Culture and Race
-
This was taken from http//www.africaresource.com/rasta/2006/12/31/ethiopia-and-the-origin-of-civilization-pt-1-by-john-g-jackson-1939/
Ephorus wrote that "the Ethiopians were considered as occupying all the south coasts of both Asia and Africa,divided by the Red Sea into Eastern and Western Asiatic and African."
Ethiopia and the Origin of Civilization (Pt 1) By John G. Jackson (1939)
Posted in Rastas, Articles by Don Jaide on December 31, 2006.Ethiopia and the Origin of Civilization
A Critical Review of the Evidence of Archaeology, Anthropology, History and Comparative Religion According to the Most Reliable Sources and Authorities
By John G. Jackson (1939)
???????????????????????????
?It is pretty well settled that the city is the Negro?s great contribution to civilization, for it was in Africa where the first cities grew up.? E. Haldeman-Julius?Those piles of ruins which you see in that narrow valley watered by the Nile, are the remains of opulent cities, the pride of the ancient kingdom of Ethiopia. ? There a people, now forgotten, discovered while others were yet barbarians, the elements of the arts and sciences. A race of men now rejected from society for their sable skin and frizzled hair, founded on the study of the laws of nature, those civil and religious systems which still govern the universe.? Count Volney
?The accident of the predominance of white men in modern times should not give us supercilious ideas about color or persuade us to listen to superficial theories about the innate superiority of the white-skinned man. Four thousand years ago, when civilization was already one or two thousand years old, white men were just a bunch of semi-savages on the outskirts of the civilized world. If there had been anthropologists in Crete, Egypt, and Babylonia, they would have pronounced the white race obviously inferior, and might have discoursed learnedly on the superior germ-plasm or glands of colored folk.? Joseph McCabe
???????????????????????????
The late Professor George A. Dorsey noted that ?H. G. Wells? heart beats faster in nearly every chapter of his Outline of History, because he cannot forget that he is Nordic, Aryan, English British, white, civilized.? (Why We Behave Like Human Beings, p. 40.) This patriotic zeal of Mr. Wells? has, in truth, caused him to suppress certain facts that do not fit into his pet theories.In the latest edition of his Outline of History, Mr. Wells ends his chapter on The Early Empires with the following remarks ?No less an authority than Sir Flinders Petrie gives countenance to the idea that there was some very early connection between Colchis (the country to the south of the Caucasus) and prehistoric Egypt. Herodotus remarked upon a series of resemblances between the Colchians and the Egyptians.? (Wells? New and Revised Outline of History, p. 184, Garden City, 1931.)
It would have been proper for Wells to have quoted the remarks of Herodotus, so as to give us precise information on the series of resemblances between the Cholchians and the Egyptians. Why he did not do so we shall now see. In Book II, Section-104, of his celebrated History, Herodotus states ?For my part I believe the Colchi to be a colony of Egyptians, because like them they have black skins and frizzled hair.? (See any English translation of The History of Herodotus. The translation by Professor George Rawlinson is the best. See also W.E.B. DuBois, The Negro, p. 31, and Count Volney?s Travels in Egypt and Syria, Vol. I. pp. 80?81.) After discussing the civilizations of Egypt, Babylonia and India, Wells had already referred to them as a ?triple system of white man civilizations.? (Outline of History, Chap. XIII, Sect. 5, p. 175) On concluding that the civilization of Egypt was a white man civilization, he naturally would be careful not to quote the above passage from Herodotus.
Most history texts, especially the ones on ancient history, start off by telling us that there are either three, four or five races of man, but that of those races only one has been responsible for civilization, culture, progress and all other good things. The one race is of course the white race, and particularly that branch of said race known as the Nordic or Aryan. The reason for this is obvious; the writers of these textbooks are as a rule Nordics, or so consider themselves. However, prejudice alone will not account for this sort of thing. There is a confusion among historians and anthropologists concerning the proper classification of races, and this confusion is used by biased writers to bolster up their preconceptions. It is therefore necessary that we discuss the subject of race classification in a rational manner before proceeding further.
The early scientific classifications of the varieties of the human species were geographical in nature. The celebrated naturalist, Linneaus (1708?177, for instance, listed four races, according to continent, namely (1) European (white), (2) African (black), (3) Asiatic (yellow), and (4) American (red). Blumenback, in 1775, added a fifth type, the Ocieanic or brown race. This classification is still used in some grammar school Geographies, where the races of man are tabulated as Ethiopian (black), Caucasian (white), American (red), Mongolian (yellow) and Malayan (brown).
During the year 1800, the French naturalist, Cuvier, announced the hypothesis that all ethnic types were traceable to Ham, Chem and Japhet, the three sons of Noah. After that date race classification developed into an amazing contest; a struggle which still rages. By 1873, Haeckel had found no less than twelve distinct races of mankind; and to show the indefatigable nature of his researches, he annexed twenty-two more races a few years later, bringing the grand total of human types up to thirty-four. Deniker, in 1900, presented to the world a very imposing system of race classification. He conceived of the human species existing in the form of six grand divisions, seventeen divisions and twenty-nine races. And despite all this industry among anthropologists, ethnologists and the like, there is yet no agreement on the classification of races. Where one anthropologist finds three racial types, another can spot thirty-three without the least difficulty.
The Classifiers of race, however, regardless of how abundantly they disagreed with each other as to the correct groupings of human types, were of unanimous accord in the belief that the white peoples of the world were far superior to the darker races. This opinion in still very popular, but modern science is making it hard for intelligent people to accept the fallacy. Many years ago the German philosopher, Schopenhauer, remarked that, ?there is no such thing as a white race, much as this is talked of, but every white man is a faded or bleached one.? Schopenhauer possessed keen and sagacious foresight on this point. For example, the English scholar, Joseph McCabe, expresses the following view as the consensus of opinion among modern anthropologists ?There is strong reason to think that man was at first very dark of skin, woolly-haired and flat-nosed, and, as he wandered into different climates, the branches of the race diverged and developed their characteristics.? (Key to Culture, No. 11, p. 10.)
Professor Franz Boas, the nestor of American anthropologists, has divided the whole human race into only two divisions. This classification of Boas? is admirably explained by Professor George A. Dorsey
Open your atlas to a map of the world. Look at the Indian Ocean on the west, Africa; on the north, the three great southern peninsulas of Asia on the east, a chain of great islands terminating in Australia. Wherever that Indian Ocean touches land, it finds dark-skinned people with strongly developed jaws, relatively long arms and kinky or frizzly hair. Call that the Indian Ocean or Negroid division of the human race.
Now look at the Pacific Ocean on one side, the two Americas; on the other, Asia. (Geographically, Europe is a tail to the Asiatic kite.) The aboriginal population of the Americas and of Asia north of its southern peninsula was a light-skinned people with straight hair, relatively short arms, and a face without prominent jaws. Call that the Pacific Ocean or Mongoloid division. (Why We Behave Like Human Beings, pp. 44?45.)
Professors A. L. Kroeber and Fay-Cooper Cole are of the opinion that the peoples of Europe have (been) bleached out enough to merit classification as a distinct race. This would add a European or Caucasoid division to the Negroid and Mongoloid races of the classification proposed by Professor Boas. If we accept this three-fold division of the human species, our classification ought to read as follows the races of man are three in number; (1) the Negroid, or Ethiopian or black race; (2) the Mongoloid, or Mongolian or yellow race; and (3) the Caucasoid or European or white race. This is the very latest scheme of race classification.
Now that we have straightened out ourselves on the issue of the classification of races, we may property turn to the main subject matter of this essay, i.e., the ancient Ethiopians and their widespread influence on the early history of civilization. In discussing the origin of civilization in the ancient Near East, Professor Charles Seignobos in his History of Ancient Civilization, notes that the first civilized inhabitants of the Nile and Tigris-Euphrates valleys, were a dark-skinned people with short hair and prominent lips; and that they are referred to by some scholars as Cus***es (Ethiopians), and as Hamites by others.
This ancient civilization of the Cus***es, out of which the earliest cultures of Egypt and Mesopotamia grew, was not confined to the Near East. Traces of it have been found all over the world. Dr. W. J. Perry refers to it as the Archaic Civilization. Sir Grafton Elliot Smith terms it the Neolithic Heliolithic Culture of the Brunet-Browns. Mr. Wells alludes to this early civilization in his Outline of History, and dates its beginnings as far back as 15,000 years B.C. ?This peculiar development of the Neolithic culture,? says Mr. Wells, ?which Elliot Smith called the Heliolithic (sun-stone) culture, included many or all of the following odd practices (1) Circumcision, (2) the queer custom of sending the father to bed when a child is born, known as Couvade, (3) the practice of Massage, (4) the making of Mummies, (5) Megalithic monuments (i.e. Stonehenge), (6) artificial deformation of the heads of the young by bandages, (7) Tattooing, ( religious association of the Sun and the Serpent, and (9) the use of the symbol known as the Swastika for good luck. ? Elliot Smith traces these associated practices in a sort of constellation all over this great Mediterranean / Indian Ocean-Pacific area. Where one occurs, most of the others occur. They link Brittany with Borneo and Peru. But this constellation of practices does not crop up in the primitive home of Nordic or Mongolian peoples, nor does it extend southward much beyond equatorial Africa. ? The first civilizations in Egypt and the Euphrates-Tigris valley probably developed directly out of this widespread culture.? (Outline of History, pp. 141?143).
This ancient civilization is called NEOLITHIC by Wells. This is a mistake; for we have overwhelming evidence that these ancient peoples had long passed out of the New Stone Age stage of culture, and were erecting edifices which could only have been constructed by means of hard metal tools. Iron is the very backbone of civilization, and the Iron Age began very anciently in Africa. The researches of scholars like Boas, Torday and DuBois would lead us to believe that the art of mining iron was first developed in the interior of Africa, and that the knowledge of it passed through Egypt to the rest of the world. (See W.E.B. DuBois, The Negro, pp. 114?116, Home University Library, New York and London, 1915.)
In modern geography the name Ethiopia is confined to the country known as Abyssinia, an extensive territory in East Africa. In ancient times Ethiopia extended over vast domains in both Africa and Asia. ?It seems certain,? declares Sir E. A. Wallis Budge, ?that classical historians and geographers called the whole region from India to Egypt, both countries inclusive, by the name of Ethiopia, and in consequence they regarded all the dark-skinned and black peoples who inhabited it as Ethiopians. Mention is made of Eastern and Western Ethiopians and it is probable that the Easterners were Asiatics and the Westerners Africans.? (History of Ethiopia, Vol. I., Preface, by Sir E. A. Wallis Budge.) In addition Budge notes that, ?Homer and Herodotus call all the peoples of the Sudan, Egypt, Arabia, Palestine and Western Asia and India Ethiopians.? (Ibid., p. 2.)
Herodotus wrote in his celebrated History that both the Western Ethiopians, who lived in Africa, and the Eastern Ethiopians who dwelled in India, were black in complexion, but that the Africans had curly hair, while the Indians were straight-haired. (The aboriginal black inhabitants of India are generally referred to as the Dravidians, of whom more will be said as we proceed.)
Another classical historian who wrote about the Ethiopians was Strabo, from whom we quote the following ?I assert that the ancient Greeks, in the same way as they classed all the northern nations with which they were familiar as Scythians, etc., so, I affirm, they designated as Ethiopia the whole of the southern countries toward the ocean.? Strabo adds that ?if the moderns have confined the appellation Ethiopians to those only who dwell near Egypt, this must not be allowed to interfere with the meaning of the ancients.? Ephorus says that ?The Ethiopians were considered as occupying all the south coasts of both Asia and Africa,? and adds that ?this is an ancient opinion of the of the Greeks.? Then we have the view of Stephanus of Byzantium, that ?Ethiopia was the first established country on earth; and the Ethiopians were the first who introduced the worship of the gods, and who established laws.? The vestiges of this early civilization have been found in Nubia, the Egyptian Sudan, West Africa, Egypt, Mashonaland, India, Persia, Mesopotamia, Arabia, South America, Central America, Mexico, and the United States.
Any student who doubts this will find ample evidence in such works as The Voice of Africa, by Dr. Leo Froebenius; Prehistoric Nations, and Ancient America, by John D. Baldwin; Rivers of Life, by Major-General J. G. R. Forlong; A Book of the Beginnings by Gerald Massey; Children of the Sun and The Growth of Civilization, by W. J. Perry; The Negro by Professor W.E.B. DuBois; The Anacalypsis, by Sir Godfrey Higgins; Isis Unveiled by Madam H. P. Blavatsky; The Diffusion of Culture, by Sir Grafton Elliot Smith; The Mediterranean Race, by Professor Sergi; The Ruins of Empires, by Count Volney; The Races of Europe, by Professor William Z. Ripley; and last but not least, the brilliant monographs of Mr. Maynard Shipley New Light on Prehistoric Cultures and Americans of a Million Years Age. (See also Shipley?s Sex and the Garden of Eden Myth, a collection of essays, the best of the lot being one entitled Christian Doctrines In Pre-Christian America.) These productions of Mr. Shipley, have been issued in pamphlet form in the Little Blue Book Series, published by Mr. E. Haldeman-Julius, of Girard, Kansas.
The efforts of certain historians to classify these ancient Cus***es as Caucasoids does not deceive honest historical students any longer. This may well be illustrated by a passage from the pen of our scholarly friend Bishop William Montgomery Brown ?For the first two or three thousand years of civilization, there was not a civilized white man on the earth. Civilization was founded and developed by the swarthy races of Mesopotamia, Syria and Egypt, and the white race remained so barbaric that in those days an Egyptian or a Babylonian priest would have said that the riffraff of white tribes a few hundred miles to the north of their civilization were hopelessly incapable of acquiring the knowledge requisite to progress. It was southern colored peoples everywhere, in China, in Central America, in India, Mesopotamia, Syria, Egypt and Crete who gave the northern white peoples civilization.? (The Bankruptcy of Christian Supernaturalism, Vol., p. 192.)
Quite a few Egyptologists have defended the idea that the ancient Egyptians originally came from Asia. There never was any evidence to back up this view; and the only reason it was adopted, was because it was fashionable to believe that no African people was capable of developing a great civilization. Geoffrey Parsons refers to Egyptian civilization in his Stream of History, p. 154, New York & London, 1932, as ?genuinely African in its origin and development.? Herodotus came to the same conclusion over 2,000 years ago, but he is not taken seriously by the majority of modern historians, except where his facts agree with certain theories of said historians. Theories are more precious to some scholars than facts, even when the facts flatly contradict their theories.
Dr. Froebenious, the great German anthropologist, has examined the ruins of ancient cultures in southern, eastern and western Africa, of an antiquity rivaling those of Egypt and Sumer. Sir John Marshall and Dr. E. Mackay have uncovered the remains of a great Dravidian civilization in India, which rose to its peak over 5,000 years ago. The newspaper generally report these discoveries as startling and unexpected. They tell us that nobody ever dreamed that these ancient nations ever existed. This novelty, however, does not exist for real students. Anyone familiar with the works of G. Elliot Smith, W. J. Perry, Sir Godfrey Higgins, Dr. H.R. Hall, Sir Henry Rawlinson, John D. Baldwin, Gerald Massey and General Forlong, will not be surprised at the very novel archaeological discoveries announced by the press. Since we are dealing with historical sources and authorities, a study of the researches of Sir Henry Rawlinson, the Father of Assyriology, on the Ethiopians in the ancient East, is in order. The following extract is condensed from an essay entitled On the Early History of Babylonia
The system of writing which they brought with them has the closest affinity with that of Egypt?in many cases indeed, there is an absolute identity between the two alphabets.
In the Biblical genealogies, Cush (Ethiopia) and Mizraim (Egypt) are brothers, while from the former sprang Nimrod (Babylonia.) In regard to the language of the primitive Babylonians, the vocabulary is undoubtedly Cus***e or Ethiopian, belonging to that stock of tongues which in the sequel were everywhere more or less mixed up with the Semitic languages, but of which we have probably the purest modern specimens in the Mahra of Southern Arabia and the Galla of Abyssinia.
All the traditions of Babylonia and Assyria point to a connection in very early times between Ethiopia, Southern Arabia and the cities on the lower Euphrates.
In further proof of the connection between Ethiopia and Chaldea, we must remember the Greek tradition both of Cepheus and Memnon, which sometimes applied to Africa, and sometimes to the countries at the mouth of the Euphrates; and we must also consider the geographical names of Cush and Phut, which, although of African origin, are applied to races bordering on Chaldea, both in the Bible and in the Inscriptions of Darius. (Essay-VI, Appendix, Book-I, History of Herodotus, translated by Professor George Rawlinson, with essays and notes by Sir Henry Rawlinson and Sir J. G. Wilkinson.)The opinions of Sir Henry Rawlinson are reinforced by the researches of his equally distinguished brother, Professor George Rawlinson, in his essay On the Ethnic Affinities of the Races of Western Asia, which directs our attention to ?the uniform voice of primitive antiquity, which spoke of the Ethiopians as a single race, dwelling along the shores of the Southern Ocean from India to the Pillars of Hercules.? (Herodotus, Vol. I., Book. I., Appendix, Essay XI., Section-5.)
Rawlinson adds an explanatory note to this section of his essay, which we here reproduce ?Recent linguistic discovery tends to show that a Cus***e or Ethiopian race did in the earliest times extend itself along the shores of the Southern Ocean from Abyssinia to India. The whole peninsula of India was peopled by a race of their character before the influx of the Aryans; it extended from the Indus along the seacoast through the modern Beluchistan and Kerman, which was the proper country of the Asiatic Ethiopians; the cities on the northern shores of the Persian Gulf are shown by the brick inscriptions found among their ruins to have belonged to this race; it was dominant in Susiana and Babylonia, until overpowered in the one country by Aryan, in the other by Semitic intrusion; it can be traced both by dialect and tradition throughout the whole south coast of the Arabian peninsula.?In addition
John G Jackson in his internet article Ethiopia and the Origin of Civlization published in 1939. He states
?That branch of the human race which may be described as black or dark brown is customarily labeled Negroid, meaning Negro-like. If Negro is disallowed, then Negroid will also have to go, for if the Negro is a mythical concept, then how can anything be likened to a nonexistent entity ? But if we get rid of the term Negro, what will we put in its place ? This is a fair question, and we come forth with a suggestion. In ancient times, black men were called Ethiopians, and why cannot we today, following the usage of modern Anthropology, refer to members of the black race as Ethiopoids, rather than Negroids. ?
-
Though I am way far from being at the level of those historians, but I think there is an error here, and it is due to the usage of "Ethiopia" to allude to a specific country.
The word "ethiopia" is of Greek origin, and consists of two wrods "burn , face", so it is the land of people with black faces, aka blacks, and extends to cover all sub-saharan Africa, far beyond "Ethiopia".
When the arabs came to Africa, they simply tranlated the word "ethiopia" to "bilaadus-sudaan land of the black". With Western colonization and drawing of boarders, Ethiopia kept its name, there were more than one sudan anglo-egyptian sudan (my country), french sudan (chad) and other sudans (mali..etc.) Sudan was the first to gain independence, so it kept the name Sudan minus Anglo-egyptian.
Till now, I have to explain to some people (especially in Egypt (?), Morocco and France) that I am from The Sudan, a country south of Egypt, not from "bilaadu-sudaan"
-
Dear Samia,
You are right, and that is exactly how Ethiopia is used in this article. In the past Ethiopia has either been used for the civilization of Abyssinia and its out-skirts and off-branch civilizations or it has been used for the blacks, i.e. the burnt faces and all their civilizations.
Thanks for that clarification, the use of Ethiopia for one country now in East Africa is purely a modern phenomenon.
In Ethiopia can be either bilaadusudaani or bilaaduzzanji (unless azzanju is considered to be only ONE type of asudaan, i.e. the blacks. Atleast in the old language.)Godbless,
Anwar -
ARABIC IS AN AFRICAN LANGUAGE (Furhter (circumstantial) evidence that the main ancestry of the Arabs (especially linguistically) is originally Africoid, i.e. from the Blacks.
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro-Asiatic_languages
Godbless,
AnwarFrom what I see the sources above and this source prove it all.
I would also like to show that the chart found here http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=13944.15 Columbians are shown to have no African blood at all, that coincides with the few African groups sampled being Africoids from South Africa and Kenya, Madenka, Yoruba, San and Mbuti. These are only a few groups .
But look at the pictures below of Columbians and tell me how this chart can be correct.
http//www.yachana.org/reports/colombia/photos/P3120478.JPG
Black Columbians form a very big percentage (including Mulato Colobians) of the country. About 43 percent. So how can this chart be correct? Even the Native Amerians there have mixed with the blacks there. You see this mix often in Peru.
The fact is that this chart is giving false information for any who knows. The second is that the genes of Africans themselves are different depending on the people so just taking a few genes from a few Africans does not deal with the true constituants of these people. WHy doesn't this map show the Black Australoid of the Indian People or the Asians which is more than obvious? This is why I do not trust in this one genetic chart amongst the many out there.
And the many that might come.Godbless,
Anwar -
lol Hello again Anwar, you've been away for a while, looking for more 'evidence' have we?
Hmpf, after such a long absence I thought you would have come up with something better than more random pictures of black people...
But look at the pictures below of Columbians and tell me how this chart can be correct.
Seriously, I haven't met someone so stubborn as yourself, you're just embarrassing yourself further in an attempt to arrogantly save face whereas the honourable thing to do would be to put your hands up and admit you were wrong.
Look, here's a link to a picture of some white people
http//k43.pbase.com/v3/90/386390/2/47363935.Monday1AugDSC03746.jpg
Go figure!
yes
This is why I do not trust in this one genetic chart amongst the many out there.
And the many that might come.How convenient. Well people can look at my genetic evidence and they can look at your pictures of black people and your links to holiday destinations.
This dispute is over unless you can actually provide something of substance, however I reserve the right to trawl through some more of your garbage on the Bible and 'Quranism' to refute that. Stand by...
One last note - Anwar, you can continue this farce, it doesn't matter much to me, however just remember there are people reading this, take one moment to look at what you're saying and doing, it's completely damaging your image and credibility...
-
Sounds like we have a clear cut racist in here
-
Peace,
Qurayshi says
Look, here's a link to a picture of some white people
http//k43.pbase.com/v3/90/386390/2/47363935.Monday1AugDSC03746.jpg
Go figure!
Are you serious!? wow Are these Colombian white people? You could have atleast have had the dignity to show COLOMBIAN white people. Because the Black people I showed you were actually COLOMBIAN!!! Check out the link where the picture came from.
My opinions about the Bible and the Quran have nothing to do with this topic. So let's keep each topic separate and straight. I really am not afriad of you trying to damage my reputation. Because anyone with a brain can see how I make sense. The travel guide that I used in the past, whether you like it or not or respect it as a source or not was a valid source for pictures of THE WAY PEOPLE LOOK in those areas. The fact that you argue me down because it is a travel guide site shows how much you don't know about the topic. In college I studied about the African Diaspora in latin America. I've met many Colombians, Venezualans, Puerto Ricans, Mexicans and Dominicans and had conversations with them about their respective countries. Did you know that there ARE Black Mexicans in the south of Mexico? But you would probably call me a racist for stating this simple fact that people who are prejudice against Blacks don't like to hear. I actually had a Colombian friend who was doing her thesis on West Colombia. Her parents asked her why she would want to go there or even do a thesis on it. They told her that West Colombia isn't Colombia "It's Africa." I've met blacks from Honduras and Costa Rica (not of Jamaican descent) and all you have to do is watch Laura enough on the Spanish Channel (I think it is only on Telemundo (there are a couple of different stations) and you will see the Black Peruvians.
So whereas I actually know what I'm talking about and show you pictures of the people from these countries you show me genetic charts that aren't even accurate and defy the facts about the people from these countries. So how can you possibly argue with me?
Godbless,
Anwar -
Ahmed,
Who is that comment for? Why don't you stop piggy backing and trying to instigate and actually say what you mean and why you mean it. I demand a full explanation of why you consider me a racist if that comment was towards me, which knowing you I'm sure it was.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Ahmed,
Who is that comment for? Why don't you stop piggy backing and trying to instigate and actually say what you mean and why you mean it. I demand a full explanation of why you consider me a racist if that comment was towards me, which knowing you I'm sure it was.
Godbless,
AnwarHello
well, of course you know whom my comment is directed at, well for me those who talk about the color of our skins are clear cut racists (not in a cream ad though), this is how Australia is, in fact a few years back there was an ad on TV about Sun Block Cream, the ad was using black people because they are immune to sun burn, so the Australian compalined because the ad is racist even though they said nothing wrong about the blacks, and the ad was taken of air
Salam
-
Peace,
Firstly Blacks are not immune to sunburn. I've met some dark "black" people who actually do get sunburn. Which suprised me and I am Afro-American. Not that it is a big deal that you thought that. I am considered black and I had a misconception about my own people.
Secondly, talking about colors does not make you a racist. Not talking about it and worse not wanting to know about the colors of people makes you more of a racist. The Quran says that he made us different colors just like the mountains and that is one of his masterpieces and signs. So if anyone has to deny the colors of humanity to accept them that person is a racist deep in his heart and is fooling himself.
This topic and the one before was not to establish that one strain of humanity (because of their color or any other of their features) is superior to another. That was never my intent and anyone who says that one strain of humanity is superior to another because of their physical features is ungodly. I look at the colors of human beings like that of cows (an animal I find to be beautiful), there are jet black cows, white cows, brown cows, brownish-red cows,long ears, long faces, short faces, etc., etc. You wouldn't look at one cow and judge it superior than another just because of its colors would you? Neither would I. But if we talk about each other with respect for all that God has created, and able to find beautify in all God has created than that is the absence of racism.
I titled the topic race and culture because my concerns were not about the races of people alone but the cultures of our different races that have hidden facts and obvious truths and tried to undermine them because of lack of appropriate study, and therefore call that lack of proof. As well as biased studies that hide truths.
My main comment was that the Arabs, East Indians, South East Asians, North Africans and Mediterraneans are all ancient strains of Mulatoes and Negroid/Mongoloid strains.
That proof lies in old history books, in the remnants of blacks in these areas who were not brought by the slave trade and most importantly in the faces of the people.
Qurayshi would deny the fact that Spaniards have significant African blood in them and term them a "White", a Caucasiod race. When despite their looks they have enveloped within the past 500 years a number of African lineages, from the time of the Moors until the end of the slave trade. One of the sites that I listed detailed what mixtures result in depending on the proportion which falls right in line with why mediterranean people look like they do. The Inquisition purposely kicked about brown folk and persecuted them during the inquisition all in the name of keeping one's blood-line Christian (The Jews and Muslim Moors came from Africa).
He would try to deny the Blackness of the Ancient Egyptians by weakly saying that they were not all Black, but failing to point to the fact that in the beginning Egpyt was all black and in its later days became mixed with Greeks, Persians, Romans and Arabs creating the Arab look of the Coptic Christians today and the Mixed look of many Southern Egpytians who actually are still considerd to be black(had they mixed a litlte more they would have perfectly fit in with what Qurayshi would call the Caucasian Egyptians being apart of the Greater (as in wider) White Race.)
The Arabs are also a product of this ancient mixing between different Negroid elements and Caucasiod element from the North. That is why Arabs in the North (where mixing with Caucasins was more intense) tend to be lighter than Arabs in the south (where mixing was RELATIVELY less intense).
Indians are of this same mixture and you can find this even in their literature which NORTHERN more caucasian indians only try to deny. The Australoid element of the Negroid strain of humanity dominated this area thousand of years ago even into China and in the South East Asian Islands. And all that I am saying here has evidence form ancient sayings of Chinese, African Arabs and Greeks and Romans. All of these Negroid Elements mixed in with Caucasion and Mongloid elements to form the Arabs, North Africans, Indians, and South East Asians that we have today.
But the cover up of all this, by the relatively recent successful cultures of Caucaisan strains of humanity(the Northern Indians and the Europeans) is not new at all. There was a French book, I'll find the title, published by Egpytologists back in the 1800's that stated that it was unbelievable to them that the same Negroes that were in slavery on a grand scale now were the same people who originated civilization (Egypt in particular). Of course these weren't exactly the same people but they recognzied that the Ancient Egyptians were a strain of the Negroid people and this part of the book was edited out in the American version(there is even more modern genetic evidence for the Negroid identity of Ancient Egyptians). I have shown enough evidence (which to Qurayshi may not constitute proof) of what an established mulatoe strain of people looks like and the obvious similarity between Mulato communites that we are sure of, and those of Mulato Communities who's mixtures occurred ages ago. I have demonstrated that the Negroid people are split up into sub elements, Congoid, Capoid, Veddoid and Australoid, all of which have distinct genes from each other, but which doesn't make them any less Negroid.
Qurayshis objection deep in his heart is that the Congoid group of the Negroid group be credited with the formation of the basis of any ancient peoples and be seen as elements of the Negroid group with common origins with Australoids and Veddoids (he has no problem with Capoids as they are found on the African continent). He would love to limit the influence of Negroids, especially the Congoids to Subsaharan African so he would point to evidence that would try to make Australiods & Veddoids a separate race from the Congoids but not question the Capoids at all. And as for the Negroid groups like the Mahris and other groups still found in the Middle east and where slavery is not their answer, he is silent on these topic (he just says that I am distorting the works that show the evidence of the people and their origin in these lands). Yet he will contine to call my claim BS and horse manure and the like. In the end, (which made this conversation so explosive) he did not have the tact to disagree tastfully. As I could just as easliy call his views White Supremacist horse-manure back up by Historiacal White Supremacist thinking as well. But I have not and am not. Because that would be impolite, rude, tasteless and in the end contraindicative to progessive conversation.
In the end, despite al-Jaahiz' (the ancient Black Arab scholar who affirms the extent of Blacks(Negoids) all over the world and especially in the Middle East and the role that Blacks played in the formation of the Arabs) over the board comments about the superiority of blacks, my argument has always been that it is the mixing of Caucasion elements, mongoloid elements and Negroid elements that created the races of southern Asia today. And my only objection is that with the Black Elements playing the earliest and in most cases funamental roles in the establishment of these civilizations how can these people look down on Blacks in any way or form? This wave of thinking also happens in Latin America over and over again, because the Conquerers were the (Iberian) Spaniards and Portuguese Caucasians(though they also had known African blood), so that any Latino that can pass for white (in Most cases White Hispanic which is different than Western European white of US and Europe) will be glad to do this(Mexicans are especially bad about this). And if they can forget about their blackness or its origin in Africa they are happy to do it, despite the fact that they would not be what they are if it weren't for those Africans as well (Mexicans are more Native American than African (except in the south) though Northern Mexicans still have an African element). You don't know how many Black dominicans (with Spaniard and Native American blood) who play the most African Music you've ever heard would rather say that it is Taino Native American music instead of Black. You'll find Cubans to be the opposite, they could be the most White Cubans you've ever seen but they even know what group of Africans are there ancestors down to the tee. In the streets they even speak a African Spanish dialect originating from the Calabari people of Africa who were taken there, among the many other groups of Africans. So I found it funny when Quraishi said that I did not know who I was when I said I could pass for a Latino or an Arab (from North Africa or Southern Egypt ). When I'm not the one who told these things to myself. Others (Arabs and Hispanics) asked me if I was of this origin. I know this Arab Egyptian guy who claimed that this Black American looked like he was Arab and NOT African. Do you see the racism here. This guy is jet black and most likely because of native American ancestry his nose is very straight (however there unmixed Africans who look like this though they are not usually found from west African strains(check out how the British tricked the Watutsi's into thinking they were really Caucasian because of their thin noses and thin lips despite being unmixed blacks to cause dissension). He couldn't rap his brain around the fact that many Arabs look like Black Africans. And that is for a reason. As much as I despise Bin Laden I see a light skinned American black man every time I see him.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace,
Here are two interesting sources that have to do with the topic
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egypt_and_race
http//www.catchpenny.org/race.html
I found the second one funny. He first goes into a long speal about how race is not real, which is what all people who can't come to terms with the negroidness/blackness of ancient Egyptians do(it is more than obvious that we are all just different breeds of human beings. No one said that different races means different species. I find that this reveals the true mindset of many Eurocentric Caucasians rather than trying to clear up some misconception that non-caucasians who support Egypt's blackness have.) In the end he offers a (in my opinion) bogus theory about how Egypt became blacker because of the Southern Nubians intermixing with them. Something which is ridiculous and only a resort to still try to claim that Egpyt was originally Caucasiod (or atleast not orignally Negroid). He muddles all that back-treddling all to say plainly in the middle of his article
"That the Egyptians by and large were dark is certain, and many must have been what we today call "black.""
Well that is the whole point of anyone who claims that Egyptians were black! So it is seems that those who claim the opposite are assuming that those who claim this are assuming something that they really aren't. This has to do with the "true negro" theory which you will read about in the wikipedia excerpt and below.
He also gives pictures to prove it.
Let me say this, to all those who don't believe that the Egypitans were black basing their opinions on the fact the ancient Egyptians weren't "true negroes" this falsness has to stop. The issue of the true negro has not been proven at all, as there are many different types of negros that do not fit into the true-negro form, without any proof of mixing. We know there are different types of negroes, but why is it that when Egypt comes up Eurocentrists (and those with Eurocentric residue) will all of a sudden change their definition of black for the ancient Egyptian while they continue to call Black Americans, Sudanese, Somalis etc. black when they describe these people who always don't look like their imaginary "true negro."
In my opinion as I stated before the original egyptians and other populations in the Middle east were orignally black and through the tides of history became mixed in with Caucasiod groups. In some cases this was an indirect mix as these negro populations mixed in with groups that had already mixed between Negro and Caucasiod and had this mix stabilized (Many places in Latin America are clear examples of this stablization and even when this stablizations mixes with a more "pure" negro type). The copts who are historically obviously a mixture of negro and caucasian are in many ways identical to the Arabs (of the peninsula) and others (like east indians) of whom this mixture is either unknown or denied.
There are many people (especially Eurocentric (purposefully or passively) who still don't understand how mixed races between Negros and Caucasians really are and would rather see them as a totally distinct race, unless it has to do with issues of society and civilizaton. That mixed person will become Caucasian if he is bringing something great to society and negro when he has nothing to offer society (except his labor), or in attempts to keep the Caucasian race pure. He is a totally different race if there is a fear that his mixed race may relate to the more Negroid groups and create some sort of real influence contrary to current or historical Eurocentric trends.
I continue to be amazed by my fellow Cauciasian brothers with a Eurocentric mindset who are confused when they come accross black latinos or just ignore and label them as totally separate from other blacks. The same goes for Arabs. My wife's mother is an obvious black latino and her father an obvious mulato hispanic (which is the more dominant as a whole in the Latino scheme, though it depends on the area). My fellow Caucasian brothers usually think that they are different races and are shocked when it is made obvious to them that they are the same people.
That is because the Negroid-Caucasiod mix is a continuation of the Negroid race, sharing features from both to varying degrees. I only say that they are a continuation of the Negroid race because in our recent history any mixture of the two where Negroid ancestry is obvious is still considered a grade of Black/Negro. The fact is that this mixture depending on the degree of mixture and the way in which it stablizes in that mixed population can produce a number of different looking populations from more negroid, to more caucasiod and every possiblity in between. That variabilty is also represented within one population if the mixture is not stabilized (though is is never absolutely stablized). What stands true is that each group(the negro and caucasian) leaves its mark either minimally, significantly or predominantly on the mixed group.
This is important because recognizing that Ancient Egyptians were black (remember we are not limiting black to some "true negroid" that doesn't even really exist) has two effects. It exposes that Historians have had a Eurocentric view on history and have been trying to cover up the blackness of Ancient Egyptians (despite what the ancient romans and greeks said) because they have not been able to stand that Blacks (the same kinds of people they consider black today) really had any monumental role in the development of human society, including European society. It also helps those blacks who have believed that their ability in life was limited somehow by their features and ethnicity realize that this is completely false.
All that stuff about melanin making superior people and Caucasians being naturally weak is ridiculous falsehood from the part of Afrocentrists. Afrocentrism is really no more historically just in it's meaning than Eurocentrism. The truth is that despite some genetic differences (which can be positive or negative) which do occur in some populations of Negros and Caucausians due to genetic drift or concentration (and which can be undone as well by widening the genetic pool) you will not be physically superior unless you train your body, nor mentally superior unless you train your mind and study hard and think, whether you have an abundance of melanin or a dearth of it.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace,
Here is a very interesting article on the Arab nations
http//www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=24981
I stumbled upon this as I looked for linguistic evidences to connec Somali, Soqotri, Mahri and Himyarite. In the article there is evidence that Yemenis are not more than than mainly an African and Persian mix, with remnants of the original african still present in isolated Areas and throughout the gulf states and the island of soqotra.
These people made up a big constitution of the Arabs.
Check out this article as well
http//www.unilorin.edu.ng/newsite/INUAGLECTURES/abubakre.pdf
If you want to read the Html version do a google search using these words
hajjam Arabic yoruba hausa
Godblesss,
AnwarReading carefully you will see evidence for this as well as Yemenis migrated north, and how ge'ez had to be used to interpret south Arabic.
I still haven't been able to make the Somali, Himyarite, Soqotri and Mahri connection. Hopefully I can get some good information on these issues.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace,
Here is a very interesting article on the Arab nations
http//www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=24981
I stumbled upon this as I looked for linguistic evidences to connec Somali, Soqotri, Mahri and Himyarite. In the article there is evidence that Yemenis are not more than than mainly an African and Persian mix, with remnants of the original african still present in isolated Areas and throughout the gulf states and the island of soqotra.
These people made up a big constitution of the Arabs.
Check out this article as well
http//www.unilorin.edu.ng/newsite/INUAGLECTURES/abubakre.pdf
If you want to read the Html version do a google search using these words
hajjam Arabic yoruba hausa
Godblesss,
AnwarReading carefully you will see evidence for this as well as Yemenis migrated north, and how ge'ez had to be used to interpret south Arabic.
I still haven't been able to make the Somali, Himyarite, Soqotri and Mahri connection. Hopefully I can get some good information on these issues.
Godbless,
AnwarSalaam alaykum.
It is true that the Yemeni are mixed with Africans. I am Somali, my country is close to Yemen (takes less than a day to boat there) and Somalia and Yemen dispute about the rightful ownership of island of Socotra (it's "Socotra" or "Soqotra" not "Soqotri". Anyways, I've met many Yemeni individuals who I mistook for being Somali. And I've never mistaken anyone but Eritreans, Nubians, and Ethiopians as being Somali (and one Kenyan woman who belonged to a tribe who was originally from Somalia or Oromo). They sometimes look startingly like Somalis, but the difference is that they are characteristically and proportionately shorter than us on average. Those on Soqotra do speak Arabic, some speak Somali as well. Their traditional dress is that of a macawiis (strictly a Somali cultural clothing, the Yemeni and Arabs do not wear this), and they do look very much Somali much of the time. So it's clear that they have both Somali and Yemeni ancestry. Yemen is also in dispute over another island with Eritrea. I forgot its name but I believe it's in the same situation as Soqotra. The Yemeni are descended from Somalis and Eritreans (Eritrea used to be part of Ethiopia by the way, in case someone tries to include Ethiopians in this) as well as Arabs and/or Persians.
-
I forgot to add that at one point, the former empire that Ethiopians ruled was mighty. It at one point conquered Egypt. It may have always ruled Yemen, during Queen Sheba's time (who was Ethiopian), as people sometimes argue that she was Yemeni but she was Ethiopian. The effects Africans have on Yemeni people and culture (ie. their customs, way of socializing, etc) is clear as well as on their features.
-
Peace,
I think some of you are forgetting that the Arabs were originally black and mostly woolly haired (except for tribes like the Shanuwah/Izdashanuwah who were very black but had straight hair. Aboriginal/purer Arabs are still black and mostly woolly haired and can still be found in significant numbers in the Gulf, Saudi Arabia, yemen, Oman, Kuwait and Southern Iraq. www.savethetruearabs.com You can also check out these videos
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=mff_vwfi_o4
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOXF3IsrB70
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzTtV0tLrco
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=nN50GXtyI8M
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvJ0F299kFQ
I also have a long list of quotes from lisanul-arab to post for anyone who reads Arabic. The Somalis are related to the aboriginal Arabs. Their indigenous cultures are also strikingly similar. ALso the ancient Egypians claimed to have come from Punt and the are Ethiopia which they callled the land of the gods. All Roman observers said that the ancient Egyptians were black adn wooly haired like the Ethiopians.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace,
I think some of you are forgetting that the Arabs were originally black and mostly woolly haired (except for tribes like the Shanuwah/Izdashanuwah who were very black but had straight hair. Aboriginal/purer Arabs are still black and mostly woolly haired and can still be found in significant numbers in the Gulf, Saudi Arabia, yemen, Oman, Kuwait and Southern Iraq. www.savethetruearabs.com You can also check out these videos
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=mff_vwfi_o4
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOXF3IsrB70
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzTtV0tLrco
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=nN50GXtyI8M
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvJ0F299kFQ
I also have a long list of quotes from lisanul-arab to post for anyone who reads Arabic. The Somalis are related to the aboriginal Arabs. Their indigenous cultures are also strikingly similar. ALso the ancient Egypians claimed to have come from Punt and the are Ethiopia which they callled the land of the gods. All Roman observers said that the ancient Egyptians were black adn wooly haired like the Ethiopians.
Godbless,
AnwarAgreed, except that the Land of Punt is modern-day Somalia, specifically the Puntland region which is located in northeast Somalia, as the frankincense that the Egyptians traded for with the Puntites is native only to that region. My mother and aunts regularly use that incense, it's like an ordinary everyday thing for them, which those ancient people use to covet.
-
Secondly, talking about colors does not make you a racist.
Thank you. I wish people would talk about it.
I think it's giving into a mind game to continue to fear the subject.However, if we do all come from Africa, originally, I think it's kind of pointless to sit and go on and on about it
....especially with people pushing the Africa theory and then coming out and saying well, such and such a people
are of a different race, etc.If you split white light with a prism, you get a rainbow.
But light comes from darkness. Mysteries aren't meant to make us stumble.... they're meant to be mysteries.