teacher.
Now I’ve rambled. Probably misspelled due to this phone too.
LikeLike
@Asplund
“Slavery was legal in ancient Egypt. The government was a divine absolutist state. That’s not a setting for what I’d call “social justice. ”
We’re going in circles here. That’s just NOT accurate, and you still haven’t provided any evidence to back up your bogus claims.
A “pharaoh” could not just make any law he wanted like in the West, where there exist “lawmakers.” The law of Ma’at was supreme and applied to everyone, including “pharoah”. There’s nothing “absolutist” about that.
If they did not abide by ma’at, they were deposed, like Akhenaten!
And, AGAIN, there is no evidence to suggest slavery was practiced in Egypt (at least not before the Persian occupation). You are simply taken by the common myths you probably learned from the Bible or Hollywood. See the link I posted above, but if you have evidence to prove otherwise, then please provide.
“And even if Egypt was free of inequality and slavery, that civilization wouldn’t be a source of modern emancipation and liberalism.”
If you knew anything at all about ancient “Egypt,” then you’d know that equality and justice were absolutely central. Just research “Ma’at” and see how venerated she was and how the “pharaoh” and administrators’ purposes were solely to uphold Ma’at. Injustice was simply not tolerated.
The papyri of Ani, Hunefer and all the other “Books of the Dead” show through the “judgment of the dead” the strong desire to demonstrate abidance by the laws of Ma’at. Read the texts for yourself
The West simply was NOT the bringer of justice and equality…
LikeLike
Linda says,
Oh, I got your point and I realize you were being “facetious” but I’m not —
the Nguni foreigners changed this regions sociological landscape, and the white foreigners misunderstood many things about the Africans (hence, they like to talk about them eating people, when the Africans used that terminology in a “figurative” way– but as usual, words and meanings change in translation)
I do believe if a society plans to teach “World History” then it should focus on the actual “world” and not spend an exorbitant amount of time on 1/3 – 1/2 of it
I was just hoping that you would make a significant contribution to this blog by telling the audience how the Twa (true pygmies) or San (people falsely called pygmies) were affected by the Nguni (Ndebele, Swazi, Xhosa and Zulu ethnics), Sotho-Tswana, Tsonga and the Venda, migration.
(I also wanted to see if you truly gave enough of a sh’t to learn the actual names of these Ethnic groups — and not just regurgitate white race realist rhetoric)
People should learn about how the Khoi San population were effected by this mass migration of northern people, how it shaped regional politics, and how different Ethic groups reacted to the rise of the Zulu Kingdom, such as siding with the Boers or British against the Zulu’s —
It would have been a good contribution from you to discuss how the Zulu’s resistance to “change” affected their loss in the Anglo-Zulu war (in 1879)
all these factors combined to allow the British and Boers to overcame their obstacles in south Africa — which lead to their tremendous riches and the control of one of the worlds biggest Mineral and Diamond mines — once again, allowing Britain to maintain their stranglehold on their empire and firm control of “free market”; and south Africa to become one of the richest nations in the world.
so I wonder how the “Anglo-loving” scholars in America managed not to give this part of World history, the detail introspection it deserves — oh, I forgot, they do spotlight “Apartheid” because that is the major thing to know about southern Africa (and yes, I am being sarcastic)
I don’t agree with you race realists about much of “anything” but I honestly have to say, I agree with you that black Ethnic groups need to stop being portrayed as “victims” in History and a balanced picture needs to be presented.
because this 1-sided picture does not help the psyche of young black people who are told by white controlled academia and media that black people have not done anything “significant’ in this world.
LikeLike
my comment is in response to Biff
LikeLike
Sharina,
glad I can add a spot of comedy to your day 🙂
LikeLike
Res,
I’m admittedly no Egyptologist, this my hesitance to focus on it. I know a lot more about Mameluke Egypt than ancient Egypt. What I do know comes from textbooks primarily, which tend to heavily generalize.
You know a lot more about Egyot than I do. My problems with Egypt being a paragon if social justice by modern standards are the following:
Divine king, class system based on birth and immutable, presence of slavery, slaves interred with with monarchs, etc. it’s just what is in the standard textbook. It’s not as though I have a deep seats dislike of Egypt or something.
But even if all that’s untrue- I’m looking at what has influenced the present day.
LikeLike
@Asplund
“I know a lot more about Mameluke Egypt than ancient Egypt.”
There’s a big cultural and societal difference from ancient “Egypt” prior to 525 BC. From then until the present, “Egypt” has been ruled by foreigners (Persians, Turks, etc.) who did not uphold the rights of the common man as before.
“Divine king, class system based on birth and immutable, presence of slavery, slaves interred with with monarchs, etc.”
Again, there’s no evidence of slavery being practised prior to Persian rule, after the 26th dynasty.
Much of the West are subjects of “divine” royalty (UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Belgium, Spain, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, etc.), but why are these all considered democracies?
In ancient “Egypt” (pre-foreigners), the pharaoh was bound by law, in a similar way as Europe’s “constitutional monarchs” are viewed today (but the “pharaohs” didn’t wield nearly as much power as the West’s Constitutional monarchs).
And if you don’t think ancient, pre-foreigner “Egypt” has been influential on the present day, then, no offense, you have a lot to learn. It’s not just the blatant things like Washington, DC having the largest tekhen (Egyptian obelisk) in the world, and that stolen tekhens are found in all the most powerful cities: Rome, Paris, London, New York City, ETC. or that the origins of the freemasons were traced to ancient “Egyptian” lodges, as noted by Thomas Paine. In fact, he quoted a Grand Master as saying:
“The Egyptians in the earliest ages constituted a great number of lodges, but with assiduous care kept their secrets of Masonry from all strangers. These secrets have been imperfectly HANDED DOWN TO US by oral tradition only, and ought to be kept undiscovered to the laborers, craftsmen, and apprentices, till by good behavior and long study they become better acquainted in geometry and the liberal arts, and thereby qualified for masters and wardens, which is seldom or never the case with English Masons.”
Did not Thomas Paine write “Rights of Man” and “Agrarian Justice”? Was not Paine influential on George Washington? Was not George Washington a freemason who’s buried in Alexandria, VA (named after Alexandria, Egypt) across the river from the city with the largest Egyptian obelisk in the world?
LikeLike
@ Asplund
A bad comparison because we do not know how lasting the current abolition is.
As it is, the abolition in the U.S. is not unqualified: the Thirteenth Amendment has a loophole that allows prison labour. Roughly speaking, there are about two million black men in prison – about the same as were slaves in 1860. Add to that how black men are imprisoned at a higher rate than whites for the same crime, especially drug crimes. Add to that that their incarceration rates are off the charts by anyone’s standards – world standards, American standards in the 1970s, etc.
A more successful abolition was probably in Britain in the 1100s. While it was never formally outlawed, it had become so rare that when slavery became common again in the 1600s, the laws and morals of Anglo society had become so out of whack with slavery that racism had to make up the difference ideologically to make it seem right and good.
Many White Americans seem to assume that racism and slavery go back thousands of years without break, that THEY are the advanced ones compared to their ancestors, compared to the non-Western world. It is not that simple.
LikeLike
Res-
Again, you know more on this topic than I do. At the same time, The Pharoahs were living gods. The contemporary emperor of Japan is not a living god. His father was at the start of his reign. Big difference there for me.
We are going to have to respectfully disagree about how “enlightened” we see ancient Egypt as bring. I can’t get past the murals of Pharoahs slaughtering enemies, enslaving captors, having slaves interred with them, architects being buried alive, etc. that is not a system that honors inherent rights to individual liberty and equality under the law, which is the basis for the current worldwide abolitionist movements from the last 250 years.
LikeLike
Abagond,
I have to respectfully disagree there. The fact that not one state on Earth contains legal sanction of man owning another is extremely significant for world history, and this is a direct outgrowth of the last two centuries. Ironically. in many countries in Africa the slave trade was abolished by the imperial powers.
If the current world order goes up in smoke within the next century you’ll be absolutely right, but in my opinion we can’t count on a return to chattel slavery. I see that as almost impossible.
LikeLike
@Asplund
“At the same time, The Pharoahs were living gods. ”
That’s your opinion. A “pharaoh” or suten wanted to embody the QUALITIES of Horus (originally Ra, prior to the 5th dynasty) or other “deities” in different situations. It was METAPHOR. For example, Senusret I said:
“The King is Ka. His utterance is Abundance…He is Khnum for all limbs,
The Begetter of the begotten…He is Bastet who protects the Two Lands…He is Sekhmet against those who disobey his orders.”
The “pharaohs” drew power from the “deities,” as the famous Merneptah’s stele states:
“Merenptah, Content with Maat, magnified by the power, exalted by the strength of Horus.”
Contrast this with Queen Elizabeth’s “Dieu et mon droit” (God and my right) motto.
“I can’t get past the murals of Pharoahs slaughtering enemies, enslaving captors, having slaves interred with them, architects being buried alive, etc.”
This is, again, your opinion based on a misunderstanding. Foreigners were allowed to live in ancient “Egypt.” But it’s WELL DOCUMENTED how and why the ancient “pharaohs” got into conflicts with these foreigners: mostly to defend their way of life against thieving and murderous intruders. Also from the stele of Merneptah:
“Woe to Libyans, they have ceased to live in the good manner of roaming the field…” (See here that Merneptah indicates that Libyans were once allowed to live in the “Egyptian” fields, but are no longer good guests)
“Merey the vile foe, the Libyan foe had come to attack the walls of Ta-tenen” (here you see that Libyans became enemies out of retaliation).
And once again, you can’t prove that ancient Egypt prior to foreign rule practised slavery. It is a myth. One should judge the actual archaeological evidence before making inaccurate assumptions.
And have not the US, UK, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, etc. slaughtered millions, imprisoned, enslaved since the “great enlightenment?”
LikeLike
Res-
Your last post is why I don’t want to get drawn into a debate with you:
A: Regardless of whatever happened or didn’t happen in ancient Egypt, no one was basing their declarations on Egyptian precedent during the Tennis Court Oath, Continental Congress, Congress of Vienna, or any other political body in which the first discussions of abolition of the slave trade had force. The presence of artistic styles and Masonic accoutrements that had an Egyptian flavor doesn’t mean that Jefferson was drawing on the Phsroahs for ideas of religious liberty or that the Republican Party was developed after an Egyptian mode.
B: Ancient Egypt was a Bronze Age absolute monarchy. At points Pharoahs were so divine they had to marry siblings.
The fact that you would want to limit the discussion to the old kingdom tells me that you believe in a “pure” past more akin to mythology than reality. All Bronze Age societies weren’t the same, but they were ALL highly stratified and militaristic. The fact that you want to justify the foreign palace of a dead empure that spoke a dead language is a sign that nothing I’m going to say is going to have an impact.
LikeLike
That came out harsher than I meant it to.
Also- I meant policy not palace- stupid phone.
LikeLike
@Asplund
“Your last post is why I don’t want to get drawn into a debate with you”
And you haven’t debated me yet. I’m the only one laying on facts, and you are just repeating common myths.
“no one was basing their declarations on Egyptian precedent during the Tennis Court Oath, Continental Congress, Congress of Vienna, or any other political body in which the first discussions of abolition of the slave trade had force. ”
No one said they were. My point is that those events were not firsts in world history for abolition and social justice. But, whether you like it or not, the leaders of all the events you mentioned were masons and members of other secret societies whose philosophies are admittedly based in ancient “Egyptian” values.
“Ancient Egypt was a Bronze Age absolute monarchy. At points Pharoahs were so divine they had to marry siblings.
Yet again, the “pharoahs” were NOT absolutist b/c they had to abide by the laws of Ma’at, among others. They could not create any law they wanted to or oppress the people, as modern governments do today.
“The fact that you would want to limit the discussion to the old kingdom tells me that you believe in a ‘pure’ past more akin to mythology than reality.”
Not true. I provided quotes from documents from both the Old and New Kingdom (spanning over 2500 years…so there’s nothing limited about that). The only distinction I made was between the first 26 dynasties and the later FOREIGN rulers, for what should be obvious reasons.
And, again, I gave you archaeological evidence (historical accounts) from “pharaohs,” a high-ranked administrator, and a commoner to show that at all levels of society there was certainly the rule of law and equal justice under law.
LikeLike
Res-
Some usage of Rguptian symbolism doesn’t equate being based on Egyptian values whatsoever.
Your rebuttals of me consist of you stating a bunch of propaganda as fact. Just because the Pharoahs had to follow a religious law in theory. Guess what? So did every other absolutist state.
How many elections in ancient Egypt? How many documents outlawing slavery?
As far as archaeology goes, how about the Narmer Palette? How about virtually the entire system of Egyptian propaganda which displayed Pharoahs as conquerors and slave takers?
The reason I don’t want to debate with you is because no Egyptoligist takes Africentric Egypt seriously, for reasons that should be obvious.
LikeLike
Res the fact that you claimed that ancient Egypt couldn’t be as oppressive as our modern governments is too absurd to contemplate.
LikeLike
@Asplund
“Some usage of Rguptian symbolism doesn’t equate being based on Egyptian values whatsoever. ”
That’s your opinion, but it isn’t fact. You have a hard time distinguishing from the two. The whole masonic lodge concept is in fact admittedly “egyptian.” I don’t know what you’re trying to prove here.
“Your rebuttals of me consist of you stating a bunch of propaganda as fact. ”
No, I actually used quotes and pointed to archaeological evidence. You never did. Apparently you have me confused with you.
“How many elections in ancient Egypt? How many documents outlawing slavery?”
So now you’re turning this into an argument over democracy? I never said there was democracy in ancient “Egypt,” by the way.
“As far as archaeology goes, how about the Narmer Palette? How about virtually the entire system of Egyptian propaganda which displayed Pharoahs as conquerors and slave takers?”
That’s according to your own personal interpretation, which obviously is not worth much b/c you don’t know much about ancient Egypt.
Defeating foreign intruders is quite different from “conquering.”
“The reason I don’t want to debate with you is because no Egyptoligist takes Africentric Egypt seriously, for reasons that should be obvious.”
And you certainly have not debated me. When you’re ready to bring some facts to the table to counter the factual evidence I’ve laid on, then there will be a debate. There’s nothing “Africentric” about anything I’ve said. I’ve only given you facts based on archaeological evidence, and so your gripe is really with the ancient “Egyptians,” not me.
“Res the fact that you claimed that ancient Egypt couldn’t be as oppressive as our modern governments is too absurd to contemplate.”
Asplund, the fact that you take an opposing position without any evidence to the contrary is absurd to me.
LikeLike
Ok I’m on a computer now, so I can give a more in-depth response. I hope you don’t see my tone as hostile. That’s more a by-product of having this kind of discussion online than any intentional disrespect on my part.
1. My original premise: Social Justice, defined haphazardly by me as “equality under the law,” is a modern, Western concept derived historically from the values and ideologies put forth during the European “Enlightenment.”
Your Objection: Some alleged written records stating that there was equality under the law in ancient Egypt.
Why I don’t see your objection as debunking my premise: While Egypt was certainly sophisticated and technologically advanced for its era, the Egyptians did not enjoy a political system that considered the inherent worth, rights, and freedoms of the individual.For example, the Egyptians practiced slavery. There was no movement to abolish slavery in ancient Egypt. Ancient Egyptian society had a social hierarchy based on birth. Ancient Egyptian society was ruled by god kings. These god kings maintained their social status even after their deaths- a fact displayed by the massive tombs that the state spent huge portions of its treasury on. Many bronze age rulers, e.g. Hammurabi, attempted to apply their law to everyone in their respective societies. Different penalites and definitions apply to different social classes in bronze age societies. My issue is that just like with Hammurabi, social class was a huge factor in law and status in ancient Egypt. It’s certainly still true that social status, race, etc. play a huge role in our justice system, but that’s in spite of the law.
Your Objection: Ancient Egypt didn’t practice slavery. The pharoahs were not divine.
Ancient Egypt most certainly practiced slavery. An introductory history textbook can show you that. There are mummies that show that. Even the first dynasty practiced sacrifice of slaves in burials.
Do you really want to deny that ancient Egypt was imperialistic? The whole creation of upper and lower Egypt was based on imperialistic war. Ramses II was one of the most effective conquerors of his era. Ahmose and all the rest too. There were absolutely Egyptian imperial campaigns outside of Egypt.
The Autobiography of Ahmose is a source that contains a description of all of what I mentioned. Slaves taken in war, granted by the Pharoah Ahmose to the warrior of the same name. Ahmose is fighting the Nubians and Hyksos, driving them out and enslaving the remainder. He also engages in imperialistic war beyond Egypt’s borders. There are other Papyri (is that the plural of that term?) describing the conquest and enslavement of peoples in the Levant, Nubia, and Libya. I know Thutmose III received black slaves from the Hittites as part of a peace settlement. Thus you see my scattered direct knowledge of Egyptian sources, hence my reluctance to have to dig for them.
2. The premise that Enlightenment values are based on Egyptian precedent:
The basis for representative government is natural law. Natural law and social contract theory underlie all of it. Thus “inalienable” rights. These are Christian concepts adapted through a rationalist frame, which is partly a product of the scientific revolution of the 17th century.
Masonic lodges played a social role in bringing a lot of influential figures together to discuss these ideas. The first masonic lodges were in Europe in the middle ages, though. Not Egypt in any period. There is a medieval text that claims masonic “mysteries,” which are rituals (not philosophical developments), began in Egypt. That’s a medieval author trying to add mystical authority to something that absolutely had no basis in ancient Egypt. In many, many medieval texts all sorts of unsubstantiated claims are made regarding the origins of things. There are just as many claims that the Knights Templar, the Papacy, and all sorts of institutions created “masonry,” which is just a social organization. Granted, a prominent one politically. However, their actual political ideology was drawn from ideas about natural law, common law, etc.The Shriners have just as much basis in the Ottoman Empire as the Free Masons do in Egypt.
ANY argument based on “masonry” or “illuminati” or anything like that is unworthy of our time, in my opinion. No offense intended. I’d rather not dive deeper into it if you don’t mind.
3. The reason I brought up the Narmer Palette is because I am trying to avoid digging around for books and articles on the Old Kingdom, Middle Kingdom, etc. I remember the Narmer Palette is of a pharoah with a mace gripping the hair of a captive, about to bring down his wrath. I don’t know the context. I do know that xenophobia characterized Egyptian ideology, with the Set being an evil god of foreigners. Narmer could be crushing foreign invaders. Even if that’s the case, though, the imagery implies that Egypt is not a society that values inherent human dignity in the same way most modern societies attempt to.
4. When Alexander conquered Egypt, he was deified by the Egyptian intelligentsia. He fused his identity with Amun Ra. As a new living god, he started to demand greater distance between himself and his Macedonian generals, which caused friction. This in and of itself doesn’t have much value in my opinion, but it demonstrates that the Egyptian concept of rule was very autocratic, with a ruler who was not just a political or military leader, but a religious leader, due to his being a God. That to me automatically nixes any idea that Egypt could hold up under scrutiny when examined with our value system. At the same time, we do have a debt to Egypt, as it’s part of a process. A very early foundation.
Just my thoughts.
LikeLike
@ Asplund
1. Not interested in going back and forth on the same issues, when I provided supporting evidence for my claims and you have not. You keep repeating the same inaccurate myths and passing them off as fact. Let me know when you have actual evidence to support your claims.
2. “The basis for representative government is natural law…Thus “inalienable” rights. These are Christian concepts adapted through a rationalist frame, which is partly a product of the scientific revolution of the 17th century.”
Now you are just shifting your argument to one about “representative government.” The argument was originally about the historical introduction of “social justice.” Big difference.
“Masonic lodges played a social role in bringing a lot of influential figures together to discuss these ideas. The first masonic lodges were in Europe in the middle ages, though. Not Egypt in any period. ”
Again, the masonic lodge is admittedly an “Egyptian” concept based on the “Egyptian” priest-temple system. See the Thomas Paine quote I posted above or what Manly Hall, a 33 degree mason, said:
“The wisest of philosophers from other nations visited Egypt to be initiated in the sacred Mysteries by the priests of Thebes, Memphis, and Hermopolis…There is indeed, as we have established, a very definite link between the Egyptian Mystery Religion and the Masonic Lodge. This link can be readily established from the words of Masonic authors and testimony can be provided to remove all reasonable doubt. ”
3. “I remember the Narmer Palette is of a pharoah with a mace gripping the hair of a captive… don’t know the context. I do know that xenophobia characterized Egyptian ideology, with the Set being an evil god of foreigners. ”
If you don’t know the context, then why make assumptions? How can a nation that allowed immigration of Libyans, Hyksos, Hibaru, Greeks, etc. be any more xenophobic than the US? Did not Herodotus (who also went to Egypt) say:
“Amasis [Ahmose II] Amasis became a lover of the Hellenes; and besides other proofs of friendship which he gave to several among them, he also granted the city of Naucratis for those of them who came to Egypt to dwell in; and to those who did not desire to stay, but who made voyages thither, he granted portions of land to set up altars and make sacred enclosures for their gods.”
4. “When Alexander conquered Egypt, he was deified by the Egyptian intelligentsia.”
Alexander was Macedonian, NOT Egyptian. Hence the distinction I made between the first 26 dynasties and the FOREIGN rulers.
LikeLike
I don’t even know why we’re arguing at this point. The discussion has drifted so far away from my original comment that I’m not sure continuing the argument is helping anyone.
1. I’m letting you know I have evidence to support my claims. See the autobiography of Ahmose as an example of slavery and imperial warfare in Egypt. The Harris Papyrus, etc. As far as the Narmer Palette is concerned, there’s no consensus as to the context. But whether or not it’s a celebration of driving out Libyan tribes, unifying upper and lower Egypt, or a religious symbol doesn’t change the fact that it is a depiction of a leader slaughtering someone with a mace. That’s a fundamentally different political order than the one we’re accustomed to. Not necessarily bad, but definitely different, and definitely alien to one in which notions of social justice. i.e. upholding universal human rights, are the justification for the state. If President Obama started beating people to death at Gitmo there would be severe repercussions. Even if such a thing were to happen, it certainly wouldn’t be celebrated, because that whole scenario is contrary to stated values. This motif, of pharoahs slaughtering captives, reappears century after century.
The Egyptian state is one of social stratification based on birth and was a confessional state. I don’t know what it is I am not providing evidence for. Please let me know what I have to provide documentation for specifically.
2. I never based my argument on representative democracy substantially, though I do consider that an aspect of “social justice.” My main thrust is that abolition of slavery, i.e. notions of inalienable individual liberty, is an enlightenment concept. I’m not seeing where you are providing evidence that such a notion was present in the minds of ancient Egyptians. Also, what some mason said about masonic ritual and its Egyptian origins have nothing to do with concepts of natural rights. Thomas Paine was not drawing on ancient Egypt when he wrote common sense. The language in Common Sense is right out of Locke, Montesquieu, etc. Can it really be argued that Thomas Paine took the idea of the illegality of monarchy, the right to freedom of conscience, or any other element from ancient Egypt? Where does any founding father of any contemporary republic draw on Egyptian legal precedent in a substantive way? I am not going to discuss masonry though, if you don’t mind.
As far as xenophobia goes, I’m just repeating what general histories say about Egypt, i.e. that there was a continual cultural theme of antagonism towards outsiders, and that the evil deity Set was often the personification of foreign threats. It’s not something I care too much about either way. They can all be wrong, It’s incidental to any of the points I’ve made.
3. I included Alexander as an example of Egyptian influence. Alexander tried to model himself as a god king after he conquered Egypt. He wanted to assume divine kingship after the Egyptian fashion, which alienated him from his generals. I only included Alexander because of the fact that the Egyptian priesthood were eager to venerate him. They were eager to bestow on Alexander their traditional form of divine kingship. It’s really incidental to my overall point.
I can easily conclude my point: At what point was there ever an abolition movement in Egypt? The only force remotely reminiscent of an abolitionist movement in Egypt that I’m aware of was the abolition in the late 19th century under British pressure. In fact, there are concerns right now because the Egyptian government flat out refused to include an anti-slavery provision in the new constitution, despite the presence of underground slave markets, leading some to believe that slavery may return if an Islamic state is proclaimed. Just goes to prove my original point. Abolition of slavery is a West-based movement drawn from the Enlightenment.
LikeLike
Maybe my posts will come across better if I point out that I am including abolitionists like Olaudah Equiano and Frederick Douglas as “Western.”
Western doesn’t neatly equal white in my view. “Western,” just like a lot of cultural designations isn’t synonymous with a biological population from my point of view.
LikeLike
@ Asplund
“See the autobiography of Ahmose as an example of slavery and imperial warfare in Egypt. The Harris Papyrus, etc. ”
I don’t see how either of those examples proves Egyptians practised slavery. If you’re equating war captives with slaves, then they’re no different than the US military’s slaves at Guantanomo, Abu Graib, etc.
There’s nothing in either of those documents that indicates captives were kept for long periods of time, sold, exchanged, etc.
And, I don’t consider defending Egypt’s borders to be “imperial.” This is much better than the West’s offensive (especially US, UK, Britain and France’s) wars all across the world at present.
“doesn’t change the fact that it is a depiction of a leader slaughtering someone with a mace. That’s a fundamentally different political order…and definitely alien to one in which notions of social justice. i.e. upholding universal human rights, are the justification for the state. If President Obama started beating people to death at Gitmo there would be severe repercussions. ”
What does smiting the enemy on the battlefield have to do with upholding social justice in Egypt? The purpose of the “pharaoh” was to protect the nation. He was often depicted smiting the enemy (thieving and murderous intruders), just as he was depicted with the crook and flail (symbolic of providing food).
So if the US defends itself, does that mean it is not upholding social justice? Not only does it defend, it takes an aggressive stance (like it’s doing now with Syria). The US military in Iraq has killed AT LEAST 60,000 innocent civilians, including women and children. Even if you erroneously believe ancient “Egyptians” were aggressive, the images you see show grown men being slain, not women and children.
“Thomas Paine was not drawing on ancient Egypt when he wrote common sense. ”
AGAIN, I never said he was, and that’s besides the point. The point is that he was influenced by freemasonry, which is an ancient “Egyptian” concept. You can negate that fact all you want, but it is still fact.
As I quoted above, he was well aware of the Egyptian origins of freemasonry.
“I included Alexander as an example of Egyptian influence. Alexander tried to model himself as a god king after he conquered Egypt.”
OK, but he was not “Egyptian,” he was not learned in “Egyptian” ways so he’s not an “Egyptian pharaoh” he was a foreign colonialist.
“I can easily conclude my point: At what point was there ever an abolition movement in Egypt?”
I never argued that there was. If there was no slavery in ancient “Egypt” (excluding foreign captives of war a.k.a. POWs), why would there be the need for an “abolition movement”?
LikeLike
1.
“I made for thee a storehouse for the “Feast of the Appearance”, with male and female slaves. I supplied them with bread, beer, oxen, fowl, wine, incense, fruit, vegetables, flowers, pure offerings before thee every day, being an increase of the daily offering which was before.” – Harris Papyrus
“Then there was fighting in Egypt to the south of this town. and I carried off a man as a living captive. I went down into the water – for he was captured on the city side – and crossed the water carrying him. When it was reported to the royal herald I was rewarded with gold once more.
Then Avaris was despoiled, and I brought spoil from there: one man, three women; total, four persons. His majesty gave them to me as slaves. Then Sharuhen was besieged for three years. His majesty despoiled it and I brought spoil from it: two women and a hand. Then the gold of valour was given me, and my captives were given to me as slaves.” -Autobiography of Ahmose.
“Now when his majesty had slain the nomads of Asia, he sailed south to Khent-hen-nefer, to destroy the Nubian Bowmen. His majesty made a great slaughter among them, and I brought spoil from there: two living men and three hands. Then I was rewarded with gold once again, and two female slaves were given to me. His majesty journeyed north, his heart rejoicing in valour and victory. -Autobiography of Ahmose.
“Then Aata came to the South. His fate brought on his doom. The gods of Upper Egypt grasped him. He was found by his majesty at Tent-taa. His majesty carried him off as a living captive, and all his people as booty. I brought two young warriors as captives from the ship of Aata. Then I was given five persons and portions of land amounting to five arura in my town. The same was done for the whole crew.” -Autobiography of Ahmose.
This is clear evidence of slavery. Just because they were prisoners at one point doesn’t mean much. The pharoah gave Ahmose men and women whom he didn’t even capture himself as a reward. Slavery grew out of captives taken in war. Slaves taken in West Africa and sold to Portuguese and Dutch for rum and guns- same root process. The majority of men taken as slaves in history were taken through war. It is not relevant to our discussion whether or not these slaves were sold, beaten, whatever. It’s proof that Egyptian society tolerated the owning of another person. That isn’t legal in the case of the United States. Even if you consider those who are doing forced labor as the result of a legal penalty, those people are not the property of another person. Obama isn’t giving Afghani captives as slaves to decorated veterans. Ahmose II gave them to the Ahmose in the document.
Same thing with the Narmer Palette and all the other images of its type. The pharoahs are executing captives. They are not on the battlefield. That isn’t permitted under modern international law. International law as we know it didn’t exist in 2,000 B.C.E.
The Egyptians did not acknowledge modern notions of universal human rights. The whole argument is moot because those notions of human rights didn’t exist then.
I don’t even want to go into debt slavery, slavery in the service of temples, etc. I don’t want to muddy things up.
As far as Egypt being imperialistic, just look at Ramses’ domination of the Levant. What about the periods of Egyptian rule over Nubia? The first few seconds of this map illustrate Egypt’s territorial expansion. It’s also neat, in my opinion. http://www.mapsofwar.com/ind/imperial-history.html
2. Forget I mentioned Alexander. My goal was demonstrating that the Egyptians desired for him to become pharoah, after which he assumed godhood at their insistence. I was using it to demonstrate the Egyptian system of divine monarchy. He himself isn’t so relevant to my argument.
3. “Influenced by the Egyptians” can mean anything. I am saying that the ideology foundations of the individual liberty, and thus the basis for the abolition of slavery, are due to the Enlightenment. Whether or not Thomas Paine’s masonic lodge chanted to Ra as part of ritual or something doesn’t change that fact, just as it doesn’t change the fact that Paine was a hardcore deist. I don’t doubt that masons of the age had an intellectual/artistic fetish for Egypt. I know they certainly had one for the Turks. I’m saying that the Enlightenment culture that destroyed chattel slavery (and slavery in any form) in the modern world came out of Western civilization, which is a fact that any historian will acknowledge.
LikeLike
@ Asplund
“This is clear evidence of slavery. Just because they were prisoners at one point doesn’t mean much…”Slavery grew out of captives taken in war.”
The quotes you listed (and as you finally admitted) support that these were captives of war. As I said, if you consider POWs to be slaves, then the US still practises slavery. The US also has forced labour on criminal inmates as Abagond explained above. So I see no significant difference between the two societies.
“Slaves taken in West Africa and sold to Portuguese and Dutch for rum and guns- same root process.”
Not the same. “Egyptian” captivity principally came from battles in which “Egypt” was defending its borders/quelling insurrection within its territory. Portuguese slavery began with kidnapping CHILDREN in a foreign lands. Big difference. The first Portuguese slavery chronicler, Gomes Eannes de Azurara, said:
“And as soon as they reached the land, Stevam Affonso leapt out, and
five others with him, and they proceeded in the manner that the other
had suggested. And while they were going thus concealed even until they neared the hut, they saw come out of it a negro boy, stark naked,
with a spear in his had. Him they seized at once, and coming up close
to the hut, they lighted upon a girl, his sister, who was about eight years old.”
“Same thing with the Narmer Palette and all the other images of its type. The pharoahs are executing captives. They are not on the battlefield. ”
That’s your opinion it’s “not on the battlefield,” not fact. And, again, the US/UK/France,etc kill thousands of soldiers and innocent civilians every year in endless wars. Why do you somehow maintain a double standard?
“‘Influenced by the Egyptians’ can mean anything.”
I mean specifically that the European “Enlightenment” was influenced by ancient Egyptian ideology and philosophy. Egyptologist Jan Assmann who makes the connection:
“In the age of the Enlightenment, the fascination with Ancient Egypt reached a particular climax. The reason is threefold: firstly, Egypt appeared as the most ancient, most original civilization, and the concept of history prevailing in the 15th through 18th centuries still shrouded the beginning in particular glory; secondly, ancient Egyptian religion was connected not only with what in that time was understood by ‘natural religion’ as opposed to ‘revealed’ or ‘positive religion’ but even identified with spinozism ante Spinozam or a kind of Deism; thirdly, Ancient Egypt appeared as the model of a split culture, devided into an exoteric, popular polytheism, and a secret, esoteric monotheism or spinozism, and this double philosophy, ‘philosophia duplex’ as it was called, was hailed as a model of enlightenment could be promoted in times of persecution and censorship.”
” I am saying that the ideology foundations of the individual liberty, and thus the basis for the abolition of slavery, are due to the Enlightenment.”
I am saying that “individual liberty” (as shown with the numerous quotes from “Egyptian texts” in my earlier posts) existed and there were many instances of “abolition of slavery” long before European “Enlightenment” (e.g., under China’s Qin Dynasty circa 206 BC…the list goes on and on)
LikeLike
Res-
I don’t think you are taking my statements seriously.
1. They were captives. Then they were enslaved. Ahmose was given human beings as property, including women who had not been prisoners of war at any point. Why is it so hard to accept this? If I can show you proof of slavery and you still can’t accept it, there’s nothing I can say. The 13 th Amendment isn’t relevant in this case. An individual was given captives as slaves. They were unfree.
Also I never attempted to minimize slaves coming from prisoners. In fact, I mentioned that process playing a huge role in the West African slave trade. I’ve never denied that.
The quote you offered shows that sometimes children were kidnapped, but in other instances militaries went out and took prisoners as slaves, as most powerful empires have done.
You also ignored all my info about Egyptian conquests, including the cool map I shared with you which you didn’t even acknowledge.
As for the Enligjtenment. I didn’t know Spinoza had such an affinity for Egyptian antiquities and religion. That doesn’t change anything. No laws, no arguments about abolition, no notions of individual liberty were taken from Egypt. Fetishes with Egyptian religion, and certainly absurd attempts to see it as rational, may have had some influence in some circles. Im talking about natural law in the tradition of Locke.
LikeLike
The reason I suggest these images are not meant to invoke battlefields is because the victim is unarmed, prostrate, and In a sign of submission.
Also it’s not that people were killed that I’m basing my attack on that imagery on. It’s the fact that it pictures a ruler executing a captive.
In some of those murals the Pharoahs’ victims are actually bound.
LikeLike
The temple of Karnak. That shows Thutmosis III executing cowering captives taken from one of his many conquests.
LikeLike
@Asplund
What you showed was captives of war. The modern Western countries can kill and take captives, but it’s somehow different when ancient Egypt did it in warfare. I’m not saying that ancient Egypt was right or wrong, I’m saying it was the same as what’s being done today or actually worse b/c US/UK/France etc still launch offensive warfare. And another one is about to begin in Syria.
“Also I never attempted to minimize slaves coming from prisoners. In fact, I mentioned that process playing a huge role in the West African slave trade. I’ve never denied that. ”
The point was that the Portuguese Atlantic Slave Trade was different than “Egyptians” taking war captives. As usual, you are diverting from the main point yet again, just like someone else I know.
“You also ignored all my info about Egyptian conquests, including the cool map I shared with you which you didn’t even acknowledge. ”
What Egyptian conquests were in any quotes you provided? Your quotes only support my assertion that ancient “Egypt” engaged in defensive warfare and took POWs. And I didn’t see any “cool map” let alone an uncool map. And you completely ignored every question I posed to you in this exchange (just like someone else I know).
“That doesn’t change anything. No laws, no arguments about abolition, no notions of individual liberty were taken from Egypt. Fetishes with Egyptian religion, ”
That’s just your own opinion, and you can have whatever opinion you wish, but that doesn’t make it fact. Your tactics remind me of…
LikeLike
Res-
I am the one veering off topic? Really? I said something about the Enlightenment and here we are having a crazy conversation about ancient Egypt. Now you are trying to talk about contemporary U.S. policy in Syria.
I provided you with clear evidence of slavery in Egypt. The fact that slaves had been taken as captives in war doesn’t change the fact that they were still slaves.
I’m going to do two more posts. One will prove definitively that slavery existed in ancient Egypt. The other will prove definitively that Egypt was an imperial state that waged wars of conquest. Again, both these ideas could be readily observed by any undergraduate textbook.
My original premise- “Social Justice”- i.e. equality under the law, which means no social classes based on birth, which means abolition of slavery, which means religious liberty, freedom of speech, etc. etc. is an outgrowth of the Western Enlightenment. You claimed that Egypt had no slavery, therefore didn’t need abolition to be a paragon of social justice. I countered that Egypt practiced slavery and engaged in imperialist warfare which provided Egypt with sources of slave labor.
LikeLike
@Asplund
“I am the one veering off topic? ”
Yes
Your original premise to which I responded was “When you study world history for years you realize that it was the West, with its Enlightenment values that lit the spark for social justice.”
I pointed out specific examples showing evidence of “social justice” among “Egyptians.” I showed that the common man protested, took complaints and cases to court that were successfully remedied. I showed where the “pharaohs” acknowledged the laws and respected the rights of the common man.
You veered off irrelevant matters, but are now trying to counter me by claiming slavery was practised in “Egypt” with quotes that only proved my point that Egypt did indeed engage in defensive warfare and took foreign POWs, which is the same as is currently done in the West, which you continue to ignore, as well as the fact that US/UK/France, etc. they engage in aggressive warfare and kill far more innocent civilians in the process…
LikeLike
This is from the Encyclopedia of World Slavery:
The encyclopedia describes the range of forms of involuntary servitude in ancient Egypt, arguing that in some instances our word “slave” applies, and in others words like “bondsmen” and “serf” might be more appropriate, given the varying legal status of unfree individuals. Bona fide slave status applied in some instances. In many others, various forms of unfree status were more appropriate. Just want to get that out there so I don’t get accused of hiding something and there isn’t an attempt to use these facts to throw off my argument. The Egyptians practiced chattel slavery. They practices household slavery. They practiced religious “slavery,” and they practiced serfdom.
Of the Narmer Palette, and all the murals I referenced, including the temple at Karnak:
“The motif of the victorious campaign of the king against the enemies of Egypt, systematically concluded with the annihilation of the foe and the bringing back of captives and cattle, goes back to the dawn of the Pharaohanic state. Such actions are attested by the mace head of the pharaoh Narmer, and the palette of the same king……….”
“In the Old Kingdom, captives were primarily used as agricultural workers……………..needed to feed the workers on the vast national pyramid-building projects.”
“In the Middle Kingdom, increasing foreign activity yielded numerous slaves for the Egyptian economy.A Middle Kingdom papyrus mentions both Egyptians and Asians when describing what appears to be a forced-labor camp were families of runaway slaves were imprisoned. When caught, escaped slaves faced the death sentence.”
“The New Kingdom was the most flourishing period of Egyptian slavery. The imperial Egyptians state controlled large parts of what now constitutes Israel, the Sinai, Syria, and Northern Sudan. Thus Nubia was forced to contribute slaves, and entire lists of captive Nubians have been found. Although certain numbers in the inscriptions were certainly exaggerated, it is obvious that tens of thousands of slaves were imported into Egypt during the wars of expansion.”
“Another important source of slavery was natural increase. Loprieno attests to the principle of slavery by birth, and as a rule, the offspring of slaves were regarded as enslaved.”
“Slaves became an important reward serving both to strengthen the loyalty between army and king and to increase the economic basis for the warriors’ households.”
“Slaves were their masters private property and could be claimed as personal property or stolen goods if they escaped………………masters could also bequeath them to next generations in documents similar to modern wills and testaments.”
There were instances of masters freeing their slaves, instances of slaves holding high court positions, and slaves doing every kind of activity, but it doesn’t change the fact that slavery was practiced in ancient Egypt.
LikeLike
No Res-
I pointed out that the fact that the “common man” took complaints to court which were remedied, and the idea that people of varying social classes enjoyed various levels of protection and privileges, as an example of “rule of law.”
Slavery in ancient Egypt, the divine status of kings, the presence of a multi-tiered caste hierarchy based on birth- those absolutely preclude anything approach the concept of “social justice” I referred to originally.
I don’t see how you can’t see bringing up people being killed in Iraq or something like that as TOTALLY irrelevant to the discussion. I also never said the Egyptians didn’t fight defensive wars and take captives. I did say that they enslaved captives, and other people in different circumstances.
Is serfdom social justice? Is being born into an occupation social justice? Is an entire family being enslaved social justice? Is being born into a state of slavery social justice? The fact that some mine workers had a successful petition doesn’t have a lot of persuasive power. Most bronze age societies had rule of law and thus people in various circumstances had some legal recourse. Even those under the Code of Hammurabi did. In absolutely none of these societies was the equality under the law.
LikeLike
Thutmose III and his wars:
“He didn’t just want to defend Egypt against its enemies; he wanted their lands for himself. He enlisted 20,000 soldiers – either voluntarily or by force – and trained them for an attack on Megiddo.”
“With its population starving, Megiddo finally surrendered. The city and its people now belonged to Tuthmosis, along with all its wealth. The war booty that Tuthmosis brought back to Thebes made it one of the richest and greatest cities in the Ancient World.”
“In the important gold-producing region of Nubia, originally conquered by Ahmose, Tuthmosis went one step further to secure control. He appointed a viceroy to rule over the area. The viceroy – the “Overseer of the Gold Countries” – ensured that Nubia’s gold poured into Thebes giving Egypt all the gold it needed to rule its new empire.”
“Just 100 years earlier, Egypt had been on the verge of extinction. Tuthmosis changed all that. He conquered more land than any pharaoh before or after. By the end of his reign, Egypt controlled Nubia, the Syrian and Lebanese coasts and vast areas of Israel and Palestine. It was the biggest empire ever conquered and ruled by one king.”
Thutmose III has apparently been called the “Napoleon of Egypt” by historians. Apparently he was a very successful imperialist warrior. Again, proof of imperialism, proof of aggressive wars. I remember hearing about a lecture in which the archaeologist described that Thutmose had an entire clan of the Mitanni brought back in chains- men, women, children, and even livestock, as captive spoils and a testament to his greatness. I don’t have any documentary proof of that specifically.
If I’m finding all this stuff just off of a cursory glance at the web and a brief trip to the reference desk, don’t you think there might be some basis to all this?
LikeLike
@Asplundxp
“This is from the Encyclopedia of World Slavery:”
This is not first-hand evidence, so it can’t serve as evidence. It is someone’s personal analysis (not to mention it’s riddled with inaccuracies and doesn’t point to any evidence). Big difference.
“Slavery in ancient Egypt, the divine status of kings, the presence of a multi-tiered caste hierarchy based on birth- those absolutely preclude anything approach the concept of “social justice” I referred to originally.”
Here you go yet again saying things that just aren’t true. See my explanations above with actual evidence that refutes your statement. No need to keep spinning wheels with you.
“I don’t see how you can’t see bringing up people being killed in Iraq or something like that as TOTALLY irrelevant to the discussion. ”
I said that in RESPONSE to your irrelevant interjections about “Egypt’s” “imperial wars” (which were really defensive wars, as opposed to US/UK/France’s ongoing imperial wars), smiting enemies with a mace, etc. (and I guess using nuclear bombs, missiles and machine guns is better). I get it. You’re bent on maintaining your double standard.
LikeLike
Res-
What evidence will be sufficient? The primary source document describing Ahmose being granted men and women as slaves by the pharaoh doesn’t work for some reason.
An encyclopedia entry by a peer- reviewed, professional Egyptologist is invalid to you.
Tell me what I have to provide.
LikeLike
Res-
You are saying the Egyptians did not divide themselves into caste systems based on birth?
You are saying the pharaohs were not considered gods?
I want to know what I have to prove here.
LikeLike
Res-
Lets not discuss the Narner palette anymore. Like with my bringing up Alexander, you are unable to see my point, or even at least what I was trying to say.
LikeLike
@Asplund
“I pointed out that the fact that the “common man” took complaints to court which were remedied, and the idea that people of varying social classes enjoyed various levels of protection and privileges, as an example of “rule of law.””
Even in a state where the people do NOT have the basic rights to dissent, protest, take matters to court to be remedied, property rights, etc. can still have “rule of law.”
However, I gave evidence that in ancient “Egypt” the common people had such rights, among others, that the “pharaohs” and viziers acknowledged and honoured those rights (Instructions of Merikare quote from above is one of many examples), AND that justice was dealt fairly by the viziers at all levels of society, from the peasant to the wealthy land owner (see the story of Khnun-Anup and Nekhemmut).
Social justice can be defined as “A fair and proper administration of the laws that conform to the natural law that covers all people regardless of gender, origin, possessions or religion.” http://thelawdictionary.org/social-justice/#ixzz2eW6SnFV5
The fairness and proper administration of the laws in ancient Egypt was based on precedence (a tenement of English Common Law), the use of witnesses when necessary (see berlin papyrus 9010), and the right to appeal.
And for further examples of this “fair and proper administration of the laws,” besides the examples above, women successfully exercised their legal rights (see Papyrus Brooklyn 35.1446), and even people who threatened the life of a “pharaoh” were given trial (Judicial Turin Papyrus)
LikeLike
Res-
I have happily acknowledged that the Pharoahs had a legal system and those in the bottom ranks of society had access to legal recourse. I’ve never denied that.
All bronze age societies acknowledged some degree of “rights” for different classes. What you are describing is rule of law. Precedent, the use of witnesses, and the right to appeal are all great. I never denied these things existed. I never denied that women could take their case to court. That doesn’t mean much to me. There were plenty of societies that had a legal system that was available to people from different backgrounds. Just because the pharaohs tried to hear the peasants’ cases fairly doesn’t mean the Egyptians had a system of “Social Justice.” That’s still “Rule of Law.”
I never denied one thing you just wasted all that typing on.
What I deny is in your definition: “A fair and proper administration of the laws that conform to the natural law that covers all people regardless of gender, origin, possessions or religion.”
A fair and proper administration means that ALL individuals enjoyed equality under the law, meaning there were not social classes determined by birth, meaning there was no slavery. As for the “Natural law that covers all people regardless of gender, origin, possessions, or religion,” that doesn’t apply to Egyptian society at all. First of all, you have slaves taken from foreign lands- No equality regardless of national origin there. And it isn’t that they were taken prisoner. It’s that they were ENSLAVED after they were taken prisoner,. as in the autobiography of Ahmose. Possessions? Well since you have slavery you have human beings who are actual possessions. Plus you have all those nobility who had royal titles, including the Pharoah himself, who enjoyed higher status due to his possession of a claim to rule. He was the son of a god so he also possessed spiritual powers. Religion? Well, I don’t want to bring up Akhenaten and all that because I don’t want to have to discuss it for 3 days. Needless to say, religious freedom did not exist in ancient Egypt. Society was structured around the state religion.
The definition you posted is what I’ve been arguing all along. “Natural Law” in a western context, which is the context in which that definition was written, means equality, freedom, liberty, regardless of race/creed/color/national origin/ blah blah.Our natural rights to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness/property.
The existence of social stratification based on birth, the existence of slavery, and divine kingship preclude all of that.
LikeLike
Ok. This is indisputable proof that at least one Pharaoh in ancient Egypt engaged in an aggressive war of expansion. Yes the Western powers have done just that. In fact in the same regions described in this chronicle. I’m bringing it up to get rid of the notion that Egypt only fought defensive wars. During the New Kingdom Egypt conquered the Levant, Syria, and Nubia.
From the Annals of Thutmose III
‘Horns: Strong-Bull-arisen-in-Thebes; Two Ladies: Enduring-in-kingship-like-Re-in-heaven; Gold-Horus: Mighty-in-strength, Majestic-in-appearance; the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Lord of the Two Lands: Menkheperre; the Son of Re, of his body: Thutmose, given life forever.
His majesty commanded to record the victories his father Amun had given him by an inscription in the temple which his majesty had made for his father Amun, so as to record each campaign, together with the booty which his majesty had brought from it, and the tribute of every foreign land that his father Re had given him.’
Point A: Thutmose is the son of Amun according to the author of these annals. Thutmose is a living god. He is the son of a god.
Point B: Thutmose was receiving tribute from foreign lands- a sign of imperial domination.
Year 23, first month of summer, day 4, the day of the feast of the King’s Coronation, (arriving) at the town of “Conquest-of-the-Ruler” the Syrian name of which is Gaza. Year 23, first month of summer, day 5, departure from this place in valor, strength, might, and right, to overthrow that wretched enemy, to extend the borders of Egypt, his father, mighty and victorious Amun, having commanded that he conquer.
Point A: Thutmose III’s divine father ordered him to conquer foreign lands, “to extend the borders of Egypt.” That is, without a doubt, an aggressive war of expansion.
“Then their horses were captured, and their chariots of gold and silver became an easy prey. Their ranks were lying stretched out on their backs like fish in the bight of a net, while his majesty’s valiant army counted their possessions. Captured was the tent of that wretched foe, which was worked with silver ——–. Then the entire army jubliated and gave praise to Amun for the victory he had given to his son on that day. They lauded his majesty and extolled his victory. Then they presented the plunder they had taken: hands, living prisoners, horses, chariots of gold and silver and of painted work.”
Point A: Thutmose receives severed hands as plunder. Same kind of imagery of domination and slaughter of prisoners in the Narmer Palette and all those other images. That doesn’t mean Thutmose was evil by his own standards. It means that laws respecting the human dignity of prisoners were not advanced.
Point B: You bring up the U.S. for some weird reason. This is the perfect opportunity to put all that to rest. When something like the desecration of corpses or the murder of POWs happens in American wars, these events are considered abberations. There can be cover-ups. The offending soldiers (like the ones at Abu Ghraib) end up being court-martialed. Not given slaves as a reward. The Narmer Palette is like a Lyndie England photo from Abu Ghraib blown up and displayed proudly in Times Square.
LikeLike
Now here is indisputable proof of slavery. Since for some reason those taken captive in war don’t work as examples of slavery for some reason, and despite the fact that some of the slaves in the Autobiography of Ahmose were not captives, I’ve found a new source.
This is from the “Adoption Papyrus.” It is an account of a man freeing his slave, whom he had purchased in a slave market:
“Year 28, 1st month of Inundation, day 10, under the Majesty of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Ramesses (XI). On this day, declaration made by the stable-master Neb-nufe and his wife the musician of Seth of Spermeru Rennufe, to wit:
‘We purchased the female slave Dini-huiry and she gave birth to these three children, one male and two female, in all three. And I (i.e. Rennufe) took them and nourished them and brought them up, and I have reached this day with them without their doing evil towards me, but they dealt well with me, I having no son or daughter except them. And the stable-master Padiu entered my house and took Ta-Amon-no, their elder sister, to wife, he being related to me and being my younger brother. And I accepted him for her and he is with her at this day.
Now behold, I have made her a freewoman of the land of Pharaoh, and if she bears either son or daughter, they shall be freemen of the land of Pharaoh in exactly the same way, they being with the stable-master Padiu, this younger brother of mine. And the children shall be with their elder sister in the house of Padiu, this stable-master, this younger brother of mine, and today I make him a son of mine exactly like them.
And she said:
‘As Amun endures, and the Ruler endures, I (hereby) make the people whom I have put on record freemen of the land of Pharaoh, and if any son, daughter, brother, or sister of their mother and their father should contest their rights, except Padiu this son of mine – for they are indeed no longer with him as servants, but are with him as younger siblings, being freemen of the land – may a donkey copulate with him and a donkey with his wife, whoever it be that shall call any of them a servant.”
Clear, indisputable evidence of slavery. This time the slavers were acquired through purchase.
LikeLike
Indisputable Proof the Pharaohs were Living Gods. It’s in every textbook I’ve ever read, on hundreds of websites, and evidenced by the scope of the pyramids themselves, but here are some actual inscriptions describing the pharaohs as divine:
The Ancient History Encyclopedia on Pharaoh as God-King:
“As supreme ruler of the people, the pharaoh was considered a god on earth, the intermediary between the gods and the people, and when he died, he was thought to become Osiris, the god of the dead. As such, in his role of ‘High Priest of Every Temple’, it was the pharaoh’s duty to build great temples and monuments celebrating his own achievements and paying homage to the gods of the land.”
“From this time onward every king of Egypt, whether of Egyptian origin or not, called himself the ‘son of Râ’. In later days, when Amen, or Amen-Râ, became the King of the Gods, it was asserted by his priesthood that the god assumed the human form of a man and begot the king of Egypt.”
I know that will do nothing to convince you of anything. I’m just including it for anyone else who reads this.
Complete titulary of Pharaoh Amenemhet III (ca. 1818 – 1773 BCE):
Mighty Horus
Great of Might
He of the Two Ladies
Taking possession of the inheritance of the Two Lands
Horus of Gold
Permanent of Life
King of Upper and Lower Egypt
Maat of Re (Nimaatre).
Son of Re
Amun at the Head
Pyramid Texts:
‘How beautiful to see, how satisfying to behold,’ say the gods, when this god (meaning the king) ascends to the sky. His fearfulness is on his head, his terror is at his side, his magical charms are before him.’ Geb has done for him as was done for himself (Geb). The gods and souls of Buto, the gods and souls of Hierakonpolis, the gods in the sky and the gods on earth come to him. They make supports for king Unis on their arms. Thou ascendest, 0 King Unis, to the sky, Ascend upon it in this its name ‘Ladder’
0 Re-Atum! This king Unis comes to thee, an imperishable gloriousom, lord of the affairs of the place of the four pillars (the sky). Thy son comes to thee. This king Unis comes to thee (Pyr. . 217)-
1, 0 Re, am this one of whom thou didst say . . . ‘My son!’ , father are thou, 0 Re. . . . Behold king Pepi, 0 Re. This king Pepi is thy son. . . . This king Pepi shines in the east like Re, he goes in the west like Kheprer. This king Pepi lives on what whereon Horus (son of Re) lord of the sky lives, by command of Horus lord of the sky’ (Pyr. 886-8).
Ho! king Neferkere (Pepi II)! How beautiful is this! How beautiful is this, which thy father Osiris has done for thee ! He has given thee his throne, thou rulest those of the hidden places (the dead), thou leadest their august ones, all the glorious ones follow thee (Pyr. 2022-3).
LikeLike
@Asplund
“What I deny is in your definition: “A fair and proper administration of the laws that conform to the natural law that covers all people regardless of gender, origin, possessions or religion.”
It’s not MY definition. It’s the accepted legal definition (I gave you the link). And I demonstrated how it applied to ancient “Egypt” at all levels of society.
“This is from the “Adoption Papyrus.” It is an account of a man freeing his slave, whom he had purchased in a slave market”
First, what slave market are you talking about? Second, the hieroglyph for “slave” is the exact same for servant or labourer, btw. This is important b/c the “Deir el Medina” protestors who took their case to the court and the workers who built the pyramids (see references above) were also referred to using the SAME hieroglyph for slave/servant/labourer yet they still had the same legal rights as others. Third, what the “Adoption Papyrus” actually shows is a means of inheritance/property transfer through adoption, being one of the world’s oldest cases of adoption and adoption for inheritance reasons (if the actual document exists).”
“I know that will do nothing to convince you of anything. I’m just including it for anyone else who reads this.”
How does what you quoted prove that the “pharaoh” was above the law or that s/he was God? Don’t Christians say “God” is their father? And remember, I posted similar quotes first showing that it’s clearly METAPHOR or spiritual language similar to what religions use today. And how does a spiritual incantation prove a lack of “social justice” in ancient “Egypt”?
LikeLike
Res-
In this instance people were bought and then freed. This is slavery. Just because there were dufferentvf
LikeLike
Res-
This is an instance of people purchased and then freed in a will. That’s unfree labor. The Egyptologist rigjtly translated that as slavery, because thars what that is. Just like with the autobiography of Ahmose, just like in the encyclopedia entry I posted, just like with this account.
But let’s suppose they were just “servants.” “Servants who were purchased in Syria and then later freed as the result of a will. That’s still unfree labor. Even serfdom is unfree labor and a major affront to social justice.
I disnt say the legal definition is wrong. It’s your interpretation of it. The “Natural law” in the definition includes all the stuff I just mentioned about free labor, religious dreedom, etc. Unfree labor is a direct violatin of natural law. One if the most egregious violations of it. Therefore that’s one reason “social justice” doesn’t apply to Egypt.
Didn’t you read what I posted?
As far as divine kingship issues:
Yes Christians refer to God as father. Only one Christian referred to himself individually as God’s son, and he was divine according to that tradition.
But you know better than to try that. As for your metaphor, in sure there was a lot if metaphor involved. But the Pharoahs becoming Osiris? The pyramids themselves attest to the fact that the Pharoahs were divine. The pharaohs having to marry siblings dur ribtheur dubine blood. That’s in EVERY textbook.
I’ve proven slavery in Egypt three times. Enslavement of conquered peoples, which for some reason couldn’t be enslavement according to you because some of them had been captured in war. You not once addressed the enslavement of the women granted to Ahmose despite the likelihood of their being combatants being essentially nil.
Then the peer reviews encyclopedia entry stating that in addition to be captured in war, skave s could be purchased at market.
So I give you an outright account of that, then you say they are mere @ servants, despite the fact that they were purchased and freed in a freaking will.
The adoption papyrus being a fear document or whatever us not relevant to what we are discussing.
LikeLike
The autocorrect on my phone butchered parts of my reply.
LikeLike
Res-
Is any of the following true?
1. Ancient Egypt contained a social hierarchy of classes based on birth.
2. Ancient Egypt contained slavery.
3. Ancient Egypt waged aggressive war outside Egypts birders at least once.
LikeLike
Abagond:
Understanding and contextualizing a moral position is a different thing from accepting or promoting it.
For example: many dogs have the proclivity to be aggressive towards strangers. It’s part of their basic nature, and the likely origin of that characteristic can be derived by an analysis of evolutionary biology.
Does that mean I’m tolerant of aggressive dogs who threaten me or my children? Absolutely not.
Is this a double-standard? No.
In order to have a well-functioning modern society, dogs need to be trained to act against their basic nature. By law and social agreement in most countries these days, dog owners are expected to assume this responsibility.
I wouldn’t expect the same moral responsibility in a place or time where that social agreement hadn’t been reached.
Similarly, I believe that “groupism” (clannism, tribalism, racism) is a natural characteristic of humans whose origins can be derived by an analysis of evolutionary biology.
Also similarly, in cultures with diverse and educated populations (which includes most “modern” ones), there is a reasonable expectation for people to transcend their instinctual tendencies towards groupism.
With such a framework, one can have different expectations for Americans in 2013, Pashtun elders in 2013, or even Americans in 1950, and still be completely congruent.
I get the impression that you seem to judge various peoples (mostly white in this case) against a modern standard which may not have been held in consensus at that place and time.
As a point of reference, consider your own attitude towards a moral position in which the modern consensus has changed rapidly, like the extension of full social acceptance of transgendered people.
You appear to demonstrate tolerance and acceptance now, but did you do so 25+ years ago? If not, then how much (and what type) of a moral failing was it?
I’d suggest that if you hadn’t been raised in an environment where such tolerance was the norm, there isn’t much cause to accuse you of a significant moral failing.
LikeLike
[…] Spotlight History is my name for the way “world” history in America is mostly about particular times and places, not about the world as a whole. […]
LikeLike
[…] See on abagond.wordpress.com […]
LikeLike