Thread: Black african civilization prior to european colonalization and racist stereotypes

[quote name='caffeine' date='21 June 2010 - 07:01 AM' timestamp='1277118077' post='161464']

The educated classes in pre-European Africa were reading and writing in Arabic, Latin and Greek, just as their equivalents in Europe and the Middle East. I don't know too much about native sub-Saharan languages, but the idea that they couldn't express ideas or abstractions is obvious nonsense. I know two words in Swahili, one of which is the abstract 'freedom'. An article I recently read discussing various proposed (and probably wrong) origins of the word 'jazz' included the Mandingo verb 'jasi', meaning 'to become unlike oneself'. All human languages express abstract concepts and ideas.







Behind Eurasia, Africa is the largest land mass on the planet, and the whole history of pre-European colonisation is a long time. Nothing is universally anything in this history. Africa had dynastic Empires, centralised states and religious theocracies long before any Europeans arrived. The OP included links to a whole bunch of wikipedia articles, should you care to look.







So, the justification for European prejudice is... European prejudice.







Here are ust a few of the non-existent buildings the Africans were too stupid to put up by themselves:









[/quote]



Touchdown Caffeine!!!!!!!!!!! Thank you for proving my point! Also as for writing a language that could express ideas and abstractions...........you might want to check out the Ancient Uhuru and Captuba Tribes. Lets us not forget they have proven by satellite imagery that 5000 yrs before the Egyptians that the Nile ran thru the Sahara to the Atlantic Sea and now they are discovering Ancient Remains. There is also the fact that we know of 200 villages, towns and cities, lie beneath the Med. Sea and mostly along the African Continent as well as on the Atlantic Coast.........All predate anything Carthaginian or Phoenician and no Arabic or Persian sites located around the Southern Coast of Africa.

[quote name='Midwest Media Critics' date='21 June 2010 - 05:07 AM' timestamp='1277122022' post='161469']

Lets us not forget they have proven by satellite imagery that 5000 yrs before the Egyptians that the Nile ran thru the Sahara to the Atlantic Sea and now they are discovering Ancient Remains. There is also the fact that we know of 200 villages, towns and cities, lie beneath the Med. Sea and mostly along the African Continent as well as on the Atlantic Coast.........All predate anything Carthaginian or Phoenician and no Arabic or Persian sites located around the Southern Coast of Africa.

[/quote]

The Nile did not run to the Atlantic. The area of the Sahara turns from destert to wetlands at 20,000 year intervals. Not proven by satellite imagery, but by analysis of the floor of the Atlantic west of the Safara. And yes, there hve been archeological finds, the basic early tools and such, as are found in many places. As the area dried, people moved east towards the Nile, again proof of an inability to cope with changes in the environment.



Town and cities, submerged in the Mediterranean? Uh, there are a few, and prior to the spread of "civilization" from the Cretean and others around the Mediterranean, there are few archeological records. And these were not "black" African.



In Zimbabwe, early bushman organizations appear around 200 AD, as seen in the Bambata cave excavations. link



Here is an example of a well researched site in Nigeria, which shows no occupation before 800 BC, and little of interest before 650 AD when pottery appears on site. link and link



"Architectural remains are rare in the Chad Basin, as buildings up to recent times were constructed out of organic materials and clay. These materials usually decay completely."



From the Ndufu site:



"The house remains have a date of roughly 800 cal BC, which makes it one of the earliest permanent habitation structures in subsaharan Africa."



Here is where people go wrong. For some reason it is important to prove this civilization issue about black Africa. Heck, Germany wasn't at all civilized until towards the end of the second millenia AD. Much of this is based on supposition, hope if you will. linkto a perfect example.



"Iron furnaces have been found dating from the eighth century B.C., and possibly as early as 1300 B.C.; true steel was invented by the middle of the first millennium B.C."



Again, the dates are hopeful, the evidence is lacking.



The person who responded to me said the following:



"Here are ust a few of the non-existent buildings the Africans were too stupid to put up by themselves:"



None of which I said. And the images provided (not identified) are all relatively new structures (post 800 AD). The res one is of the Mali (Timbuktu) style of the Djenne mosque.

[quote name='ArizonaIrish' date='22 June 2010 - 01:28 AM' timestamp='1277162882' post='161529']The person who responded to me said the following:



"Here are ust a few of the non-existent buildings the Africans were too stupid to put up by themselves:"



None of which I said. And the images provided (not identified) are all relatively new structures (post 800 AD). The res one is of the Mali (Timbuktu) style of the Djenne mosque.[/quote]



What you said was "They didn't build anything", which is clearly untrue. These structures are all post 800 AD, but that's hardly relevant to the question of whether Africa was made up of more than just savages by the arrival of Europeans. The top one isn't the Djenne mosque, it's Sankore Madrassah. The current structure dates from the 16th century, shortly before the Moroccan conquest and a few hundred years before European took over, but there was a mosque there before that. The second is Great Zimbabwe, built between the 12th and 14th centuries. The third, however, is the Great Temple at Yeha, estimated to have been built about 700 BC.



So, they clearly did build things, and I'm sure I could find many more surviving pre-European structures with two minutes search on the internet. And, of course, there are far more that didn't survive. The town I grew up in has been there at least 1,500 years, as we know from hisorical records, but there are no buildings much older than a couple of hundred because sandstone isn't very durable. This doesn't tell us much about the level of civillisation of its inhabitants.

[quote name='ArizonaIrish' date='21 June 2010 - 07:28 PM' timestamp='1277162882' post='161529']



.



In Zimbabwe, early bushman organizations appear around 200 AD, as seen in the Bambata cave excavations. link



Here is an example of a well researched site in Nigeria, which shows no occupation before 800 BC, and little of interest before 650 AD when pottery appears on site. link and link



"Architectural remains are rare in the Chad Basin, as buildings up to recent times were constructed out of organic materials and clay. These materials usually decay completely."



From the Ndufu site:



"The house remains have a date of roughly 800 cal BC, which makes it one of the earliest permanent habitation structures in subsaharan Africa."



Here is where people go wrong. For some reason it is important to prove this civilization issue about black Africa. Heck, Germany wasn't at all civilized until towards the end of the second millenia AD. Much of this is based on supposition, hope if you will. linkto a perfect example.



"Iron furnaces have been found dating from the eighth century B.C., and possibly as early as 1300 B.C.; true steel was invented by the middle of the first millennium B.C."



Again, the dates are hopeful, the evidence is lacking.



The person who responded to me said the following:



"Here are ust a few of the non-existent buildings the Africans were too stupid to put up by themselves:"



None of which I said. And the images provided (not identified) are all relatively new structures (post 800 AD). The res one is of the Mali (Timbuktu) style of the Djenne mosque.

[/quote]The Nile did not run to the Atlantic. The area of the Sahara turns from destert to wetlands at 20,000 year intervals. Not proven by satellite imagery, but by analysis of the floor of the Atlantic west of the Safara. And yes, there hve been archeological finds, the basic early tools and such, as are found in many places. As the area dried, people moved east towards the Nile, again proof of an inability to cope with changes in the environment.

Then you missed the special on The History Channel, Science Channel, and Discovery Channels within the last couple of months. The exact words of the narrator was and I quote " Due to the latest advances in satellite imagery it has been disocered that a river ran thru the Sahara to the Atlantic Ocean and there is strong evidence to suggest that it was at one time The River Nile!" End Quote. This would predate anything Egyptian.

Town and cities, submerged in the Mediterranean? Uh, there are a few, and prior to the spread of "civilization" from the Cretean and others around the Mediterranean, there are few archeological records. And these were not "black" African

Same Documentary same Special...........200 KNOWN villages, towns, and cities under the Med Sea. You can order the video.

[quote name='ArizonaIrish' date='21 June 2010 - 07:28 PM' timestamp='1277162882' post='161529']



.



In Zimbabwe, early bushman organizations appear around 200 AD, as seen in the Bambata cave excavations. link



Here is an example of a well researched site in Nigeria, which shows no occupation before 800 BC, and little of interest before 650 AD when pottery appears on site. link and link



"Architectural remains are rare in the Chad Basin, as buildings up to recent times were constructed out of organic materials and clay. These materials usually decay completely."



From the Ndufu site:



"The house remains have a date of roughly 800 cal BC, which makes it one of the earliest permanent habitation structures in subsaharan Africa."



Here is where people go wrong. For some reason it is important to prove this civilization issue about black Africa. Heck, Germany wasn't at all civilized until towards the end of the second millenia AD. Much of this is based on supposition, hope if you will. linkto a perfect example.



"Iron furnaces have been found dating from the eighth century B.C., and possibly as early as 1300 B.C.; true steel was invented by the middle of the first millennium B.C."



Again, the dates are hopeful, the evidence is lacking.



The person who responded to me said the following:



"Here are ust a few of the non-existent buildings the Africans were too stupid to put up by themselves:"



None of which I said. And the images provided (not identified) are all relatively new structures (post 800 AD). The res one is of the Mali (Timbuktu) style of the Djenne mosque.

[/quote]The Nile did not run to the Atlantic. The area of the Sahara turns from destert to wetlands at 20,000 year intervals. Not proven by satellite imagery, but by analysis of the floor of the Atlantic west of the Safara. And yes, there hve been archeological finds, the basic early tools and such, as are found in many places. As the area dried, people moved east towards the Nile, again proof of an inability to cope with changes in the environment.

Then you missed the special on The History Channel, Science Channel, and Discovery Channels within the last couple of months. The exact words of the narrator was and I quote " Due to the latest advances in satellite imagery it has been disocered that a river ran thru the Sahara to the Atlantic Ocean and there is strong evidence to suggest that it was at one time The River Nile!" End Quote. This would predate anything Egyptian.

Town and cities, submerged in the Mediterranean? Uh, there are a few, and prior to the spread of "civilization" from the Cretean and others around the Mediterranean, there are few archeological records. And these were not "black" African

Same Documentary same Special...........200 KNOWN villages, towns, and cities under the Med Sea. You can order the video.

[quote name='caffeine' date='22 June 2010 - 12:53 AM' timestamp='1277193209' post='161571']

...could find many more surviving pre-European structures with two minutes search on the internet.[/quote]

And ues, you can find many things on the net. And a lot are untrue.



This argument is similar to the argument that the Egyptians were black Africans. they were not. And the argument serves no purpose. Creating a distant past that is based on myth helps no one in the present day.

The town I grew up in has been there at least 1,500 years, as we know from hisorical records, but there are no buildings much older than a couple of hundred because sandstone isn't very durable. This doesn't tell us much about the level of civillisation of its inhabitants.

There is much about a building that tells of its creation and the skills of the people who build it. I would venture that the historical records of this town are suspect. Very few towns have an historical recrod that goes back that far.



Roman camps from 2000 years ago have been excavated and studied in great detail. We know when they were built, who lived there and for how long. In one such camp found in England they have found scraps of leather with writing that were to be letters home. Archeology is quite detailed and there is a tremendous ability to date items within a very specific time period. Comparisons of style lead to error.

[quote name='Midwest Media Critics' date='22 June 2010 - 10:05 AM' timestamp='1277226330' post='161654']

Then you missed the special on The History Channel, Science Channel, and Discovery Channels within the last couple of months. The exact words of the narrator was and I quote " Due to the latest advances in satellite imagery it has been disocered that a river ran thru the Sahara to the Atlantic Ocean and there is strong evidence to suggest that it was at one time The River Nile!" End Quote. This would predate anything Egyptian.[/quote]

I did see the show, and the narrator took liberties. The wet land area in the sahara didhave rivers that ran north, to the mediterranean. These wetlands were not and are not no, the source of the Nile. Evidence for occupation of the Nile valley goes back mnay, many centuries. The variou smontain ranges (Tibesti, Ahaggar and Atlas) would make such a river going west to the Atlantic problematic.



Archelogical evidence tells us that some 60,000 years ago the Nile River began its yearly inundation of the land along its banks.

[quote name='ArizonaIrish' date='22 June 2010 - 09:01 PM' timestamp='1277233290' post='161674']And ues, you can find many things on the net. And a lot are untrue.



This argument is similar to the argument that the Egyptians were black Africans. they were not. And the argument serves no purpose. Creating a distant past that is based on myth helps no one in the present day.[/quote]



The pictures posted are not obscure conspiracy theories - these are genuine buildings that really are as old as I wrote. It's got nothing to do with the argument that Egyptians were black - it's pretty clear from looking at ancient Egyptian art that there were dark- and light-skinned Egyptians. You were the one using history to support your argument - claiming that African civillisations were incapable of building anything themselves. As we can see by looking at the surviving buildings, and by reading accounts and excavating those that aren't there any more, that's not true.

There is much about a building that tells of its creation and the skills of the people who build it. I would venture that the historical records of this town are suspect. Very few towns have an historical recrod that goes back that far.

Plenty do in England - every town mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon chronicle; or even earlier for those occupied during Roman times.

Roman camps from 2000 years ago have been excavated and studied in great detail. We know when they were built, who lived there and for how long. In one such camp found in England they have found scraps of leather with writing that were to be letters home. Archeology is quite detailed and there is a tremendous ability to date items within a very specific time period. Comparisons of style lead to error.

And Yeha is the only site of three dated by comparison of style. Great Zimbabwe has been radiometrically tested, which the Sankore Madrassah is only 500 years old - we have hiastorical records of its construction.

[quote name='ArizonaIrish' date='22 June 2010 - 03:22 PM' timestamp='1277234551' post='161677']

I did see the show, and the narrator took liberties. The wet land area in the sahara didhave rivers that ran north, to the mediterranean. These wetlands were not and are not no, the source of the Nile. Evidence for occupation of the Nile valley goes back mnay, many centuries. The variou smontain ranges (Tibesti, Ahaggar and Atlas) would make such a river going west to the Atlantic problematic.



Archelogical evidence tells us that some 60,000 years ago the Nile River began its yearly inundation of the land along its banks.

[/quote]

Arizona you were right about the river not being the Nile. I watched the video again and he did not say Nile. He did state that a river did run thru the Sahara all the way to the Atlantic and that the dispute over such was whether it predated anything known to man or was man using such moving herds with the seasons.



Also on the Island of Madagasgar and the Southern Coast of Africa they have discovered Ancient Chinese Remains which Predate anything Persian...in which all know thru History that the Persian Dorias dominated those Oceans and were Allegedly the first navigators. History is now having to be re-written!

It's the white man's fault.