posted
How about using an African language isolate, so that no African will have a 'problem' with it because no one know a darn thing about its relation to their own languages! Posts: 26413 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
We should also make clear the distinctions between Hausa and Kiswahili; > Hausa (a so-called "Afro-Asiatic" language) has become the lingua franca of West Africa do to Hausa imperialism (largely and ironically fostered by the Fulani people). The Great Hausa kingdoms actually imposed this language in the region by the fact of the dominance of the Hausa-Fulani kingdoms...
I'd caution that West Africa is too complex for broad generalizations. Hausa is "a" lingua franca of West Africa, it is not "the" lingua franca of West Africa. While it may seem subtle or trivial, there is a big difference between the two claims.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why not Arabic?, it's the largest and most spread language that is spoken in Africa
Posts: 25 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Djehuti, Many Somali speak swahili, and all Somalis who live in Kenya speak swahili. Swahili is not viewed as a Bantu language by East Africans, it is viewed as a universal language in that part of Africa...It's like English in the West...it's a language used for trading and efficient communication....It is an official language in the African Union and they are planning to make it the only African official language...it's almost there...Kiswahili will be the African language...But I'm wondering whether it will be easy to introduce it in west Africa... By the way here's an article from the BBC website: Swahili baffles African leaders
Few African leaders could understand the Swahili A summit of African leaders was thrown into confusion when Mozambique's president addressed the meeting in an African language - Swahili. Officials scrambled around looking for interpreters and President Joaquim Chissano offered to translate himself.
The African Union uses Arabic, French, English and Portuguese in its summits.
Mr Chissano said he made his farewell address as AU chairman in Swahili to further the AU pledge to promote African identity and languages.
Swahili is spoken by around 100 million people in East Africa and there are moves to add it to the list of official languages.
But Mr Chissano is not a native Swahili-speaker.
Reuters news agency reports that most African leaders and ambassadors were baffled, unable to understand what he was saying.
I don't think all of Africa must be expected to speak Swahili
Kajaw, Boston After his speech, Sudan's ambassador to Ethiopia announced that Nigeria's Olusegun Obasanjo had been elected as the next AU chairman, noting that his speech would be in "another African language"– Arabic
posted
^Incorrect, Swahili is a Bantu language with many loanwords from Arabic.
It does not matter anyway since Arabic as an Afrasian language is ultimately of black African origin itself! LOLPosts: 26413 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you for the credit Wally, I think we should all be humble in the face of the giant Goliath obstacles Africa is up against (mostly from other Africans in and out of power) It is true Hausa is is spoken by a large group of people in west Africa, I don’t know the number but the totally amount of Hausa people is around 40 million, in Niger, Nigeria, Cameroon, Benin, and Ghana primarily, and even though the Fulani language (10-15 million people primarily in Cameroon, but all across west Africa from Ghana, Sierra Leone to Senegal) is totally different from Hausa most speak it as a second language, if we consider all the other second hand speakers the number may be 80 million or so. Despite this large number of Hausa speakers the reality on the group is that the majority of people who speak Hausa are the “tribal people know as Hausa” who are 40 million strong (it is their language), and have been muslims for over five hundred years. We should stop kidding ourselves with Hausa. As Supercat briefly but clearly stated “West Africa is too complex for broad generalizations. Hausa is "a" lingua franca of West Africa, it is not "the" lingua franca of West Africa.” Therefore I would respectfully disagree with and say someone is being unreasonable if they would raise Hausa is an option for a Pan-African language and let alone for a ECOWAS (west African) official language. Do you know the kind of hatred that exist between the northern muslim Hausa and the southern Yoruba/Ibo Christians in Nigeria who number around 40 million themselves (people remember the Biafra wars, were hundreds of thousands of Ibo lost their lives or just five or when in the 80‘s Hausa were killing Yoruba non-muslims in the north). What about the distrust of the northern Fulani of Cameroon, by the Southern Bantus. As Wally stated “Hausa (a so-called "Afro-Asiatic" language) has become the lingua franca of West Africa do to Hausa imperialism (largely and ironically fostered by the Fulani people). The Great Hausa kingdoms actually imposed this language in the region by the fact of the dominance of the Hausa-Fulani kingdoms.” This legacy of slave raids, forced conversion, and taking of land and property of non-Hausa-Fulani non-muslim west Africans is still deep within West Africa psyche (why wouldn’t it be), and its translated in this deep hatred and suspision of the Hausa-Fulani, their language (Hausa) and culture (Islam). THIS IS REAL. We all know when you take someone’s language you become subordinate to them. Now why would any non Hausa-Fulani non-Muslim ever opt to voluntarily become subordinate to a group of people and a language which has in the past subjected them by force.
In light of all this reality no one can reasonably raise Hausa as a potential pan-African language. Djehuti what problems do people or for our purpose Africans have with Bantus that would stop Kiswahili from being a Pan-African language. No people or better yet Africans had a problem would they voted in the AU to make Kiswahili one of the official languages of the African Union (the others being all white and one Arabic languages). Why didn’t the pick Hausa or Zulu , I don’t think its because people or Africans have a problem with the Hausa or the Zulu. Its simply because these languages are still tribal languages (no matter who lingua franca they get they are still culturally tied to their tribe). It does not matter how many non-tribal people speaks the language, it matters how large is the attachment to the original tribe. This is not the case with Kiswahili, the 10th or so most spoken language in the ENTIRE WORLD (globalization is serious man) with only over 200,000 thousand Swahili “TRIBAL” members, and over a 100 million “AFRICAN” speaks (from all branches of Africas languages family, Bantus, who speak over a 100 different languages (niger-congo), Luo, Acholi Dinka, Masaai, etc.. (Nilotes), Somali (Afro-Asian) (thanks Mullah’s Revenge). Take a look at the African leaders who speak or spoke it. Lumumba, (Congo) Nyrere (Tanzania), Kenyetta,(Kenya) Mandela, (South Africa) Chissano (Mozambique), Garang (Southern Sudan), Museveni (Uganda), Kagame (Rwanda). Non of their leaders or their people are part of the Waswahili tribe. Djehuti “the “African language isolate” you are looking for is already here, Kiswahili. None of these African leaders are the millions of their people (Southen Sudan’s Nilotic people, Rwanda’s tutsis, Kenyas Somali etc…) have a problem with this language, and Hikuptah, Kiswahili has lost its tribal chains a long time ago. “How about using an African language isolate, so that no African will have a 'problem' with it because no one know a darn thing about its relation to their own languages” The real argument should be concerning Kiswahili and Ancient Egyptian language, and how do we manage the old with the new.
Posts: 6 | From: Philadelphia, PA | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sudan is an Arab country: Swahili was created by Arabs and around 60% of it's words are Arabic
That is a pure lie and falsification that is typical of the Arab chauvinism that is prevalent throughout the Arab in Africa community. Such arrogance and propoganda by Arabs and the colonial Europeans before them has turned into the false truth of too many Africans who I speak to. The sad thing is the Arabs actually believe this . That everything great in Africa comes from the Arabs. First of all languages are not "created," by people not even Arabs. Second of all your comment shows you know very little about language, grammer, Kiswahili, and especially the Bantu subgroup of the Niger-Congo languages. Kiswahili as a Bantu language existed on the coast of east Africa (just as any othe language exists anywhere else)was and still is grammetically completely 100 percent as Bantu as my "tribal" language Kikongo from Angola/Congo, and iSizulu of South Africa. Kiswahili has less Arabic (less then 30 percent)loanwords/borrowed words(look up the defintion of loan words by Arabic brother, it implies that a language already exists), then English has Latin/French words,(around 70 percent) but nobody would say English was created by the French or by Latin speaking people(Norman Conquest 1066), and nobody would say that before the conquest English did not exist. If nobody says this about English a language whoses vocabulty is over 2/3 Latin/French how can someone say these about Kiswahili (a language with less then 30 percent arab loans) other then because they are display the typical crude traits of Arab chauvisim.
Posts: 6 | From: Philadelphia, PA | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Northeast quadrant of Africa however was clearly an early meeting place for many if not most of the ancestors of contemporary groups of Super Saharan Africans. The works of several contemporary African linguist (some of this board) has made it clear that Bantu was foundational to the ancient Kemetic language. I don't buy into the whole Afro-Asiatic nonsense, because it has not been reconstructed to a common ancestor. When that Western impedance to logic is taken out of the equation, and the data simply speaks for itself (linguistically) we see that there is are direct relationships that links Bantu's to ancient Kemet. That fact coupled with this DNA evidence (that many people for some reason the HEAVY implications of) is all that should needed to sounded say that the Western narrative for how Africa was peopled is a crock of shit.
The only place that many of these cultural traits were practiced was in Kemet-Nubia, so when people say that the common "Saharan" origin of these people, and customs there is no evidence of this being practiced in the Saharan.
Rulers Depicted as Giants
Notice how both the Kemetic pharaoh and Dahomey king are depicted as giant rulers, and have one hand sticking out while being served by smaller humans. More proof of this diffusion of people and culture from the Hapi Valley into interior regions of Africa is shown in the appearance of the ancient Kemetic spiritual system being shown in these other African cultures. The Osirian crock and flail were sported by the kings of inner Africa. Notice that the Dahomey king holds the traditional Osirion Crock while the ancient Kemetic figure holds the Flail. It's also note worthy...that the color scheme of the Dahomey (Nigeria) are not depicting "black skinned" people despite us knowing that these people were/are still melaninated "black" Africans. It's also worth noting how these little Damomey citizens are shaped very similarly (even pointy noses) to how the ancient Mesopotamians depicted themselves.
posted
Ish you are correct. Mainstream history is not really telling us the truth about the history of Egypt. Much of what has been written attempts to center Egypt with Western Europe instead of SubSaharan Africa
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Ish you are correct. Mainstream history is not really telling us the truth about the history of Egypt. Much of what has been written attempts to center Egypt with Western Europe instead of SubSaharan Africa
The Western establishment has an issue with acknowledging that the Bantu in particular was at the center of this civilization. If they do attribute African influence they will attempt to confine it almost strictly to the confines of those Africans who are apart of the made up "Afro-Asiatic"/Hamitic-Semetic languages. They may acknowledge some contemporary East African populations like the Skilluk and other Nilotes, but the Bantu is clearly a no no. They will point us to a made up migration that they claim started in West Africa to keep our interest away from ancient Kemet. The evidence above speaks for itself.
Posts: 160 | From: Ga | Registered: Jun 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Budge was one of the founding fathers of Egyptology, the other more popular one being Flinders Petrie. While Petrie's specialty was archaeology Budge's specialty was philology and it was he who advocated for Egypt's African foundation. It was in part because of him that I became interested in Egypt's African identity. He even makes analogues with Nilotic culture and even Bantu culture as well.
Posts: 26413 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2730 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: I think this may not be available elsewhere on the internet, so save a file
_________________________________________
Wallis Budge
Book Title: Egypt
London: Thornton Butterworth, 1925 London: Williams & Norgate, 1925 New York: Holt, 1925
It's interesting information, but wrought with flaws and biased. The labels of peoples are meant to make them and black mutually exclusive. To say they weren't black they were "Semites" (in his context of the word) is fallacious when we know that the Lemba Bantu's of Southern Africa were "Semites" who have a history in the so called "near east". He uses the word "Libyan" to make it appear mutually exclusive with black;
The so called "Libyan" or "Berber" pharaohs are also Negroes. It's all word and name games with THEM folks. He uses the word "Mediterranean" as mutually exclusive from Negroes. When in reality..
“Mediterranean” is an anthropological euphemism for “Negro”. - Anthropologist Wyatt MacGaffey
The Eastern desert dwellers we know from a linguistic standpoint were Cushitic speaking Africans. That's interesting because another poster relayed the fact that from the evidence presented on the matter Cushitic speakers (Somalis, Ethiopians etc) were for the most part nomads on the peripherals of Kemet. That makes it even more absurd to see people trying to tie them and them exclusively with the Africanity of ancient Kemet. Case and point the Bantu is the center piece of ancient Kemetic civilization, and all which sprung from it. There is clearly an agenda....to hide or misconstrue this FACT for whatever reason. It's no longer "debatable", and in fact a debate will seen and treated as disrespect for our people at this point.
Posts: 160 | From: Ga | Registered: Jun 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Budge was one of the founding fathers of Egyptology, the other more popular one being Flinders Petrie. While Petrie's specialty was archaeology Budge's specialty was philology and it was he who advocated for Egypt's African foundation. It was in part because of him that I became interested in Egypt's African identity. He even makes analogues with Nilotic culture and even Bantu culture as well.
Its interesting that Petrie in some ways backs Budge, having analyzed and recorded some foundational parallels between Egyptians and other Africans.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5935 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
“Mediterranean” is an anthropological euphemism for “Negro”. - Anthropologist Wyatt MacGaffey
that is not a proper quote, always check original sources
this is a 54 year old quote and he was talking about Diop
quote: Papers in African Prehistory edited by J. D. Fage, R. A. Oliver
Journal of African History, vn, I (1966), pp. 1-17 CONCEPTS OF RACE IN THE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF NORTHEAST AFRICA Wyatt MacGaffey
(excerpt)
It is clear that 'the Brown or Mediterranean race* is an extremely imprecise concept. Its survival is to be attributed to its ideological usefulness, no small part of which lies in its ambiguity. In a word, it is a myth. In his study of myths, Levi-Strauss observes that their structure is a dual one, purporting simultaneously to describe past events and everlastingly recurrent patterns.10 Mythopoeic thought begins with ideas which the mythmakers apprehend as antithetical, and seeks to resolve the contradiction by developing mediators between the opposed pairs. Mediating ideas are typically ambiguous, as their logical function demands. The properties of the Brown race concept are clearly revealed by the use made of it by Cheikh-Anta Diop.11 Diop seeks to exalt African culture; although his conclusions are intended to contradict those of traditional European historiography, his methods are identical. When Diop observes, on the subject of the races of Egypt, that' Mediterranean' is an anthropologist's euphemism for 'Negroid', he is very nearly right, in the sense that the term represents an effort to associate a whole range of peoples and their achievements with the Caucasian ideal, while glossing over their dubious correspondence with the Caucasoid physical type. Similarly, he is correct in saying:
Les anthropologues ont invente la notion ingenieuse, commode, fictive du ' vrai Negre' qui leur permet de classer au besoin tous les Negres reels de la terre comme de faux Negres, se rapprochant plus au moins d'une sorte d'arch&ype de Platon, sans jamais l'atteindre.12
On his part, he is confident that the ancient Egyptians were Negroes; even if, as the centuries passed, they grew steadily lighter in colour, they remained none the less Negroes. Indeed,
La seule conclusion scientifique conforme aux faits est que la premiere humanity, c'est-a-dire les tout premiers Homo sapiens, etaient des 'negroi'de
It is generally agreed that from the beginning of the Predynastic period the population of Lower Egypt was a general Mediterranean type specifically similar to all subsequent populations of that area; and that at some point to the south this type gave way to an African Negro type. Argument centres on the nature and location of the boundary, whether the Uoper Egyptian populations at different periods were substantially indigenous, and what were their relations with Nubia. These questions are important not only for Egyptian history but also for the investigation of Egyptian influence on the rest of Africa, and vice versa, at different periods.
The point of these citations, selected from an extensive literature which affords many more, is not to decide by a sort of ballot whether the population of Nubia at any given period was or was not Negro, or whether ' the Hamitic element predominated'. The point is to show the extent of disagreement among competent authorities, even among those who share the view that races are either 'pure' or 'mixed'. Dogmatic assertions that a people are 'really' Negroes or 'really' something else evidently cannot be based, in this case at least, on the ostensible facts. In a more general context, all such statements must be regarded as inherently incapable of proof, and as dependent for their meaning upon the idealistic assumption
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Originally posted by Rain King: “Mediterranean” is an anthropological euphemism for “Negro”. - Anthropologist Wyatt MacGaffey
quote: that is not a proper quote, always check original sources
this is a 54 year old quote and he was talking about Diop
made of it by Cheikh-Anta Diop.11 Diop seeks to exalt African culture; although his conclusions are intended to contradict those of traditional European historiography, his methods are identical. When Diop observes, on the subject of the races of Egypt, that' Mediterranean' is an anthropologist's euphemism for 'Negroid', he is very nearly right, in the sense that the term represents an effort to associate a whole range of peoples and their achievements with the Caucasian ideal, while glossing over their dubious correspondence with the Caucasoid physical type. Similarly, he is correct in saying:
So MacGaffey interpreted and characterized Diop's work in his own wording, and then directly acknowledges the truth behind that argument's characterization.
Posts: 160 | From: Ga | Registered: Jun 2020
| IP: Logged |
To say they weren't black they were "Semites" (in his context of the word) is fallacious
You are mistaken. The quote says they were not Semites.
Who is they? What was being pointed out is the name game in case you missed that. The attempts say they were not black because they were .... as though black is mutually exclusive the respective population.
Posts: 160 | From: Ga | Registered: Jun 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: I think this may not be available elsewhere on the internet, so save a file
_________________________________________
Wallis Budge
Book Title: Egypt
London: Thornton Butterworth, 1925 London: Williams & Norgate, 1925 New York: Holt, 1925
Budge's specialty was philology which is language and cultural affinity NOT physical anthropology. In the work above he merely cites what the experts in the field of physical anthropology were saying. That still doesn't change the fact that Budge likens many features of the Egyptian language to Nilotic languages i.e. Nilo-Saharan and that he finds cultural analogues in either Nilotic or Bantu!
And you know this Lioness because I cited just a few examples of comparisons Budge makes between Egyptian and Bantu beard styles in a thread that you deleted out of embarrassment.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26413 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
To say they weren't black they were "Semites" (in his context of the word) is fallacious
You are mistaken. The quote says they were not Semites.
Who is they? What was being pointed out is the name game in case you missed that. The attempts say they were not black because they were .... as though black is mutually exclusive the respective population.
"They" are the Egyptians referred to by Budge in the first paragraph of page 23.
You said this says the Egyptians were Semites but it says the Egyptians were not Semites
Posts: 43044 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2730 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
To say they weren't black they were "Semites" (in his context of the word) is fallacious
You are mistaken. The quote says they were not Semites.
Who is they? What was being pointed out is the name game in case you missed that. The attempts say they were not black because they were .... as though black is mutually exclusive the respective population.
"They" are the Egyptians referred to by Budge in the first paragraph of page 23.
You said this says the Egyptians were Semites but it says the Egyptians were not Semites
Ok I already explained what I was referring to, so NO I did not ever refer to Kemites as "Semites". I was referring to the dubious RACIAL IMPLICATIONS o Buldge through his LABELS "Semite" of "Libyan". It's not that serious, so please give the silly tit for tat for up.
Posts: 160 | From: Ga | Registered: Jun 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rain King: Ok I already explained what I was referring to, so NO I did not ever refer to Kemites as "Semites". I was referring to the dubious RACIAL IMPLICATIONS o Buldge through his LABELS "Semite" of "Libyan". It's not that serious, so please give the silly tit for tat for up.
That's why what you are saying doesn't make sense. If you go back and read what Budge said he says the Kemetians do NOT fit into a conventional label When he mentions Semites he is talking what about OTHER researchers thought
Posts: 43044 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic