2) Sudanese Contrast of Identities
A leading Sudanese scholar, in almost encyclopedic detail, confirms the importance of
identity in the above examples. This scholar describes the conflict in Sudan as centered
in contending visions of identity. The north is seen as “assimilationist” given the
ideology of legitimacy through Arab genealogy, whether real or imagined. This ideology
is tied to a dominant religion, Islam, which is further expressed through dominant
families now in alliance, now at odds, all contending to maintain control of the state. The
northern Arab-Islam self-perception seeks to extend control of the state through
assimilation where it can or by force where it cannot. This self-perception, however, is
many-layered. The northerner while speaking to itself of a racial (Arab) purity denies its own biological connection to African origins and acts with varying degrees of prejudice
toward southerners. Francis M. Deng writes (1995):
But since certain African racial and cultural elements are still visible in the
assimilated Sudanese Arabs, it does not require a professional social
psychologist to resume that such a disdain for elements visible in one's
own physiognomy must at some degree of consciousness be a source of
tension and disorientation. Indeed, the northern Sudanese tendency to
exaggerate Arabism and Islam and to look down on the negroid races as
slaves could well be the result of a deep-seated inferiority complex, or, to
put it in reverse, a superiority complex as a compensational device for
their obvious marginality as Arabs.
http://www.cdainc.com/rpp/publications/casestudies/Case04NSCC.pdf
Zaghawa, Fur, and Masalit are ethnically related to the Kanuri people of Chad and Nigeria, whom I am a part of maternally. So-called Shuwa 'Arabs' are not Semitic Arabs but are Arabized black Africans with little, if any, Arab ancestry, the same for the Janjaweed in in Darfur who are killing Fur, Masalit, and Zaghawa. Janjaweed are Baggara 'Arabs' mostly, with small amount of Arabized Fur people. Physically ALL of these groups are indistinguishable from one another. I cannot understand this genocide. I wish Arabization would have never came into Africa. Islam is ok, but Arabization needs to go.
[This message has been edited by S.Mohammad (edited 08 August 2004).]
Egyptian ( Mesr al-Um): Pharos give up Arabization
Egypt, Politics, 11/6/2003
Scores of Egyptian intellectuals and vocational members formed a party called "Egypt the motherland" ( Mesr al-Um) for dismantling Egypt from its Arab identity.
Lawyer Mohsin Lutfi said that he will apply to the Parties affairs at the Shoura council after Eid al-Fiter for licensing the party. He explained "we are a party which says: we are Egyptians and not Arabs.. The Arabs are our friends and neighbors and we have common destiny.. but we are not Arabs."
However, there are in Egypt some 18 political parties with the majority are margined and some of them are frozen over differences among their leaders, but there is no one party among them that denies Egypt's Arabization or raises doubt on this issue despite the fact many of them call in its programs to revive the values of the ancient Egyptian civilizations.
Lutfi, the nephew of the late liberal intellectual Ahmad Lutfi al-Sayyed said "we are Egyptians speaking the Arabic language for historical reasons like the Franchophony in Africa which speaks French. But no one says he is French."
Lutfi calls for reviving the Heoglyphic and Coptic languages and has been teaching scores of students the Heroglyphic language in his house since 10 years. He studied Heroglyphic language at the French Surrbornne university after he had graduated in 1948 from the law faculty, Fouad 1st university ( the current Cairo university). He also studied at London's university for more than 3 years.
The Egyptian writer Jamal Badawi strongly criticized the idea of the new party in the Egyptian daily al-Wafd issued on Tuesday, saying "those of the Pharos trend do not care what form of government there is, rather what is of concern to them is to cancel the Arab era from Egypt's history." He added they "are not brave to show off their hostility to Islam, and therefore they concentrate their arrows on Arabization, and put the Arabs in one bunch along with the foreign forces which occupied Egypt."
Lutfi said "the idea of implanting this party emerged when we saw in the talks of President Mubark an inclination to the majority party which he presides over towards democracy permiting the foundation of new parties."
One of the founders of the party, Talaat Radwan, said we will ask for "abrogating the word ( al-Arabyia ) from Egypt's name to become "The Republic of Egypt"instead of "the Arab republic of Egypt." In the 1970s the late Egyptian president Anwar al-Sadat abrogated the name of the United Arab republic launched by the late President Gamal Abdul Nasser for use on Egypt and Syria following their unity of 1958 and Egypt kept the name after the cessation.
Radwan, a critic and story writer said relations with the Arabs will be economic and in the course of cooperation relations like any relations with any other people." He added "our call is separate from what has been provoked since years of the failure of the Arab nationalism project adopted by Abdul Nasser." He added that "relations with Israel will be on equal footing.. Our principle is to have pride on the Egyptian nationality and our objective is to be a state preserving its national soil against any aggression and stands against any aggression on any country in the region. We are with the rights of the Palestinian people to liberate their homeland and establish own state and also with the right of the Iraqi people to liberate their soil."
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/031106/2003110624.html
quote:
Indeed, the northern Sudanese tendency to
exaggerate Arabism and Islam and to look down on the negroid races as
slaves could well be the result of a deep-seated inferiority complex, or, to
put it in reverse, a superiority complex as a compensational device for
their obvious marginality as Arabs.
Keenly observed.
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
Keenly observed.
The thing about it thats sad is that physically the people are the same. What constitues being an 'Arab' or 'African' in Sudan? Check this out too:
Second, despite their shared racial and cultural characteristics, conflicts and ensuing animosities have predisposed people to see little if any in common. As a result, shared elements are ignored and actively dismissed, differences highlighted, and the national vision blurred and even distorted. Indeed, the more marginal the identity between the Arab-African dichotomy, the more the divisive labels are accentuated to prove the contrary. The Sudanese Arabs, who are visibly black, must prove beyond doubt that they are indeed Arab. And the related adherence to Islam must also be highlighted to reinforce that composite identity. Southerners on their part have tended to exaggerate their “pure” African, even negroid identity, in denial of any admixture.
http://wwwc.house.gov/international_relations/107/deng0605.htm
The funny thing about this is the last sentence. Southerners as well as Northerners are not really significantlty "mixed" in any way. The northerners do have some mixture, but only among the higher class and prominent Northern Sudanese families. Arabs married into these families. most of these people are indistinguishable from each other.
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/000767.html
[This message has been edited by ausar (edited 08 August 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
The funny thing about this is the last sentence. Southerners as well as Northerners are not really significantlty "mixed" in any way. The northerners do have some mixture, but only among the higher class and prominent Northern Sudanese families. Arabs married into these families. most of these people are indistinguishable from each other.
That is the problem...the Arab admixture among North African elites. They (elites) use their power to effectively utilize the media to disseminate this "Arab" identity of the nation, as if it were their place to choose for the average citizens, which culture they ought to identify themselves with, other than the indigenous ones!
quote:
Originally posted by ausar:
S. Mohammed,did you read my post about the Fellahin vs. the Arab?http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/000767.html
[This message has been edited by ausar (edited 08 August 2004).]
I have read it before. What i do not understand is this tendency by some Africans to identify as 'Arabs' when they have little to no 'Arab' ancestry. To be an Islamic African country one does not have to identify as Arab or claim descent from Arabs to bring themselves closer to Allah. Indeed, even the Prophet(PBUH) said that race or ethnicity plays no part in the salvation of man's soul. Arabized Africans who claim to be Arabs are about as silly as African-Americans claiming to be Scottish based on small or perceived Scottish ancestry
quote:
Originally posted by supercar:
That is the problem...the Arab admixture among North African elites. They (elites) use their power to effectively utilize the media to disseminate this "Arab" identity of the nation, as if it were their place to choose for the average citizens, which culture they ought to identify themselves with, other than the indigenous ones!
The point to me is that except for the language, those who identify as 'Arabs' are not one unified entity. In sudan for example, most of the people ARE NOT Arabs, even if you counted so-called Sudanese 'Arabs' are REAL Arabs. The non-Arabized groups far exceed the Arabized ones, but this has not stopped Sudan from identifying itself as an 'Arab' country. In sudan the question of religion really is irrelevant. The Janjaweed(brainwashed Arabized Baggaras, Nilotic peoples)are killing MOSLEMS in Darfur because of the effects of desertfication thats driving them out of their lands. Since they are physically the same as those in Darfur, they identify as Arab as an excuse for their own marginality as 'Arabs'. Even the most elite Sudanese 'Arab' families will not let a Baggara marry into their family because they look too much like western and southern Sudanese. Sudan is a ethnically confused country.
quote:
Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
I have read it before. What i do not understand is this tendency by some Africans to identify as 'Arabs' when they have little to no 'Arab' ancestry. To be an Islamic African country one does not have to identify as Arab or claim descent from Arabs to bring themselves closer to Allah. Indeed, even the Prophet(PBUH) said that race or ethnicity plays no part in the salvation of man's soul. Arabized Africans who claim to be Arabs are about as silly as African-Americans claiming to be Scottish based on small or perceived Scottish ancestry
As mentioned in your introductory notes; it has something to do with "inferiority complex". These "Arab" Africans strongly emphasize their identity as such, as a need to identify themselves with anything other than "African", which they consciously or subconsciously deem "inferior". As silly as it may sound, the additional reason may well be that, they feel somehow it makes them more devout Muslims than other Africans!
quote:
Originally posted by supercar:
As mentioned in your introductory notes; it has something to do with "inferiority complex". These "Arab" Africans strongly emphasize their identity as such, as a need to identify themselves with anything other than "African", which they consciously or subconsciously deem "inferior". As silly as it may sound, the additional reason may well be that, they feel somehow it makes them more devout Muslims than other Africans!
I really don't want to sound too anti-Arab but I just don't see the need to identify strongly with anything 'Arab'. Though Islam was supposedly started in Arabia, identifying as 'Arab' holds no significance. The Sudanese, in particular, the Nubians(Jaaliyn and Juhanya peoples) had a far more advanced civilization than anything found in the Arabian Peninsula, how could they look down on those who refuse to be Arabized? I think European colonialism played a big part in people chosing to identify as Arabs, for the fact that Europeans gave them better treatment.
This complex can also be seen in some people in Zanzibar and some of the other Swahili peoples. You have people there who are heavily black in phenotype, but will identify as 'Arab' because he had a relative in his family 600 years ago who was Arab, only ONE Arab at that. Thats pathetic.
quote:
Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
I really don't want to sound too anti-Arab but I just don't see the need to identify strongly with anything 'Arab'. Though Islam was supposedly started in Arabia, identifying as 'Arab' holds no significance. The Sudanese, in particular, the Nubians(Jaaliyn and Juhanya peoples) had a far more advanced civilization than anything found in the Arabian Peninsula, how could they look down on those who refuse to be Arabized? I think European colonialism played a big part in people chosing to identify as Arabs, for the fact that Europeans gave them better treatment.
This complex can also be seen in some people in Zanzibar and some of the other Swahili peoples. You have people there who are heavily black in phenotype, but will identify as 'Arab' because he had a relative in his family 600 years ago who was Arab, only ONE Arab at that. Thats pathetic.
For me, it isn't about being anti-Arab either, but about setting facts straight. The truth can be ugly at times, but nevertheless has to be pointed out, especially in light of the current situation in Sudan. But, your mention of European colonialism is an interesting point, that deserves more scrutiny than it is currently under, when discussing Arabization effects on Africans!
quote:
Misreading The Truth In Sudan
By SAM DEALEY
EL FASHER, Sudan — Tucked behind the featureless hills that rise abruptly from the Saharan sands outside El Fasher, Musa Khaber sits cross-legged beneath a parched tree in the early dusk. Clothed in a flowing white djellaba and turban, Mr. Khaber, a Janjaweed militia leader, is guarded by armed followers, their guns trained nervously on the meeting spot.Mr. Khaber is a wanted man. It is Janjaweed bands like his that the international community accuses of waging a proxy war for Sudan's government against rebellious African tribes in Darfur. Seventeen months into this conflict, some 30,000 people have died and more than one million have been forced from their homes.
It is also bands like Mr. Khaber's that expose three myths of one of the worst humanitarian crises - that the Janjaweed are the sole source of trouble and are acting only as proxies for Khartoum; that the conflict pits light-skinned Arabs against black Africans; and that the Sudanese government can immediately end the war whenever it wishes. Until the international community puts aside these simplifications, no sustainable solution can emerge.
Last month, the United States Congress denounced Khartoum for genocide in Darfur, and the United Nations Security Council last week adopted a resolution giving Khartoum 30 days to disarm the militias. "Since they turned it on, they can turn it off," Secretary of State Colin Powell has said, summarizing the conventional view.
It may be clear to Washington that Khartoum controls the conflict, but in Darfur the situation is more complex.
Mr. Khaber, for one, denies that his Janjaweed are aligned with anyone. "We are not with the government, we are not with the rebels," he said. "We are in hell. We want what is due." For 25 years, he said, he and his gang have waged war against a succession of regimes that failed to adequately care for his people.
Mr. Khaber's group is made up of Arab and African tribesmen. A dark-skinned Berti African, Mr. Khaber describes himself as an Arab.
The Darfur crisis is as much a problem of regional and national instability as it is local. A principal rebel group, the Justice and Equality Movement, is said to be backed by a Sudanese opposition leader, Hassan al-Turabi. Khartoum says the movement also receives munitions and support from elements within Chad, and indeed several rebels have been captured with Chadian identification papers and arms.
The other rebel group, the Sudanese Liberation Army, is said to have backing from Eritrea, another of Sudan's uneasy neighbors. Until last year, the group was known as the Darfur Liberation Front, engaged in low-level insurgency for decades.
After these rebels launched lightning strikes in February 2003 against military and civilian targets across North Darfur, a surprised Khartoum unleashed Arab tribal militias as a line of defense. Viewing this as carte blanche for vigilantism, these militias now pursue age-old vendettas.
Pressured by international attention, Khartoum now vows to disarm militias like Mr. Khaber's. Some captured Janjaweed have been tried and sentenced, and some have received the death penalty. But disarming the Janjaweed will not be easy. The area is awash in small arms, and even in the best of times Khartoum holds only titular control.
As despicable as Sudan's regime is, the international community may wish to restrain from setting early deadlines for intervention. Such deadlines only encourage rebel intransigence in pursuing peace deals, as last month's unsuccessful talks in Ethiopia proved. With outside action threatened, there is little incentive for the rebels to negotiate a lasting cease-fire.
Likewise, the threat of international peacekeeping troops could provoke further violence in an already unstable Muslim world. Lately, fliers have appeared in Khartoum mosques urging jihad.
"We refuse to let Darfur be like Iraq and occupied," says Mr. Khaber. "We hate the foreigner; we will fight the foreigner, more than the mujahedeen in Afghanistan." And then, noticeably fearful that his interviewers have been followed by Sudanese troops, he and his men abruptly slip into the wide Sahara.
Sam Dealey is a former editorial page writer for The Asian Wall Street Journal
quote:
Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
I really don't want to sound too anti-Arab but I just don't see the need to identify strongly with anything 'Arab'. Though Islam was supposedly started in Arabia, identifying as 'Arab' holds no significance. The Sudanese, in particular, the Nubians(Jaaliyn and Juhanya peoples) had a far more advanced civilization than anything found in the Arabian Peninsula, how could they look down on those who refuse to be Arabized? I think European colonialism played a big part in people chosing to identify as Arabs, for the fact that Europeans gave them better treatment.
This complex can also be seen in some people in Zanzibar and some of the other Swahili peoples. You have people there who are heavily black in phenotype, but will identify as 'Arab' because he had a relative in his family 600 years ago who was Arab, only ONE Arab at that. Thats pathetic.
Well actually the reason why I'm so hard on the Arab side is because a lot of African-Americans just aren't aware of the damage so-called 'Arabs' caused, especially in regards to slavery. I once questioned a follower of the Nation of islam about this and he got so upset. Arabs did just as much damage as Europeans did and still more if we look at Darfur. Alot of that has to do with the grandiose attitudes of Arabs themselves, but some of that was influenced by European colonists.
Overall, i think American blacks should know more about the Arab side. its correct that Europeans did do alot of damage, but most are unaware of the damage Arabs and Arabization.
quote:[/QUOTE]
Originally posted by neo*geo:
[QUOTE]
It is also bands like Mr. Khaber's that expose three myths of one of the worst humanitarian crises - that the Janjaweed are the sole source of trouble and are acting only as proxies for Khartoum; that the conflict pits light-skinned Arabs against black Africans; and that the Sudanese government can immediately end the war whenever it wishes. Until the international community puts aside these simplifications, no sustainable solution can emerge.[/i]
.
Those 'Arabs' are hardly lighter-skinned or even more so than those they kill. Its interesting that Mr Khaber, a Berti(Bertis are nothing more than the Zaghawa people, Berti is what they call themselves, Zaghawa is an Arab name) identifies himelf as an Arab. He is confused.
In Egypt during the Middle Ages,some bedouins tribes were brought into Egypt by the Abbasaid and Umayyad Caliphte to arabize the population.Many of these tribes still exist around Middle and Upper Egypt but only married within their own line. Very rarely does a rural Egyptian Fellahin intermarry with an Hawwwara,Asfraf,or Ja'afrah. The system is set up in favor of the hierarchy of the bedouin or the person with bedouin origins. So some tribes exist but they are not in the majority nor never replaced the overall Fellahin Egyptian population.
Contrary to Arab nationalist,Arab ancestry was during the Middle Ages determined by racial purity. If you were not a pure Arab then you would never be accepted. Not only did this happen to Egyptians but Persians,Berbers[Imazigh],and other groups.
You must study Sudan during the Middle Ages to understand the current situlation. It's has a long history,and is relevent to the modern occurence in these nations.
quote:
Originally posted by ausar:
S. Mohammed,have you read about a concept during the middle ages called Mawali? The concept f Mawali said that if an non-Arab converted to Islam he/she had to become a client of an Arab in order to be fully accepted. In pre-Islamic times Mawali was apart of Arabs usually slaves or captured tribes who were assimilated into Arab soceity but only a low class status.
In Egypt during the Middle Ages,some bedouins tribes were brought into Egypt by the Abbasaid and Umayyad Caliphte to arabize the population.Many of these tribes still exist around Middle and Upper Egypt but only married within their own line. Very rarely does a rural Egyptian Fellahin intermarry with an Hawwwara,Asfraf,or Ja'afrah. The system is set up in favor of the hierarchy of the bedouin or the person with bedouin origins. So some tribes exist but they are not in the majority nor never replaced the overall Fellahin Egyptian population.Contrary to Arab nationalist,Arab ancestry was during the Middle Ages determined by racial purity. If you were not a pure Arab then you would never be accepted. Not only did this happen to Egyptians but Persians,Berbers[Imazigh],and other groups.
You must study Sudan during the Middle Ages to understand the current situlation. It's has a long history,and is relevent to the modern occurence in these nations.
I'm very aware of Sudan's history, it is long storied one. But i do not understand how a country like Sudan can overexaggerate Arabism to the extreme that is now. Sudanese Arabs are very aware that they are very dark complexioned compared to their Semitic counterparts, but they don't see themselves as dark as western and southern Sudanese. Basically I'm heavily against Arabization in Africa, especially in Egypt and Sudan. these two countries have some of the longest and most clorful histories in Africa and I don't want to see crap like Arabization and pan-Arabism destroy this storied past. Nigerians in the North are very islamic as are most west Africans, but are NOT Arabized. I think thats more or less what i was alluding to, that to be an islamic country one does not have to be Arabized. Arabization declares that anything before Arab Islamic contact was inferior. Certainly Arabs have not contributed much of anything significantly to Africa, therefore this claim is baseless. there is nothing in Arabia comparable to anything in Ancient Egypt and Sudan.
quote:
Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
Those 'Arabs' are hardly lighter-skinned or even more so than those they kill. Its interesting that Mr Khaber, a Berti(Bertis are nothing more than the Zaghawa people, Berti is what they call themselves, Zaghawa is an Arab name) identifies himelf as an Arab. He is confused.
I think ausar posted something about Arab bedouins bringing the ideaology of "vendetta" to the fellahin of upper Egypt. Well the editorial I just posted seems to be pointing out that the violence in Darfur is driven by the same ideaology. The Arab tribesman in Sudan are culturally bedouins and have applied vendetta in their regional war.
quote:
Originally posted by neo*geo:
I think ausar posted something about Arab bedouins bringing the ideaology of "vendetta" to the fellahin of upper Egypt. Well the editorial I just posted seems to be pointing out that the violence in Darfur is driven by the same ideaology. The Arab tribesman in Sudan are culturally bedouins and have applied vendetta in their regional war.
I agree. I just cannot understand the ferocity of this vendetta in Sudan.
[This message has been edited by neo*geo (edited 08 August 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by ausar:
It's called tar[vendetta] which means that you disrespect or kill one family member I can kill one of your family. Eventually it turns into a chain of violence much like it did in Upper Egypt with El Kosheh. Regional violence like this goes on all the time in Upper Egypt with less casulatiies. Most people in these battles never go to jail and under law it's justifiable.
Interesting information, but Sudanese just like Egyptians are NOT overly Arabized. I've talked to some Egyptians and some even see themselves as superior to Arabs. What I'm hinting at is how vendetta can take root in places where most of the population isn't Arabized? The chain of violence you speak of is true, but there has to be some way to stop it.
quote:
Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
Interesting information, but Sudanese just like Egyptians are NOT overly Arabized. I've talked to some Egyptians and some even see themselves as superior to Arabs.
The truth is not that Egypt is less Arabized than Sudan. Egypt has what Sudan lacks. Egypt has a more unified culture and nationalistic identity than Sudan does. Both Egyptian Christians and Muslims have the same culture and speak the same language.
quote:
Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
We all know about how Arabization and pan-Arabism causes problems in Egypt, lets look at Sudan:
2) Sudanese Contrast of Identities
A leading Sudanese scholar, in almost encyclopedic detail, confirms the importance of
identity in the above examples. This scholar describes the conflict in Sudan as centered
in contending visions of identity. The north is seen as “assimilationist” given the
ideology of legitimacy through Arab genealogy, whether real or imagined. This ideology
is tied to a dominant religion, Islam, which is further expressed through dominant
families now in alliance, now at odds, all contending to maintain control of the state. The
northern Arab-Islam self-perception seeks to extend control of the state through
assimilation where it can or by force where it cannot. This self-perception, however, is
many-layered. [b]The northerner while speaking to itself of a racial (Arab) purity denies its own biological connection to African origins and acts with varying degrees of prejudice
toward southerners. Francis M. Deng writes (1995):
But since certain African racial and cultural elements are still visible in the
assimilated Sudanese Arabs, it does not require a professional social
psychologist to resume that such a disdain for elements visible in one's
own physiognomy must at some degree of consciousness be a source of
tension and disorientation. Indeed, the northern Sudanese tendency to
exaggerate Arabism and Islam and to look down on the negroid races as
slaves could well be the result of a deep-seated inferiority complex, or, to
put it in reverse, a superiority complex as a compensational device for
their obvious marginality as Arabs.
http://www.cdainc.com/rpp/publications/casestudies/Case04NSCC.pdfZaghawa, Fur, and Masalit are ethnically related to the Kanuri people of Chad and Nigeria, whom I am a part of maternally. So-called Shuwa 'Arabs' are not Semitic Arabs but are Arabized black Africans with little, if any, Arab ancestry, the same for the Janjaweed in in Darfur who are killing Fur, Masalit, and Zaghawa. Janjaweed are Baggara 'Arabs' mostly, with small amount of Arabized Fur people. Physically ALL of these groups are indistinguishable from one another. I cannot understand this genocide. I wish Arabization would have never came into Africa. Islam is ok, but Arabization needs to go.
[This message has been edited by S.Mohammad (edited 08 August 2004).][/B]
Well they are being "brain-washed" like some of the "coloured" South Africans were.
I look at it like this: If the Arab minority can gain the support of a group of "brain-washed-arabized" blacks, then they will become a "majority" and are hence able to promote their ideal of an Islamic state. Definitely "racial-cleansing". Kind of reminds mor of America's "one-drop" rule in reverse- if you have "one-drop" of Arab blood then you "think" you're Arab.
It's ridiculous, but that struggle for autonomy is also going on in some parts of North Africa (although not to this extinct) to identify themselves as Berber.
It angers me that they would try to "force" their ideals and culture in this day and time, when people are freely converting to Islam.
I'm for a democracy is Sudan, to hell with that Islamic state- trash it.
Arabs have always had a system of ethnocenism in their culture. Hints that can be found from pre-Islamic times down to the modern era. No matter how racist Arabs are towards black people they all seem to mix and produce offspring with them.
While we are at it,the situlation in Mauritania is twice as worse as Sudan but nobody really cares about it. People in Mauritania are being enslaved by real Arabs who came from Yemen around the Middle Ages and drove blacks from their land in Mauritania.
Why doesn't the Arab league speak out against such atrosities. Mauritania and other nations in the Arab league are full of human rights violations. Egypt is number one on that list for very bad treatment of rural Fellahin Egyptians.
Here is a link to an interview with an ex-Mauritanian slave:
http://www.meforum.org/article/453
Although both the Torah and Quran grant poeple the right to own slave,both of them grant certain ways slaves should be treated.
quote:
Arabs sometimes are not even religious but use their religion as a spirtual weapon much like Europeans used Christianity.
I was going to post this link on Mauritania's history of Arabization but thought better of it....but, now that you've brought it up: http://countrystudies.us/mauritania/8.htm
Several groups of Yemeni Arabs who had been devastating the north of Africa turned south to Mauritania. Settling in northern Mauritania, they disrupted the caravan trade, causing routes to shift east, which in turn led to the gradual decline of Mauritania's trading towns. One particular Yemeni group, the Bani Hassan, continued to migrate southward until, by the end of the seventeenth century, they dominated the entire country
quote:
Originally posted by ausar:
We should not make this into a battle between religons when it's simply an ethnic conflict between Arabized people and non-Arabized. Arabs sometimes are not even religious but use their religion as a spirtual weapon much like Europeans used Christianity. What the Arab pratice of cultural imperilism is not sanctioned by either the Hadiths,sunna,or Quran. Mohammed himself said that ''an arab is not superior to a non-arab,nor is a non-Arab superior to an Arab or a white to a black''.Arabs have always had a system of ethnocenism in their culture. Hints that can be found from pre-Islamic times down to the modern era. No matter how racist Arabs are towards black people they all seem to mix and produce offspring with them.
While we are at it,the situlation in Mauritania is twice as worse as Sudan but nobody really cares about it. People in Mauritania are being enslaved by real Arabs who came from Yemen around the Middle Ages and drove blacks from their land in Mauritania.Why doesn't the Arab league speak out against such atrosities. Mauritania and other nations in the Arab league are full of human rights violations. Egypt is number one on that list for very bad treatment of rural Fellahin Egyptians.
Here is a link to an interview with an ex-Mauritanian slave:
http://www.meforum.org/article/453
Although both the Torah and Quran grant poeple the right to own slave,both of them grant certain ways slaves should be treated.
Simple and plain the Arab League are a bunch of sorry sullahs. Mauritania is messed up and its nearly the same as in Sudan, you have an admixed African-Berber(not 'Arab') people who call themselves 'Maurs' who enslave Africans. I'm really sick of this whole movement of claiming Arab descent, whether real or imagined. Most of these Arabized Africans cannot trace their ancestry back to Mohammad(PBUH). They must feel inferior or something. Africans only know what true islam is, you don't see them blowing up buildings and setting off bombs killing people, like barbaric Semitic Arabs. i wish Arabization would have NEVER took place in Africa.
quote:
Originally posted by ausar:
We should not make this into a battle between religons when it's simply an ethnic conflict between Arabized people and non-Arabized. Arabs sometimes are not even religious but use their religion as a spirtual weapon much like Europeans used Christianity. What the Arab pratice of cultural imperilism is not sanctioned by either the Hadiths,sunna,or Quran. Mohammed himself said that ''an arab is not superior to a non-arab,nor is a non-Arab superior to an Arab or a white to a black''.Arabs have always had a system of ethnocenism in their culture. Hints that can be found from pre-Islamic times down to the modern era. No matter how racist Arabs are towards black people they all seem to mix and produce offspring with them.
While we are at it,the situlation in Mauritania is twice as worse as Sudan but nobody really cares about it. People in Mauritania are being enslaved by real Arabs who came from Yemen around the Middle Ages and drove blacks from their land in Mauritania.Why doesn't the Arab league speak out against such atrosities. Mauritania and other nations in the Arab league are full of human rights violations. Egypt is number one on that list for very bad treatment of rural Fellahin Egyptians.
Here is a link to an interview with an ex-Mauritanian slave:
http://www.meforum.org/article/453
Although both the Torah and Quran grant poeple the right to own slave,both of them grant certain ways slaves should be treated.
Ausar, that just proves that there are a lot of things some of these Arabs are getting away and no one recognizes it. But they are the first to scream that all westerners are anti-islamic, while they try to shove it down people's throats. I'm sorry, but it IS a religious thing. They are of course abusing the religion to justify some of the Sh*t they are doing. Sorry I get pissed off everytime I read something new about them still enslaving blacks to this day.
And where the HELL is the UN while this stuff is going on??????????????
[This message has been edited by homeylu (edited 08 August 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by homeylu:
Ausar, that just proves that there are a lot of things some of these Arabs are getting away and no one recognizes it. But they are the first to scream that all westerners are anti-islamic, while they try to shove it down people's throats. I'm sorry, but it IS a religious thing. They are of course abusing the religion to justify some of the Sh*t they are doing. Sorry I get pissed off everytime I read something new about them still enslaving blacks to this day.
No I disagree, it isn't all religious. The Janjaweed 'Arabs' are killing Muslim Zaghawa, Fur, and Masalit in Darfur, its a twisted Arabized mind thats the problem. Nigerians don't see Sudanese Arabs as 'Arab' and most of Sudan's people aren't even Arabized, though most are Moslems. the whole thing makes me sick.
quote:
Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
I'm very aware of Sudan's history, it is long storied one. But i do not understand how a country like Sudan can overexaggerate Arabism to the extreme that is now. Sudanese Arabs are very aware that they are very dark complexioned compared to their Semitic counterparts, but they don't see themselves as dark as western and southern Sudanese. Basically I'm heavily against Arabization in Africa, especially in Egypt and Sudan. these two countries have some of the longest and most clorful histories in Africa and I don't want to see crap like Arabization and pan-Arabism destroy this storied past. Nigerians in the North are very islamic as are most west Africans, but are NOT Arabized. I think thats more or less what i was alluding to, that to be an islamic country one does not have to be Arabized. Arabization declares that anything before Arab Islamic contact was inferior. Certainly Arabs have not contributed much of anything significantly to Africa, therefore this claim is baseless. there is nothing in Arabia comparable to anything in Ancient Egypt and Sudan.
I AGREE,amen.i am not a christian anymore but you get the point.i really do not believe in any faith at the moment,but the ancient nubian one is the one i would prefer or some other african faith.at least in islam there is no son of god,and if they found out that christ was really not black,i do not think i could take it,that is why i am not christian any more and believe in something clearly african,that just me.arabization really has to be stopped and must go.sudan is the frontline defense and other africans must help,and help fast.
just imagine african troops being sent to the sudan.that will be a blow to the brainwashed ones and other arabs.i am very upset that this arab thing even got as far in the sudan.the brits were the ones who gave sudan to the arabs.the arabs never won the wars.a leader was nubian in the years 1968 to 1985,and i wish he did more to stop this crap,but it is up to the southern sudan,africans who live in the northern and central sudan and other africans in other states.i can't not see why more black americans can't see this.i do not care about the israel-arab conflict any way.they deserve each other anyway. many black americans and some other blacks try to be on the arab side when it comes to the west and israel but are afraid to say anything about the arabs in the sudan,north africa and some other places in africa.IN ancient times the berbers were the most pain in the necks in egypt,nubia and other places in africa.in the middle ages it was the arabs and berbers,and now mostly arabs,and some berbers, the west and the white south africans.just because you have conqured your enemies,you can't take your eyes off them.that was the mistake the ancient egyptians and some other africans made.the nubians always knew thier foes,that is why i liked the nubians better than the ancient egyptians and of course the nubians were and are blacks,clearly.
by the way i seen the president of the sudan and he is a black arab.all of the recent presidents of sudan were black arab,but one was a nubian,and to certain extent brainwashed too. i am aware that before the arabs, africans fought other africans in the sudan as well and others.
i heard that african troops will be going to the sudan,maybe they would take it over and give back fully to the africans.you got to have hope.
[This message has been edited by kenndo (edited 09 August 2004).]
quote:
just imagine african troops being sent to the sudan.that will be a blow to the brainwashed ones and other arabs
I think the psychological effects of this would be more important than the military effects.
It says to the Sudanese government:
Where are you?
What are you?
It would show a united African front. It would expose the fallacy of the "Arab world", which does not exist really except as an excuse for racism, terrorism and other uncivilized forms of behavior.
The Arabs are absolutely nothing for any self respecting Africans to emulate.
They united against one country -> Isreal, and got absolutely stomped on during the 6 day war.
There greatest leader in the 20th century, African, Anwar Sadat....they murdered.
I sympathize with how lost and confused they are, and with the injustice done to the Palestinian.
But Arabization and "Arab World" (in Africa) are really sick and twisted concepts, and nothing but evil ever has come of them, or ever will come from them.
quote:
once you have conqured your enemies,you can't take your eyes off them.that was the mistake the ancient egyptians and some other africans made.the nubians always knew thier foes,that is why i liked the nubians better than the ancient egyptians and of course the nubians were and are blacks,clearly.
I think Africans, deep down, always want peace and equality with non African people who...deep down, in turn...want supremacy over the African. Just have to learn to face that fact, anticipate it and defend yourself accordingly.
On the Nubians vs. Egyptians I partly agree.
But we should not surrender Egypt (either contemporary or ancient) to the Middle East, because it is still a part of Africa. Also the defeat of Egypt makes the conquest of Nubia possible, and so on.
Same with discussing history. Egypt is Nubia's daughter, and those who wish to claim that ancient Egypt was not Black African must/need turn their attention on Nubia.
Examples:
Western Eurocentrist intellectual Arthur Schlesinger argues that Egypt was not black, because Egypt was not Nubia, and the original Nubians were not black (!).
Anti-africanist Mary Lefcowitz argues that Africans never developed writing. How so?
Easy, she claims that things like the Merotic script are ultimately based on Egyptian writing, and plays the fake geography game of dividing Africa into north and sub-saharan.
But note: some linguists argue that their are only 3 "truly independant" writing systems in the world....Egyptian (which presently records the oldest written document), Sumerian, and Chinese.
This means that Africans developed writing, and Europeans did not. Europe gets it's writing by "DIFFUSION" from Africa and elsewhere, to use their pet term against them.
The point is, these anti-African arguments are a set piece and go together and follow one another, like famine and pestilence.
Back to Arabisation:
Remember, Apartheid, the arrogant whites always said...could not be killed. The Boers had ruled for too long. They had the backing of the west, and so on. But we defeated them anyway. Same with Arabisation, which is semiticized apartheid.
It may take centuries to accomplish, but must not give up. :
quote:
Originally posted by neo*geo:
I see no one has attempted to answer my question.
Neo*geo, African ethnic groups have historically had conflicts with one another, perhaps based on land and/or resources, but never used "race" as the reason for this. If you have evidence that suggests that "race" was the dominating or central factor, before the advent of foreigners, please feel free to fill me in on it. After foreign conquests and colonialism, usually after bitter battles with varying durations, Europeans in particular, tried to put population portions of different African ethnic groups within a small region, only to be separated by imaginary boundaries from another population mix of the same kind or of different composition. This is called the "divide & rule", for anybody familiar with history. Thus "ethnic" wars were for the most part, brought about colonizers. This "racial" crap was unkown to Africans before the Advent of foreigners. It was more about which "culture" or "society", and which "leadership", gained advantage over the other. This is where I have a problem with you equating divisions between Africans before the advent of foreign groups, with the kind now happening in Sudan! In Sudan, "race" is used as the excuse for the conflict. Ever since colonialism, tribal conflicts had become more widespread in Africa, than before colonialism. Pre-colonial Africa, was a totally different environment.
[This message has been edited by supercar (edited 09 August 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by neo*geo:
I see no one has attempted to answer my question.
If you must know, I ingored it because you clearly "begged" the question, and I was not interested in the 15 back and forth posts with you that past experience has shown it takes to illustrate your penchant for logical fallacy.
So, I'll give you an answer instead....yes, no, maybe, who knows.
quote:
Originally posted by supercar:
Neo*geo, African ethnic groups have historically had conflicts with one another, perhaps based on land and/or resources, but never used "race" as the reason for this.
Race is almost always part of ethnic conflicts. Our concepts of race are not the same as people in other parts of the world. Just because people look the same doesn't mean they will see each other as part of the same race. Keep in mind that before there were broad racial groups like "negroid", "caucasion", etc., races could be defined by one's ethnicity. This still goes on today. I think in Sudan, more than race, there is a cultural clash between the ethnic groups who are culturally Arab and the groups who still maintain indigenous African cultures. Again, this takes us back to the traditional ethnic definition of race, not the modern-day definition. My belief is that Arab bedouins merely exploited the tribal differences that had long existed in Sudan.
quote:
Originally posted by supercar:
This is called the "divide & rule", for anybody familiar with history. Thus "ethnic" wars were for the most part, were brought about colonizers.
I agree and the British deserve as much blame as any other outside parties for ethnic conflicts today between India and Pakistan, in Iraq, in Israel-Palestine, and in Sudan. The British were negligent in the way they handed over power to local groups in the 20th century.
quote:
Originally posted by supercar:
Ever since colonialism, tribal conflicts had become more widespread in Africa, than before colonialism. Pre-colonial Africa, was a totally different environment.
I can't say whether you're right or wrong because so little is known about greater Africa prior to colonization. However, one well-known example of ethnic conflict in Africa prior to colonization was the displacement of the south African Khosian people by the Bantus.
I'm not saying we should let Arabs off the hook in the Sudan crisis. My point is that the finger-pointing at Arabism is being blown out of proportion. Which is understandable because Sudan's history is very complicated to understand. The fact is that ever since the fall of the Merotic state, Nubia/Sudan has lacked a national identity comparable to what we see in Egypt, Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritirea, etc.. Each of those countries have experienced some form of Arabization. Heck, Eritrea has recently joined the Arab League. Despite some of their ruiling classes intermixing with Arabs they still have a national identity and are still proud of their heritage whereas some leaders in Sudan of mixed Nubian/Arab ancestry chose to reject their Nubian heritage. This is a very complicated issue indeed and if it was as simplified as you guys are making it out to be it wouldn't have lasted this long...
quote:
Originally posted by neo*geo:
I can't say whether you're right or wrong because so little is known about greater Africa prior to colonization. However, one well-known example of ethnic conflict in Africa prior to colonization was the displacement of the south African Khosian people by the Bantus.I'm not saying we should let Arabs off the hook in the Sudan crisis. My point is that the finger-pointing at Arabism is being blown out of proportion. Which is understandable because Sudan's history is very complicated to understand. The fact is that ever since the fall of the Merotic state, Nubia/Sudan has lacked a national identity comparable to what we see in Egypt, Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritirea, etc.. Each of those countries have experienced some form of Arabization. Heck, Eritrea has recently joined the Arab League. Despite some of their ruiling classes intermixing with Arabs they still have a national identity and are still proud of their heritage whereas some leaders in Sudan of mixed Nubian/Arab ancestry [b]chose to reject their Nubian heritage. This is a very complicated issue indeed and if it was as simplified as you guys are making it out to be it wouldn't have lasted this long... [/B]
I can see the value in Rasol's earlier assessment of Neo*goe's comment! What is Arab culture, other than "Arabic language" and "Islamic" values/laws used as a regulation tool by ruling elites in "Arabic" speaking countries from North Africa to West Asia? I bet you'll speak about select West Asian food,and music again, that has really nothing to do with Arab. Or that North Africans in America sit with and speak to West Asians, as proof that it is about the common Arab culture. There is no doubt that there are deluded people in Africa, like in Sudan, who view Arab as a "race", rather than a mere culture. It is that simple in Sudan; that these deluded people think the are biologically different from other Sudanese, and think they are "superior", and should given such authority by the "African" Sudanese. In their minds, they are the one's doing the "Arabization" of Africans. You are confusing "Arabization" of indigenous Africans with a whole new culture replacing the indigenous African one's, among Africans within the same nation. In Sudan and elsewhere, conflicts between "Arabs" and "Africans" is talking long because of the "simple" fact that not all Africans are brain-washed to the extent of making "Arabic" into a culture or race! This division of Africa into Arab culture and African culture or North African race and Sub-Saharan African race, is simply ludicrous.
[This message has been edited by supercar (edited 09 August 2004).]
quote:
"My belief is that Arab bedouins merely exploited the tribal differences that had long existed in Sudan."
That isn't saying much, since most colonialists, imperialists and racists do that. For example, the NAZI's did not invent anti-semiticism. They just exploited it. etc.. How does that diminish their responsibility for their crimes?
Your opinion reflects little more than a selective willful blindness based on moral obtuseness.
quote:
I'm not saying we should let Arabs off the hook in the Sudan crisis.
quote:
My point is that the finger-pointing at Arabism is being blown out of proportion.
There IS Arabisation. Genocide is being committed in its name, and it must be stopped. Your argument (which you insist on pressing) is intellecually inept and morally obtuse. As usual, I might add.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 09 August 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by supercar:
I can see the value in Rasol's earlier assessment of Neo*goe's comment! What is Arab culture, other than "Arabic language" and "Islamic" values/laws used as a regulation tool by ruling elites in "Arabic" speaking countries from North Africa to West Asia? I bet you'll speak about select West Asian food,and music again, that has really nothing to do with Arab. Or that North Africans in America sit with and speak to West Asians, as proof that it is about the common Arab culture. There is no doubt that there are deluded people in Africa, like in Sudan, who view Arab as a "race", rather than a mere culture. It is that simple in Sudan; that these deluded people think the are biologically different from other Sudanese, and think they are "superior", and should given such authority by the "African" Sudanese. In their minds, they are the one's doing the "Arabization" of Africans. You are confusing "Arabization" of indigenous Africans with a whole new culture replacing the indigenous African one's, among Africans within the same nation. In Sudan and elsewhere, conflicts between "Arabs" and "Africans" is talking long because of the "simple" fact that not all Africans are brain-washed to the extent of making "Arabic" into a culture or race! This division of Africa into Arab culture and African culture or North African race and Sub-Saharan African race, is simply ludicrous.
All this debating over Arab culture/ethnicity is trivial. The simple fact of the matter is that the Sudanese do not have a single national identity which unites the different ethnic groups. The Nubians had a great past but Sudan is a country stuck in the Middle Ages. Basically, these tribal/ethnic groups would be fighting each other over something else if the Arabization element was subtracted from Sudan. Culturally Arab nomads in Sudan are just one element of the socio-economic crisis in that country.
As for Arabized blacks, it's really not difficult to understand why they identify with Arabs. For example, blacks in Palestine and Gulf Arab countries are just as aware that their ancestors were African slaves as black Brazilians. However, Arab/Islamic society has allowed them to fully assimilate which is why 90% of these Afro-Arabs simply identify themselves as Arabs.
The Nubians beat the Arabs so bad they called thems pupil smitters because of their accuracy with the bow and arrow.
quote:
Originally posted by ausar:
You forget it was bedouin Arabs who make Nubia fall in the first place. Medevil Nubia was properous and independent untill bedouins started mixing with Nubian creating offspring that ultimatley were on the Arab side. This is just facts,and even if the nation was not united the northern Sudanese Nubians were able to hold off the Arabs in their territory untill the 14th century. You forget the Arabs made a baqt agreement that Nubians could go in their land was they please and had to pay a tribute of slaves. Many historians believe this to be a farce and something the Arabs made up.
The Nubians beat the Arabs so bad they called thems pupil smitters because of their accuracy with the bow and arrow.
I agree with everthing you said however, Nubia was no longer united at the end of the Merotic period. Different ethnic groups were becoming more seperate although distinct tribal groups already had existed for centuries. Secondly, as I pointed out earlier, the children of mixed Nubian/Arab often marriages chose to reject their Nubian heritage. This wasn't forced upon them. We need to move beyond what happened in the past in order to help that country get into the 21st century.
[This message has been edited by neo*geo (edited 09 August 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by neo*geo:
As for Arabized blacks, it's really not difficult to understand why they identify with Arabs. For example, blacks in Palestine and Gulf Arab countries are just as aware that their ancestors were African slaves as black Brazilians. However, Arab/Islamic society has allowed them to fully assimilate which is why 90% of these Afro-Arabs simply identify themselves as Arabs.
Your comparison is interesting to say the least! Sudanese Blacks are still in Africa, they are not "lost" people who are descendants of African Slaves taken away from Africa. You talk about them, as if they were on some other continent. Wake up! They are still in Africa and are still Africans, whatever their mentality. You cannot compare them to descendants of Africans in Asia or Americas. The environment in which African descendants of Asia, America, or Europe live is different from their African counterparts.
Which conflict in Sudan is going on among Sudanese who consider themselves Africans, but of different ethnicity...please point it out for me! I am only familiar with the one going on between "Arabized" Sudanese, and ordinary Sudanese Africans!
quote:
Originally posted by neo*geo:
Secondly, as I pointed out earlier, the children of mixed Nubian/Arab often marriages chose to reject their Nubian heritage. This wasn't forced upon them. We need to move beyond what happened in the past in order to help that country get into the 21st century.
We can't forget about the past. It is what happened in the past, that is affecting what is happening today! How can you solve a problem without knowing it's history or root?
[This message has been edited by supercar (edited 09 August 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by supercar:
Which conflict in Sudan is going on among Sudanese who consider themselves Africans, but of different ethnicity...please point it out for me! I am only familiar with the one going on between "Arabized" Sudanese, and ordinary Sudanese Africans!
For one, it's difficult to answer your question because it leads me to make generalizations about people I barely know or understand. There are dozens of different tribes all over Sudan and it's not just one tribe that is considered Arab, its several. There are dozens of non-Arab Islamic and Christian tribes as well. Of course, whether one wants to embrace an African identity lies with the individual and no one has done a poll on each of these tribes to say whether opinions vary very much. The problem is that Sudan must find a united national identity by embracing their Nubian heritage. This isn't easy when considering the majority Islamic population...
quote:
Originally posted by ausar:
[B]You forget it was bedouin Arabs who make Nubia fall in the first place.
Arabisation by definition creates a caste conflict between those who are Arab and those who are not. (ex. Sudanese Blacks, Iraqi Kurds)
Arabisation can only "unify" by virtue of annihilation of everything non Arab. That is the logical conclusion of Arabisation, and that will be the ultimate source of its destruction.
quote:
Originally posted by supercar:
We can't forget about the past. It is what happened in the past, that is affecting what is happening today! How can you solve a problem without knowing it's history or root?
Well the root is the inability of the Sudanese to settle their differences. This is a problem which predates the overwhelming influence of Islam:
"Eventually the authority of the Nubian kings declined. Increasing power was assumed by local chiefs, who began to put more effort into building castles than churches. Churches became increasingly smaller, while castles, as in Europe of the same period, became the most common monuments of the age - as well as symbols of Nubia's growing instability. By 1400, Nubia had become a "maze of warring principalities" and now lay vulnerable to immigrants bearing Islam."
"1. The Islamization of Nubia
The Christian kingdoms of Makuria and Alwa gradually destabilized and fragmented into fiefdoms of independent warlords. Bands of bedouin Arabs, forced out of Egypt by its rulers, simultaneously pushed southward along the Red Sea hills and up the Nile and quickened the process of political decay. The influx of large numbers of Muslim nomads into Nubia undermined what little influence the Christian church still retained, and the divided Christian territories gradually fell into the hands of Muslim chiefs, either by violence or through their intermarriage with the ruling Nubian families.
Traditionally in Nubian society a man left all his property not to his own sons but to his sister's eldest son. This explains why, in ancient times, the Nubian throne so often passed to a king's nephew. As the Arabs increasingly intermarried with the Nubian women, all property in time passed into the hands of the Arabs, who left all their property to their own sons. Because the Arabs became dominant both socially and politically, their children began to identify exclusively with their Arab ancestors while ignoring or suppressing knowledge of their pre-Islamic Nubian ancestors.
The breakdown of centralized authority in the Nubian Nile Valley and surrounding deserts led to banditry and lawlessness, which resulted in a cessation of foreign trade and Nubia's increased isolation from the outside world. In the north, despite their conversion to Islam, Nubians were able to retain their language and some aspects of their former culture. In the south, the Nubians were Arabized to such an extent that they lost their native language to Arabic. Since native identity lacked prestige among the Arabs, the Islamized Nubians now assumed real or fraudulent genealogies that linked them to Arabia and the Prophet Mohammed. Eventually the Nubians came to be divided into numerous small Arab chiefdoms, encompassing one or several villages, and each was ruled by a mek ("king")."
http://www.nubianet.org/about
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
Arabisation by definition creates a caste conflict between those who are Arab and those who are not. (ex. Sudanese Blacks, Iraqi Kurds)
Iraqi Kurds aren't in a caste conflict. They are an ancient people who want their own nation. They have been oppressed by the Turks and the Persians as well as Iraqi Arabs(BTW, they were gassed by Saddam Hussein for siding with Iran in the Iran-Iraq war). As I pointed out earlier, the British negligently drew up borders for the regions of the former Ottoman empire without taking into consideration the ethnic differences in each region. Iraqis couldn't care less about Arabizing the Kurds. The British and now the US decided that the Kurds must be part of Iraq, not the Arabs.
quote:
Iraqis couldn't care less about Arabizing the Kurds.
[/B]
You don't seem to understand Arabisation at all.
Arabisation is not only "conversion" but also "annihilation". It's methodologies include, murder, rape, terror, forced migration, and brainwashing.
Gasing the Kurds is a form of Arabisation.
Driving the Kurds out of Kirkuk and then replacing them with Shia Arabs is a form of Arabisation.
It's not surprising that you can't face the facts of Iraqi Arabisation of the Kurds, any more than you can face the facts of Sudan.
You always argue by way of obtuseness...you simply pretend not to understand the obvious, for as long as you possibly can.
I suggest you go testify before the UN to the effect that Iraq doesn't practice arabisation against the Kurds.
Most will laugh at you or shake their heads in contempt. Just hope you don't encounter any Kurds...they might get mad, and kill you on the spot.
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
I suggest you go testify before the UN to the effect that Iraq doesn't practice arabisation against the Kurds.
I suppose the Turks practice Ottomization against the Kurds and the Iranians practice Persianization. And let's not forget the US stepping in to force the Kurds to stay part of Iraq when they clearly want their own soverign nation. The reason all these groups want Kurdish land as part of their countries is because of the oil. Yes, half of Iraq's oil supply is in the northern part of Iraq.
To think that the war with the Kurds was ethnic and not political and economic is as silly as thinking Saddam invaded Kuwait because he believed it was a legitimate part of Iraq. Kuwait was invaded because Iraq was broke after the war with Iran...
[This message has been edited by neo*geo (edited 09 August 2004).]
Please note I am not anti-Arab nor do I wish to see Arabs die. I just want to clarify that Egyptians are not Arabs. It's just a matter of idenity and correcting the labels that western people and the Nasserites have forced upon us. Many ethnic groups have done terrible things to people including even the anceint Kemetians. However,what the Arabs have done in the form of ethnic imperilism is just as wrong as what Europeans did over the years. Neither one are excuseable.
People should be allowed to chose an idenity without being superimposed a false one. Self recognition is only one of Maslows hierarchy of Needs.
Anyway,Egyptians consider themselves by religion first and Egyptians second.
quote:
Originally posted by neo*geo:
I suppose the Turks practice Ottomization against the Kurds and the Iranians practice Persianization.
I suppose Saddam could offer your excuses at his upcoming war crimes trial when asked about the Arabisation policies resulting in over 100,000 Kurdish civilians dead and more than 4,000 villages destroyed.
But only if he wants to be certain to be quickly found guilty, and sentenced to the harshest possible judgement...which is pretty much where you are now, with your ineffectual defense of Arabisation.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 09 August 2004).]
(Actually the fundamental stories and philosophies of both the Bible and Koran, are African in origin, they were merely 're-packaged')
[This message has been edited by Wally (edited 09 August 2004).]
They gave us the Bible and took the land.
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
Wally: Bishop Tutu used to say that.They gave us the Bible and took the land.
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
I suppose Saddam could offer your excuses at his upcoming war crimes trial when asked about the Arabisation policies [b]resulting in over 100,000 Kurdish civilians dead and more than 4,000 villages destroyed.But only if he wants to be certain to be quickly found guilty, and sentenced to the harshest possible judgement...which is pretty much where you are now, with your ineffectual defense of Arabisation.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 09 August 2004).][/B]
Not defending Arab colonization, just keeping the debate honest. Saddam used brute force against the Kurds but they were not innocent themselves and the root of the ethnic problems in Iraq can be traced back to failed British Imperialism.
Historically, Arabs haven't been as powerful as you're making them out to be. They have historically been unsuccessful at waging war and they were nearly wiped out by Ghengis Khan. If it weren't for the Ottoman Empire, the Islamic world and the Arab world would be much smaller. Speaking of the Turks, I have yet to see mention of Muhammed Ali's expansion of Egypt all the way to central Africa and the havoc he wreaked in Sudan.
I've said it time and time again, the crisis in Sudan is very complex and the root cannot be pinned on a single group or ideology. Everyone from the last Nubian kings, to the Arabs, to the Turk, and to the British, have in someway contributed to the mess Sudan is today. The more complex issue is how do we look forward and get this country modernized?
quote:
Originally posted by Ayazid:
I think, the worst thing is not arabisation,but AMERICANISATION of the world!
You're a damn genius you know that?
There is nothing more terriblethan having a democracy, civil rights, and freedom of choice, God forbid if the rest of the world is allowed that opportunity, we will burn in hell
quote:
Originally posted by Wally:
History also teaches how the Arabs colonized the great Western Sudanic civilizations, in the same manner in which they subjugated both Egypt and the Sudan - they converted the ruling elite to Islam, and then 'Arabicized' them (study the civilizations of ancient Ghana, Mali, and Songhay for evidence of this process).
To believe that is to fall for the belief that Arabs, and not indigenous Africans, were responsible for the great cities in Mali and Ghana. I'm not sure about Mali but I don't think people in Ghana consider themselves Arabs as north Eastern Sudanese do.
The conflicts are over an islamic state, this is NOT the same thing ging on in the Congo where several etnic tribes are fighting amongst eachother.
Rather than arabization, maybe we should be using the term "islamization", since there have been ARABS that have fought against this as well, and many "arabic" countries have "secular" states.
There are eople on both sides, muslims and christians who do not want to be ruled with the iron fist of Islamic rule, the resistance is so that they will not become another Afghanistan. On both sides there are people that DO NOT want the laws of the government to be the laws of ISLAM.
Imagine a government, where even if you are not muslim, you are forced to abide by all the laws of Islam, which takes away all your other ethnic freedoms, this is what the coflicts are about, and they are perpetuated by the government, using other methods to "bully" the rebels into submission.
And Neo*geo, FYI, Sudan is NOT majority Arab, Arabs are a MINORITY, which is why they know that in a "democratic" state, many of their ideals would not follow through.
And keep in mind, even in the arab world, there is not a total Islamic state, except in countries like Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. And even the arabs that are muslim, do not want their entire lives governed by how certain leaders decide to INTERPRET the koran, as some scholars disagree over interpretation.
So like I said, just because some of the Blacks are "muslim" does not mean they want their lives governed by a strict Islamic rule, and some are fighting against the "unfair" distribution of the country's natural resources, just government corruption in general.
quote:
Darfur [Darfour, Dar Fur ] was an independent Muslim sultanate, the Kingdom of Darfur. While the Mahdist revolution of the nineteenth century attempted to create an Islamic state, the Mahdi's rule (and that of his successor Khalifa Abdullahi) faced armed resistence from the remnants of the Fur Sultanate. The Fur were never fully subjected to the strict Islamic rule of the Mahdist state. In the area of procedural law, Darfur's Sultans adopted Islamic law. In other areas the Sultanate remained firmly a sacral state based on Fur ethnicity.The sultans operated the slave trade as a monopoly. They levied taxes on traders and export duties on slaves sent to Egypt, and took a share of the slaves brought into Darfur. Some household slaves advanced to prominent positions in the courts of sultans, and the power exercised by these slaves provoked a violent reaction among the traditional class of Fur officeholders in the late eighteenth century. The rivalry between the slave and traditional elites caused recurrent unrest throughout the next century.
Once again, we see how the British screwed up opportunities to avoid future ethnic conflicts around their empire...
quote:
Originally posted by neo*geo:
[B] Not defending Arab colonization, just keeping the debate honest.
quote:
Saddam used brute force against the Kurds but they were not innocent themselves
quote:
Historically, Arabs haven't been as powerful as you're making them out to be.
quote:
They have historically been unsuccessful at waging war and they were nearly wiped out by Ghengis Khan.
quote:
Speaking of the Turks
quote:
The more complex issue is how do we look forward and get this country modernized?
quote:
Originally posted by homeylu:
What everyone needs to understand is that these conflicts have less to do with race and MORE to do with religion.
Remember. Dafur is largely Muslim.
In Dafur the reason for war is perceived by many as ethnic, not religious. This is in contrast to the broader Sudanese civil war. Sudan's Muslim government consists mostly of Arabs who are accused of backing Arab militias there, and according to many observers, are the ones trying to push black Muslim tribes out. http://www.fh.org/sudan050504
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
Remember. Dafur is largely Muslim.In Dafur the reason for war is perceived by many as ethnic, not religious. This is in contrast to the broader Sudanese civil war. Sudan's Muslim government consists mostly of Arabs who are accused of backing Arab militias there, and according to many observers, are the ones trying to push black Muslim tribes out. http://www.fh.org/sudan050504
Are we just concentrating on the "DARFUR" region or the country as a whole. The Darfur region is largely BLACK as well.
You have Black muslims fighting Black muslims, it's a little more complex than just race. It' about the "black muslims" rebelling islamic rule by other "black muslims". Trust me this is not a simple one.
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by neo*geo:
[B] Not defending Arab colonization, just keeping the debate honest.
Point out where I've defended any form of colonization. All I'm saying is that the problem isn't JUST Arabization. Afterall, Egypt too has been Arabized as Sudan, and for a longer stretch of time(600 years for Sudan, 1200 years for Egypt) yet Egyptian Christians and Muslims are still are united under a common culture and national identity. There is some ethnic violence in Egypt as Ausar pointed out, but no where near the scale we see in Sudan.
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
[QUOTE] Saddam used brute force against the Kurds but they were not innocent themselves
Let's not forget about those Iranian-backed Kurdish militias. Look, I'm not about to get into a debate over whether killing civilians is just or injust in war(the US killed millions of civilians in Germany and Japan alone) because to me it's not a black and white issue. I just don't buy the idea that Saddam targetted Kurdish villagers just because they weren't Arabs. (BTW, he killed over a million Arabs as well which should make you proud)
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
[QUOTE]Historically, Arabs haven't been as powerful as you're making them out to be.
How so? It's a fact. The survival of Arab culture outside the Gulf has not been due to their effectiveness at waging war. Rather, it's been due to their effectiveness in using Islam.
Disguising Arabization
The long-standing civil war in Sudan is often represented as a conflict between the Arab and Muslim North and the African and Christian South. While there is some truth in this, it fails to account for the social and cultural complexity of either the North or the South. The NIF government is an Islamist regime, and part of its explicit and stated policy is the full islamization of Sudan. The NIF uses the term "jihad" to describe its war against the Southern Sudanese rebels, who are referred to as "infidels." Yet in Western Sudan, where all the people are Muslims, it has become apparent that the discourse of islamization is a code word for something else.
Behind the banner of islamization in Northern Sudan is a deeply racist policy of arabization. As a part of the logic of this policy, the non-Arab ethnic groups of Western Sudan have come under attack. Despite their deep roots in Islam, and their traditional loyalty to the Umma Party, the NIF regime considers non-Arabs to be potential fifth-columnists in the civil war because of their "African" identity and cultural heritage. Consequently, the NIF regime has sought to destroy the traditional bases of authority in these communities and change the ethnic composition of Western Sudan to preempt this imagined danger.
The government argues that the violence in Western Sudan in the 1990s is the result of tribal conflicts that have always existed. It is true that Western Sudan is a multiethnic region where numerous ethnic groups live side by side. It is also true that ethnic tensions and conflicts have periodically occurred because of competition over resources, especially between the semi-nomadic pastoralist peoples and sedentary farmers. Traditionally, however, conflicts of this sort were effectively mediated by traditional means. If the current violence in Western Sudan is but the continuation of long-standing tribal conflict in the region, as the NIF argues, one would expect to find that this sort of violence has long characterized the region. But this isn't the case.
Since as far back as the colonial period, Western Sudan has been relatively peaceful. The real reason that violence has torn apart the lives of so many people in Western Sudan in the 1990s lies in NIF policy. By arming and financing local Arab paramilitary groups, the NIF has quite intentionally created ethnic (and in fact racial) conflicts across Western Sudan. Furthermore, the NIF has disarmed non-Arab groups, making them virtually defenseless against the well-armed government militias. The NIF has instigated nothing short of a racial war against the non-Arab inhabitants of Western Sudan.
A Systematic Campaign
The specific troubles of the Massaleit began five years ago when the NIF created 30 new positions (carrying the title of emir) in the traditional administrative structure of the Dar Massaleit area. The majority of the offices were filled with people from Arab ethnic groups (in particular from the Umm Jallul Arabs). Many Massaleit saw this action as an attempt to undermine the power of their community and their traditional leadership role in the area, by raising members of minority indigenous Arab groups above them.
The Massaleit reacted angrily, and tensions mounted between them and local Arabs. Communal hostilities broke out and acts of violence became common. The government reacted by replacing the governor of Western Darfur, Muhammad Ahmad Fadul, with General Hassan Hamadein, thereby putting the area under de facto military rule. The new governor began a massive campaign of arrests, imprisonment, and torture targeted at prominent members of the Massaleit community, including those with education and members of the state council.
In this context of state repression, government-supported Arab militias began to attack Massaleit villages in the area beginning in August 1995. In one of the earliest incidents, a group of Massaleit villages -- known as Majmari -- to the east of the regional capital, were attacked by Arab militias. The villages were burned to the ground and 75 people were killed, 170 were injured, and 650 heads of cattle were stolen. In a similar incident, Arab militias attacked the village of Shoshta, southwest of Geneina, on the evening of July 5, 1996. At least 45 people were killed, most of them women and children. Similar attacks occurred in villages such as Gadier, Kasay, Burta, Mirmta, Kadmoli, and the villages of the Birirabt Mountains.
Most of these attacks were undertaken late at night when village inhabitants were sleeping. Upon reaching a village, the attackers typically began by setting fire to all the houses. Villagers who managed to escape the flames were then shot by the Arab militias as they fled their homes. The timing of most attacks coincided with the agricultural harvest. By burning the fields just before they were ready to be harvested, or while the crop lay on the ground after first being cut, the militias destroyed the year's crop and exposed Massaleit farmers to starvation. In short, the Arab militias systematically aimed to destroy the Massaleit people, expose them to famine, and force them to flee their ancestral lands.[/i] http://www.towardfreedom.com/1999/sep99/sudan.htm
quote:
Are you all not aware of the fact that were it not for the barrier of the Sahara, Arab colonialization may have very well reached the Cape!
Well,Omani Arabs along with Portugeese were in the interior of Africa around the 1800's selling and enslaving Africans. Before this the Ottomans had pushed all the way to Uganda to traffic slaves.
quote:
History also teaches how the Arabs colonized the great Western Sudanic civilizations, in the same manner in which they subjugated both Egypt and the Sudan - they converted the ruling elite to Islam, and then 'Arabicized' them (study the civilizations of ancient Ghana, Mali, and Songhay for evidence of this process).
You have to be careful here,for Islam reached Western Sudanic Africa by traders and not by force. The first people to convert to Islam were the Soninke people who are the direct desendants of those who founded ancient Ghana. The people who crushed and destoyed Ghana were Islamcized idiot Berbers tribes called the Almoravids who came from southern Morocco and Mauritania. In later times these tribes would found Marrakesh which provides the modern name of Morocco.
No Arabs went into Western Sudan except the fringes of regions like Mauritania when the Beni hassan yemani Arabs migrated there. Matter of fact,Arabs had no knowleadge of Africa past the Western Sudanic states or past the Sahel. The forest regions of modern day southern Nigeria were unknown to them.
Eventually,Arabs did lead to the downfall of the Sudanic states when Moroccans invaded in 1591 destoying and kidnapping prominent scholars at Timbuktu.
Sudan and Egypt are two different senerios. When the Arabs invaded northern Africa in 640 AD most of the area was contolled by Byzantine Melkite Christians who hated and despised the local Fellahin of Upper and Lower Egypt. The only people who resisted were the Byzantine and some loyalist Christian groups. The majority of the urban population in Egypt did not resist the Arabs,and the Fellahin in Upper Egypt were largely unaware.
Later,the Arabs attempted to invade northern Sudan[then Christian Nubia] and was repeled so bad that the Arab chroniclers called the Nubians pupil smitters.
Under the rulership of Amr Ibn Alas things were equal for a while for the indigenous Egyptians but things started to sour as the Arabian Caliphtes took controll over the country. Understand that under Islamic law the religious minorities of Jews,Christians,and quote people of the book is called Dhimmi which means protected. Under this obligation people must pay what is called a jizya.
In later times there was a land tax imposted upon the rural Fellahin that made several revolt in Upper and Lower Egypt. The result of these revolts were that they were smashed and the revolters were sold into slavery in Bagdad the capital of the Arabian Caliphtes.
Nubia was not ultimatley Islamicized untill the 14th century. There was even a time when Nubians captured certain parts of Upper Egypt up to Akhmin ultimatley freeing most of Upper Egypt.
In Medevil Egypt you have the rulership of the Umayyad,Abbasaid,Ikhansids,Tunlinids,Mamelukes,Ottomans,and Mohammed Ali who was Albanian.
The Ottomans operated differently because their system of goverment was called a millet which meant each religious minority could govern as they chose. Mohammed Ali allowed Christian Egyptians to build their own schools and go as they pleased. The only people who struggled during this time was the ethnic fellahin both Christian and Muslim.
[The Christians brought the Bible to Africa and the Muslims brought the Koran, and the Africans were left holding the 'holy books'
while these foreigners held the land.
The study of history is supremely important...]
The ultimate conspirators are the people both Europeans and Arabs who use religious doctrine as a means of nationalism. None of these doctrines hold such into account but Europeans and Arabs are very crafty as using spirtuality as a weapon. You should not blame the religious doctrine but the people behind it using it for power. Mankind corrupts spirtuality.
[
[(Actually the fundamental stories and philosophies of both the Bible and Koran, are African in origin, they were merely 're-packaged')]
Yes,along with Mesopotamia,Zoroasterian,and other principles as well.
quote:
Historically, Arabs haven't been as powerful as you're making them out to be.
quote:
Red herring.
quote:
Originally posted by neo*geo:
How so?]
quote:
The survival of Arab culture outside the Gulf has not been due to their effectiveness at waging war. Rather, it's been due to their effectiveness in using Islam.
You really need to take some lesson's in logical discourse, because almost every sentence your utter is undermined by broken logic, internal contradiction and mismatched
premises.
If your, albeit irrelevant premise, is that the Arab's are not "powerful", then it does not help you to argue that they acheive power by using Islam instead of waging war. Your argument assumes wrongly that power only equates to war, but since that is wrong...the evidence you offer does not support the conclusion you reach. And the conclusion itself is irrelevant to the issue of the harmful effects of Arabisation.
See subject!!!!!!!!! lol.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 09 August 2004).]
"The People
Ethnic distinctions in Darfur, as is the case for Sudan in general, are not that clear cut. Following the two main sub-divisions, the population in Darfur can be broadly divided into those of Arab descent, and the local, non-Arab indigenous inhabitants of the region. Although some of the Arab groups claim an unmixed Arabic stock, it is important to note that they are Arab only in a cultural rather than a racial sense. The name Arab, therefore, stands for those Arabic-speaking people who, through a long historical process, have mixed with the indigenous non-Arab Sudanese.
The indigenous Darfurian tribes consist mainly of settled farmers and small-scale traditional cultivators generally referred to as the Fur. They are the largest ethnic group in Darfur and were the founders of the Fur Sultanate and the traditional rulers of the region. The other non-Arab ethnic groups are the Zaghawa nomads, the Meidob, Masalit, Berti, Tama, Mararit, and Tunjur. These non-Arab groups established The Darfur Development Front (DDF) in the mid-1960s to the exclusion of all other ethnically non-Darfurian people. The main objective of the DDF was to protect and lobby for the interests of the indigenous Darfurians in the political scramble for power at the centre.
The Arab tribes in Darfur (mainly pastoralist nomads) consist of the Habania, Beni Hussein, Zeiyadiya, Beni Helba, Djawama, Rezeigat, and the Maharia, in addition to the Arab urban merchants and government officials mainly of Jellaba origin. These communities formed what is known as the Arab Congregation in the mid-1980s, an alliance designed to lobby for official and financial backing from both the central government and the national political parties in support of the cause of the Arabs in the region.
As suggested by Ahmed and Harir (1982), the population in Darfur can also be divided using a different classification into four groups: the Baggara (cattle nomads), the Aballa (camel nomads), the Zurga (the local name for non-Arab peasants derived from the Arabic word for black), and the inhabitants of the urban centres.
-----------------------------------------
Rasol if we are just going to concentrate on Darfur, then THAT conflict is over the distribution of natural resources, and I did state that in my earlier pargagraph, the one that was left out of context. But if we're talking about SUDAN in general then it's more about religion than race.
Since by my definition, just because you speak arabic, does not change your racial identity. It's still blacks fighting blacks. Some that identify with the pastorial farmers and some that identify with the arabic nomads. In any case its about who SPEAKS arabic and who doesn't and NOT the color of their skin.
With all the discussion about race I think we all know that its a mere 'social' construction.
quote:
Are we just concentrating on the "DARFUR" region or the country as a whole. The Darfur region is largely BLACK as well.
Homeylu:
Somehow, the point is not being taken that the Arabs of Sudan themselves are mostly what you/I and most of the world would regard as Black.
This was indicated in your earlier statement about the Arabs being a minority.
They are for you, because you are counting "Arab" as one thing and "Black" as another. I might even tend to agree. But.....the Black Africans who are also Arabs do not regard themselves as such. They refer to blacks as "abid". They regard themselves in some cases as white, although they are as dark in some cases as Nelson Mandela, and may not have any actual Arab blood.
quote:
You have Black muslims fighting Black muslims, it's a little more complex than just race.
You and I might see the Sudanic Arabs as largely Black, (I know I do). In fact, I refer to them as feign (fake) Arabs.....but, we are not the ones fighting!
It is as much of a misnomer to imagine that the Janjaweed are involved in a relgious dispute as to imagine that the Christian Knights of the Klan in America are involved in protecting Christian values.
Hopefully this will help in terms of facing the facts of the ethnic dynamics involved: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16001-2004Jun29.html
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 09 August 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
If your, albeit irrelevant premise, is that the Arab's are not "powerful", then it does not help you to argue that they acheive [b]power by using Islam instead of waging war.[/B]
You need to take a course on reading. I never said that they achieved power through Islam. Here's what I said if you missed it through your selective reading:
"The survival of Arab culture outside the Gulf has not been due to their effectiveness at waging war. Rather, it's been due to their effectiveness in using Islam."
You look really dumb trying to look smart...
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
Your argument assumes wrongly that power only equates to war, but since that is wrong...the evidence you offer does not support the conclusion you reach.
Power is measured by a nation or group's ability to effectively wage war. This is a law of nature since the beginning of time unless you can point out an empire that didn't have the world's most powerful military in their time. The Arabs had their arses handed to them many times as they attempted to invade the kingdoms of Nubia. They couldn't overpower the Nubians militarily.
Arabs have themselves been powerless up until WWI when European Imperialists gave them self-determination after centuries under Turkish rule. Arab nationalism, an invention of the late 19th century, failed miserably after humiliating defeats by Israel. And most Arab governments are still reliant on the West for their infrastructure and to keep their economies afloat.
Arabization is still a factor in Sudan's problems but it's an invisible one. Definately in the mental.
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
And the conclusion itself is irrelevant to the issue of the harmful effects of Arabisation.
See subject!!!!!!!!! lol.
Now come on. You should be the last person to whine about keeping debates focused on the topic! 
quote:
I never said that they achieved power through Islam.
I know that. You stated that they advance their Arab identity through Islam.... "The survival of Arab culture outside the Gulf has not been due to their effectiveness at waging war. Rather, it's been due to their effectiveness in using Islam.".....
what you continue to fail to grasp, is that that what you just described is as much a form of power, as waging war. Can't you see that?
quote:
You look really dumb trying to look smart
Once more:
The gun is one kind of power, the Koran is another.....so saying the Arabs often use Islam, instead of using war, to effect Arabisation....does not prove that they are not powerful. Your conclusion does not match your evidence. Understand?
quote:
Power is measured by a nation or group's ability to effectively wage war.
Oh dear. Where to begin correcting this little rhetorical disaster.
Let's start with elementary example:
Japan has a pacifist constitution that forbids it from waging war....therefore Japan is the least powerful country in the world. Right Neo?
Power ! = WAR, silly.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 09 August 2004).]
quote:
Sudan hits back over Darfur allegations
by Roshan Muhammed Salih
Wednesday 04 August 2004 4:44 PM GMTSudanese officials and an alleged militia leader have poured scorn on international claims about the conflict in western Darfur.
They told Aljazeera that Darfurian rebels, who are widely perceived to be the victims of the conflict, had to share the blame for the crisis.
And they say the international media is wrongly portraying events in Darfur as a racial war, when it is really a dispute over land.
The comments come as the Sudanese government is bearing the brunt of world condemnation for the crisis in its western province.
Powerful western nations, as well as the United Nations, human rights groups and Darfurian rebels, say Khartoum is directly responsible for the killing of more than 50,000 people and the displacement of more than a million others.
They accuse the government of training and arming a militia, known as the Janjawid, to wipe out opposition to its rule in the province.
UN resolution
The situation is so acute that the UN Security Council has given Khartoum a month to disarm the Janjawid or face punishment.
A UN resolution last Friday also required Khartoum to facilitate free access for humanitarian groups and to allow about 1.2 million displaced people and 150,000 refugees in neighbouring Chad to return home.
Western nations have further raised the possibility of military intervention to protect the Darfurians.But Sudan has reacted with indignation to the accusations.
Khartoum, which has called the Janjawid "bandits", says the Darfur rebels are prolonging the conflict to force a foreign intervention.
It says Washington is using the crisis to try to topple its government, and that any military intervention may lead to the disintegration of the country.
Darfur marginalisation
The Darfur conflict erupted in February 2003 when two rebel groups - the Sudan Liberation Army/Movement (SLA/M) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) - demanded an end to alleged economic marginalisation and sought power-sharing within the Sudanese state.
The movements, which are drawn from members of the Fur, Masalit, and Zaghawa tribes, also sought government action to end alleged abuses by their rivals - pastoralists who are driven on to farmlands by drought and desertification.
But an Arab tribal chief, who Washington accuses of being the most senior Janjawid leader, told Aljazeera.net his tribe was only defending itself.Musa Hilal, speaking from house arrest in Khartoum, said: "When the rebellion began last year, the government approached us and armed us. My sons were armed by the government and joined the Border Intelligence.
"Some tribesmen joined the Popular Defence Force. I called my tribe to arms as well. We were caught up in an uprising the rebels began - what should I have done?"
He added: "We had camels stolen and young men murdered - banditry performed by the Zaghawa. When we retaliated, the Zaghawa joined with the Fur. When the tribes retaliated, they called in the world community. Now Zaghawa support the rebels - they are enemies."
'Janjawid' denials
Hilal, who denies his tribe has committed any atrocities, says his force will disarm when the Darfurian rebels respect a ceasefire.
He added: "Rebels constantly talk to human rights groups and aid workers as if the Janjawid were some kind of organised army. There is no political or military common policy for the tribes that are fighting rebels for their very existence. They started this war.
"Janjawid means nothing, but it is a word used to encompass all evil. A convenient way for Americans to understand who are the good guys and who are the bad - it is easier to sell policies that way."A Sudanese official, who refused to be named, told Aljazeera the Darfur crisis was being turned into a race issue by much of the media, which portrayed it as "Arab tribes" attacking "black Africans".
But the official says the tribes, which are all Muslim, are of mixed ethnic stock and the conflict is a land issue between nomads and subsistence farmers in the region.
Jan Egeland, the UN Emergency Relief Coordinator, has also said the war is more complex than is generally reported.
Ethnic cleansing?
In an interview with the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, he said: "There are many armed groups and many criminal gangs in Darfur...
"I believe that all sides are involved [in attacking civilians] -the so-called Janjawid militias, organised militias, too many unemployed men with too many guns, government forces and definitely also rebel forces."
He added: "It's complex because some have said it doesn't fit the legal definition of ethnic cleansing. The same tribes are represented both among those who are cleansed and those who are cleansing."Nevertheless, human rights groups say the Sudanese government is responsible for "ethnic cleansing" and crimes against humanity in Darfur.
In a report in May, New York-based Human Rights Watch (HRW) said Khartoum and the Janjawid militias "it arms and supports" had committed numerous attacks on civilians among the Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa tribes.
HRW said government forces oversaw and directly participated in massacres, summary executions of civilians, burnings of towns and villages, and the forcible depopulation of wide swathes of land.
Rebel pleas
It said the government and "its Janjawid allies" killed thousands of Fur, Masalit, and Zaghawa, raped women, and destroyed villages, food stocks and other supplies essential to the civilian population.
The militias have also driven more than one million civilians, mostly farmers, into camps and settlements in Darfur where they live on the very edge of survival, the report said.
In response to the crisis, the Darfur rebel movements have called for rapid international action.They have demanded that Khartoum should disarm the Janjawid, bring those who allegedly committed crimes to justice, allow unimpeded humanitarian access to the region, and free prisoners of war.
Mahjub Husayn, external liaison officer for the Sudan Liberation Movement, told Aljazeera the rebels only sought to globalise the crisis because of the "overwhelming crimes perpetrated against the Darfur people".
"We view all the measures taken by the Sudanese regime as superficial and characterised with procrastination and deception," he said.
'Genuine grievances'
"The Janjawid are a government institution like the interior and foreign ministries, mainly designated for [ethnic] cleansing, genocide, rape and subduing under the direct auspices of the vice president's office."
He added: "We call for the liberation of Sudan from the current attitude of... marginalising [Darfur], from injustice, from servitude, from slavery and from all the culture that has no respect for human rights."
Meanwhile, the Sudanese government, which has pledged to disarm the Janjawid, acknowledges the rebels in Darfur have genuine grievances.Hasan Abd Allah Bargu, a Sudan government representative and a negotiator with the Darfur rebel movements, told Aljazeera: "Darfur is underdeveloped like other regions of Sudan... but we don't agree on using armed struggle to resolve this matter."
He added: "The issue of economic development has been exploited by some political parties."
Other Sudanese officials, such as Khartoum's envoy to the African Union (AU), have accused Washington of using the Darfur crisis as a pretext to topple the Sudanese government, which Washington has long opposed.
quote:
You have to be careful here,for Islam reached Western Sudanic Africa by traders and not by force. The first people to convert to Islam were the Soninke people who are the direct desendants of those who founded ancient Ghana. The people who crushed and destoyed Ghana were Islamcized idiot Berbers tribes called the Almoravids who came from southern Morocco and Mauritania. In later times these tribes would found Marrakesh which provides the modern name of Morocco.
[/B]
Just want to say that I appreciate your detailed knowledge of African history, and your cohesive approach towards Africa as a whole. Don't want that to get lost amidst the fanfare.
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
Japan has a pacifist constitution that forbids it from waging war....therefore Japan is the least powerful country in the world. Right Neo?
No. Japan can still effectively wage a defensive war plus they have an alliance with the best war wager on the planet, the USA. The least powerful country in the world is probably Costa Rica but they too have the protection of the US...
[This message has been edited by neo*geo (edited 09 August 2004).]
I find it unlikely that you are actually that non perceptive.
I perfer to believe that you enjoy making patently silly arguments, even about very serious issues.
People in Sudan have a different notion of color than people in the western world. In pre-Islamic Arabic really dark African people were actually called the Arabic word for Green.
Most of these people in Darfur actually believe they are Arabic people,and not black Africans. That's the sad truth. Still I would hate to see the region get gobbled up by the Western powers. I would like to see an indigenous solution that comes from the people living in Sudan. Unfortunatley,the Sudanese are know asking the Arabs to join in against the battle.
Where's the African Union when you need it?
Thanks for the compliment,rasol. I study all areas of Africa and not just ancient Kmt. History is best qualified to teach one parapharsing a famous German philsopher Schopenhauer[sp]
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
If your understanding of the nature of power is honestly limited to ability to wage war, then it's no wonder that you fail to comprehend Arabisation, Africa, the Middle East, and politics and history in general for that matter.
My understanding of those things is quite simply, superior to yours, which is why you haven't been able to make a decent rebuttal. I've studied all of Western civilization and self-taught myself about ancient Egypt so I know a little bit about power.
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
I perfer to believe that you enjoy making patently silly arguments, even about very serious issues.
The only one who makes silly immature arguments is you whenever you can't defend your BS rhetoric...
quote:
My understanding of those things is quite simply, superior to yours,
Remember, the last time you self-stroked, your very next reply to me was plagiarized. Your insecurity is obvious. Think about it.
quote:
I've studied all of Western civilization and self-taught myself
And here's a last lesson for today:
"The pupil who believes he teaches himself has a fool for a student."
http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=5904311
Sudan Seeks Arab Help in Avoiding Sanctions
Sun Aug 8, 2004 11:11 AM ET
By Tom Perry
CAIRO (Reuters) - Sudan sought Arab help Sunday to
head off possible sanctions threatened by the United
Nations if Khartoum fails to rein in marauding
militiamen accused of genocide and ethnic cleansing in
its western Darfur region.
Sudan has about three weeks left to show the U.N.
Security Council it is serious about disarming the
Janjaweed militia. Darfur rebels say Khartoum is
backing Janjaweed attacks to drive non-Arab villagers
from their homes.
Sudan's Foreign Minister Mustafa Osman Ismail said
Khartoum was seeking political support from Arab
ministers "which will lead to the halting of any
attempts to target Sudan or issuing of sanctions
against it."
The ministers were meeting at the Arab League in Cairo
on Sunday for emergency discussions on Darfur, where
the United Nations says fighting has killed 50,000,
displaced 1 million and left 2 million short of food
and medicine.
Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa said the
Arabs were inclined toward helping Sudan avoid
sanctions. The League has said the sanctions threat
will not help resolve the humanitarian crisis.
Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit said
Khartoum, which has agreed a plan with the United
Nations to tackle the crisis, was proving its
credibility.
The plan sets out steps to disarm the Janjaweed and
other outlawed groups, improve security in Darfur and
address the humanitarian crisis.
Jan Pronk, the U.N. secretary-general's special
representative to Sudan, told reporters in Cairo he
hoped the Arab League meeting would provide political
support for the plan's implementation.
But New York-based Human Rights Watch urged the Arab
League to put pressure on Sudan's government, not to
protect it.
"Allowing the Sudanese government to hide its crimes
behind Arab solidarity would be an insult to more than
1 million Muslim victims in Darfur," said Peter
Takirambudde, executive director of the group's Africa
division.
"The Arab League should stand behind the victims in
Darfur and take concrete steps to ensure that
civilians are protected from further crimes," he said
in a statement
PEACE TALKS
A long smoldering conflict between nomadic Arab
herders and African villagers erupted in early 2003
when two Darfur rebel groups took up arms against
Khartoum.
The Arab Janjaweed began their campaign of killing in
response, rights groups say.
The rebel Justice and Equality (JEM) movement said
Khartoum was seeking Arab League protection to carry
out "oppression and slaughter in Darfur." In a letter,
JEM called on the Arab League to be neutral and to
pressure Khartoum to give in to the will of the
international community.
The African Union said Sunday that Khartoum and the
two rebel groups, JEM and the Sudan Liberation Army
(SLA), had agreed to peace talks in Abuja, Nigeria on
Aug. 23.
But JEM Secretary-General Bahar Idriss Abu Garda told
Reuters neither JEM nor the SLA had been told of the
date and rebel leaders were due at a conference in
Germany on Aug. 23.
The AU said the group's chairman, Nigerian President
Olusegun Obasanjo, would mediate the discussions
between Khartoum and the rebels, which would be a
continuation of a dialogue started in Addis Ababa on
July 15.
Those talks failed when the rebels set six conditions
for negotiations and Khartoum rejected them. The chief
demands included Sudan's demilitarization of Darfur
and an inquiry into genocide charges.
Sudan's Foreign Minister Ismail said the government
would participate in the talks without conditions.
The 53-member AU is proposing to send up to 2,000
troops to protect its cease-fire monitors in Darfur
and to serve as peacekeepers.
Sudan said Saturday it would permit African troops to
protect their monitors, but that its own troops would
handle peacekeeping.
Moussa said Arab states which wanted to send troops to
Sudan would do so as part of AU efforts.
quote:
Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
I really don't want to sound too anti-Arab but I just don't see the need to identify strongly with anything 'Arab'. Though Islam was supposedly started in Arabia, identifying as 'Arab' holds no significance. The Sudanese, in particular, the Nubians(Jaaliyn and Juhanya peoples) had a far more advanced civilization than anything found in the Arabian Peninsula, how could they look down on those who refuse to be Arabized? I think European colonialism played a big part in people chosing to identify as Arabs, for the fact that Europeans gave them better treatment.
This complex can also be seen in some people in Zanzibar and some of the other Swahili peoples. You have people there who are heavily black in phenotype, but will identify as 'Arab' because he had a relative in his family 600 years ago who was Arab, only ONE Arab at that. Thats pathetic.
CORRECTION.THE jaaliyn are really nubians that had become arabized,and i think they call themselves arabs or nubians who have been arabized with still a basic nubian culture,but i am not sure.i have to look up this group some more.
THE juhanya are really arabs,but some groups have black members.
[This message has been edited by kenndo (edited 10 August 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by kenndo:
THE juhanya are really arabs,but some groups have black members.
[This message has been edited by kenndo (edited 10 August 2004).]
CORRECTION, the Juhayna are NUBIANS also read:
Traditional genealogies trace the ancestry of most of the Nile Valley's mixed population to Arab tribes that migrated into the region during this period. Even many non-Arabic-speaking groups claim descent from Arab forebears. The two most important Arabic-speaking groups to emerge in Nubia were the Jaali and the Juhayna (see Ethnic Groups , ch. 2). Both showed physical continuity with the indigenous pre-Islamic population. The former claimed descent from the Quraysh, the Prophet Muhammad's tribe. Historically, the Jaali have been sedentary farmers and herders or townspeople settled along the Nile and in Al Jazirah. The nomadic Juhayna comprised a family of tribes that included the Kababish, Baqqara, and Shukriya.
http://reference.allrefer.com/country-guide-study/sudan/sudan14.html
Both the Jaaliyn and Juhanya descend from Nubians.
quote:
Originally posted by ausar:
Baggara are arabized Nilotic people. Most Baggara don't racially look different from southern Sudanese.
You are very correct, read:
The two largest of the supratribal categories in the early 1990s were the Juhayna and the Jaali (or Jaalayin). The Juhayna category consisted of tribes considered nomadic, although many had become fully settled. The Jaali encompassed the riverine, sedentary peoples from Dunqulah to just north of Khartoum and members of this group who had moved elsewhere. Some of its groups had become sedentary only in the twentieth century. Sudanese saw the Jaali as primarily indigenous peoples who were gradually arabized. Sudanese thought the Juhayna were less mixed, although some Juhayna groups had become more diverse by absorbing indigenous peoples. The Baqqara, for example, who moved south and west and encountered the Negroid peoples of those areas were scarcely to be distinguished from them.
http://reference.allrefer.com/country-guide-study/sudan/sudan49.html
Shilluk
Dinka
Beja
[This message has been edited by neo*geo (edited 10 August 2004).]
[This message has been edited by neo*geo (edited 10 August 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by neo*geo:
To believe that is to fall for the belief that Arabs, and not indigenous Africans, were responsible for the great cities in Mali and Ghana. I'm not sure about Mali but I don't think people in Ghana consider themselves Arabs as north Eastern Sudanese do.
Ancient Ghana, Mali, Songhai, were indeed civilizations created by Sudanic-Black-African peoples which were subsequently subverted by the Arab-Islamic colonization of Africa. The following is an excert from a text on Askia the Great:
quote:More astute and farsighted than Sunni Ali Ber, he (Askia) identified Islam's potential to usurp traditional Songhai religion. Askia decidedly courted his Muslim subjects, particularly in Timbuktu, where the clerics and scholars who fled from Sunni Ali Ber had returned. Askia orchestrated a program of expansion and consolidation, ultimately extending the empire from Taghaza in the north to the borders of Yatenga in the south; and from Air in the northeast to Futa Toro in Senegambia. Askia was also setting the stage for the Askia dynasty, systematically removing the surviving members of the preceding dynasties.
Within three years, he solidified his position to the extent that he could leave the country for two years. For political and pious reasons, he made the hajj (pilgrimage) to Mecca. In Cairo, he consulted with scholars and examined legal and administrative methods. In addition, an ambassador to Songhai was appointed and Askia was made caliph, thus becoming the head of the Islamic community in the Western Sudan. He returned to Songhai where he embarked on a program to reinforce and refine Islam.
Got a few questions: Do you think it's simply an empty religious practice that muslims bow down, what is it, five times a day towards Arabia? And why is it that the Koran can only be appreciated fully only if it is read in its "original" Arabic?
Does the term Cultural-Religious-Ethnic imperialism seem appropriate here?
...
[This message has been edited by Wally (edited 10 August 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by Wally:
Does the term Cultural-Religious-Ethnic imperialism seem appropriate here?
Atleast we agree on something. I had commented on that earlier in this thread:
"The survival of Arab culture outside the Gulf has not been due to their effectiveness at waging war. Rather, it's been due to their effectiveness in using Islam."
Arab culture and values are spread through Islam the same way western culture and values are spread through Christianity. However, Islam is more Arab-centered than Christianity is Rome-centered...
quote:
Originally posted by neo*geo:
Nomadic "Arab" Sudanese
This boy probably has not any negroid admixture,he looks like dark-skinned Saudi or Yemeni Arab.
Lots of Saudi Arabs have admixture from slaves,africans who mad hajj,and from mixing with Eastern Africans. Southern Yemani Arabs like the Haddara and others are hard to tell apart from eastern African people.
The original people of Yemen were Veddoid/Negrito people that were absrobed by Proto-Semetic migrarts. Lots of people in Oman have signs of this archiac race in the Arabian Peninsula.
quote:
Originally posted by ausar:
Lots of Saudi Arabs have admixture from slaves,africans who mad hajj,and from mixing with Eastern Africans. Southern Yemani Arabs like the Haddara and others are hard to tell apart from eastern African people.
The original people of Yemen were Veddoid/Negrito people that were absrobed by Proto-Semetic migrarts. Lots of people in Oman have signs of this archiac race in the Arabian Peninsula.
I am aware of that,but still many Saudis or Yemenis are dark-skinned like this boy,without any significant negroid admixture.
[This message has been edited by Ayazid (edited 11 August 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by Ayazid:
I am aware of that,but still many Saudis or Yemenis are dark-skinned like this boy,without any significant negroid admixture.[This message has been edited by Ayazid (edited 11 August 2004).]
that boy looks black to me.
quote:
Originally posted by kenndo:
that boy looks black to me.
Maybe to you,but actually he hasnt any visible "black" admixture. He looks rather like a dark-skinned bedouin Arab.
He is a member of the bedouin tribe Rashaida,which migrated to Sudan 150 years ago,so they havent so big negroid admixture like other Sudanese Arabs.
The Rashaida
The Rashaida are closely related to the Saudi Arabia Bedouin, who migrated to Sudan from the Arabian Peninsula about 150 years ago. Many Rashaida also live in the neighboring country of Eritrea; in fact, they make up five percent of the population of Eritrea (3.75 million people). In Sudan, they number around 68,000, and live mostly in the northeast part of the country on the outskirts of the city of Kassala, one of the most frequently visited spots in Sudan.
The Rashaida are a nomadic people who live in tents made of goatskins. They are herdsmen, breeding primarily goats and sheep. Since they are largely illiterate, they memorize in great detail the pedigree of their animals, keeping mental records of their herds over seven or eight preceding generations of the flock, although they usually only emphasize the female lines.
Besides herding, the Rashaida also gain income through jewelry making. It is the veiled Rashaida women who craft much of the silver jewelry sold in the Kassala souq, or market, which is said to be one of the best in Sudan. Along with the jewelry, the Kassala souq supposedly markets some of the best and juiciest fruits Sudan has to offer.
http://www.sudan101.com/rashaida.htm
quote:
but still many Saudis or Yemenis are dark-skinned like this boy,without any significant negroid admixture.
@ Arab race myths.
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
There are some these "myths":
http://www.pbase.com/image/25215246
http://www.pbase.com/image/25215250
http://www.pbase.com/image/25215240
http://www.pbase.com/image/25405581
http://www.pbase.com/image/25215235
http://www.pbase.com/image/24618095
http://www.pbase.com/image/24618116
[This message has been edited by Ayazid (edited 11 August 2004).]
You really need to stop deluding yourself.
Some hard truths for you:
It happens frequently that the word Arab is misused on purpose for political strategy: 1) by applying this term as an ethnic definition to the Arabized peoples (mainly North-Africans), in order to increase the number of the Arab population,
this is also a half-truth because the Arabian ethnicity and culture arose from an original Kushite stock that was subsequently assimilated by the Semitic tribes that came after them, and even the Ismaelites were a mixed groups with a strong Hamitic component, as we will see in this essay.
No "Negroid" admixture, right. How do you get thru the day feeding yourself on nothing but lies?
Next, you'll claim that Arabs are literally descendant from the Biblical Abraham.
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
Instead of posting pointless pictures, you may want to read up on the mixed racial origins of the Arabs. The earliest Arabs are intrinsically and at root, a mixture of African and Asiatic peoples. http://www.imninalu.net/myths-Arabs.htmYou really need to stop deluding yourself.
Some hard truths for you:
It happens frequently that the word Arab is misused on purpose for political strategy: 1) by applying this term as an ethnic definition to the Arabized peoples (mainly North-Africans), in order to increase the number of the Arab population,this is also a half-truth because the Arabian ethnicity and culture arose from an original Kushite stock that was subsequently assimilated by the Semitic tribes that came after them, and even the Ismaelites were a mixed groups with a strong Hamitic component, as we will see in this essay.
No "Negroid" admixture, right. How do you get thru the day feeding yourself on nothing but lies?
Next, you'll claim that Arabs are literally descendant from the Biblical Abraham.
If anything is pointless,its your post.I didnt say "no negroid admixture",but "without any significant(or visible) negroid admixture! So whats the problem? I didnt say that the people from Arab peninsula havent any ancient or medieval negroid admixture,but the fact is that I saw some Arabs,who have medium-brown skin like this,but they havent any visible negroid admixture,because except dark skin,they look rather mediterrean. Do you think that every dark-skinned Arab has "black blood"?
[This message has been edited by Ayazid (edited 12 August 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by kenndo:
like i said that boy looks black to me.look at the nose and lips.it looks more like a black nose and he looks black.i seen blacks in america who look like that.are you blind?
No, I am not blind and be a little bit more polite please. I know that for some people in USA its probably hard,but try to be polite. Well,some "blacks" in USA look similar because they are actually mixed with Europeans. He hasnt wide nose or very thick lips and his hair is not kinky,but wavy,so its very doubtfull to call him "black".
quote:
Originally posted by Ayazid: admixture",but "without any significant (or visible) negroid admixture! So whats the problem?
quote:
I didnt say that the people from Arab peninsula havent any ancient or medieval negroid admixture
And you can detect this visually, and thereby determine it's significance. You are really shoveling the camel dung today!
quote:Dark skin is an African trait, as is curly hair, as are broad noses. The Africoid component in their physical make up is not "visible" to you because you blind yourself to it, out of hysterical anti-Black racism.
,but the fact is that I saw some Arabs,who have medium-brown skin like this,but they havent any visible negroid admixture,because except dark skin,
quote:
they look rather mediterrean.
quote:
Do you think that every dark-skinned Arab has "black blood"?
You need to pick up a current anthropology and molecular genetics textbook, so that you can at least appear to make sense when you lie about the Arabs, who are at root, a MIXED part African (yes BLACK!), and part Asian people.
ps - notice you manage not to respond to the essay I linked you to on ARAB RACE MYTHS, not to worry...here it is again: http://www.imninalu.net/myths-Arabs.htm It seems you try to pretend not hear facts that you find unpleasant. That is typical of race-myth fetishists such as yourself.
You also evade this thread: http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/000764.html Why? Can't you refute it?
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 12 August 2004).]
Also you keep speaking about this language that makes all arabs united, don't you know that the arabic dialects are so distinct, that the colloquial arabic in one country is completely unintelligible to the inhabitants of another arabic country. Even southern and northern arabs in the same country can barely comprehend one another. It's actually worst than the different dialects of spanish. A number of people in arabic countries are so illiterate that they don't even understand it's written classical form. There is only unity amongst the elite, educated, political sectors, remember that. Which is why a common Egyptian can go to another gulf arab country and be treated with as much discontent as any other African.
"United States Sends Food Assistance to Darfur
Shipment of 32,000 tons valued at $30 million
The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is contributing almost 32,000 metric tons of food to the emergency assistance operation under way in Darfur, Sudan.
The new contribution was announced August 6 and brings the USAID support for the international effort in Darfur to almost 120,000 tons of food. This is in addition to more than 11,000 tons of food assistance directed to Darfur refugees who have crossed the border into Chad.
USAID assistance will be channeled through the World Food Program (WFP) to more than 2 million people who are expected to need food assistance by October.
In total, the United States has contributed almost $180 million in assistance for food and other survival supplies to improve conditions in Darfur and Chad."
Following is the text of the USAID press release:
USAID Delivers Emergency Food Aid to the People of Darfur
WASHINGTON, DC 20523
PRESS OFFICE
Finally international attention! (no matter the underlying motive)
I'm out
quote:
Originally posted by homeylu:
Ayazid, you may be surprised to know that language specialist have trace the origin of the arabic language to East Africa, (sub-sahara E. Africa to be more precise) the languae left with a migration out of Africa almost 10,000 years ago and spread to southern Asia, which explains how southern Arabic is close to the ancient Ethiopian language Geez, which is where the language Amharic originated from.Also you keep speaking about this language that makes all arabs united, don't you know that the arabic dialects are so distinct, that the colloquial arabic in one country is completely unintelligible to the inhabitants of another arabic country. Even southern and northern arabs in the same country can barely comprehend one another. It's actually worst than the different dialects of spanish. A number of people in arabic countries are so illiterate that they don't even understand it's written classical form. There is only unity amongst the elite, educated, political sectors, remember that. Which is why a common Egyptian can go to another gulf arab country and be treated with as much discontent as any other African.
Good points. Wonder if Ayazid will reply by explaining how Afro-Asiatic language of the Arabs has no detectable signs of "Negroid" admixture.
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
You are really shoveling the camel dung today!The Africoid component in their physical make up is not "visible" to you because you blind yourself to it, out of hysterical anti-Black racism.
Black blood? Lol at your unceasing idiocy.
You keep yourself ignorant by making up ridiculous terminology.That is typical of race-myth fetishists such as yourself.
Fine speaking! Advanced style! Stylization !Politeness! Logic! Ingenious! 
[This message has been edited by Ayazid (edited 17 August 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by Ayazid:
[B]
Fine speaking! Advanced style! Stylization !Politeness! Logic! Ingenious!
* "ancient or medieval" negroid admixture, juxtaposed with...
* "significant" negroid admixture, which we are told is to be read as...
* "visable" negroid admixture, which further is not withstanding the presence of dark skin, which you assure us is independant of
* "Black blood", etc. ad absurdum.
Simply put, ignorance is itself offensive, and you should not spew nonsense, if you don't want it to be identified as such.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 17 August 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
Unfortunately sarcasm won't help to clarify your inane concept of race, predicated on ideas such as* "ancient or medieval" negroid admixture, juxtaposed with...
* "significant" negroid admixture, which we are told is to be read as...
* "visable" negroid admixture, which further is not withstanding the presence of dark skin, which you assure us is independant of
* "Black blood", etc. ad absurdum.
Simply put, ignorance is itself offensive, and you should not spew nonsense, if you don't want it to be identified as such.
You wrote that some Arabs are "part African",because of early mixing with Africans,so it means that they have "Ancient" negroid admixture. They have also "medieval" negroid admixture,because of slave trade,it´s well documented and undeniable. If you don´t understand what is "black blood" = negroid admixture,better said.Visible negroid admixture means that somebody have visible negroid features = because of negroid admixture.If anybody has one white European and one black African parent, he has usually stronger negroid features thatn somebody who has one black African grandparent.
The term "mediterrean" is generally accepted anthropological term. Have you any evidence, that it´s not? South American Indians are mostly dark-skinned, so are they "part African"? No, because their skin is only tailored to hot,tropical climate.East Asians have often broad noses,so are they "part African"? Melanesians look very similar to black Africans,but they are probably closer to Chinese.
Look at these pictures:
http://www.pbase.com/image/25405581
http://www.pbase.com/image/25405581
http://www.pbase.com/image/24618116
http://www.pbase.com/image/25215250
These people are dark-skinned, but they haven´t any visible negroid features.Their skin is only only tailored to hot,desert climate.
And don´t call me idiot,ignorant,race-myth fetishist or hysterical anti-Black racist, please. Thanks.
[This message has been edited by Ayazid (edited 18 August 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by Ayazid:
[B]
You wrote that some Arabs are "part African",because of early mixing with Africans,so it means that they have "Ancient" negroid admixture.
I wrote that Arabs are at root part African part Asian. I based that on two sources sighted which explain in detail Arab origins. Now...you have not disputed those facts. Yet you obviously have difficulty facing them. I did not write that the Arabs had "negroid admixture". Nor is that ever said in the article/sources sighted. ONLY YOU ARE PRETENDING, TO THAT EFFECT.
Now...do your next predictable bit, and pretend you can't see any difference between what Diop is saying on Arab Origins, and what you are saying. Let us know when you are ready to pull your head out of the sand.
[This message has been edited by Ayazid (edited 18 August 2004).]
quote:
If anybody has one white European and one black African parent, he has usually stronger negroid features thatn somebody who has one black African grandparent.
quote:
The term "mediterrean" is generally accepted anthropological term.
lol. "Mediterranean", is geographic term refering to the Mediterranean Sea. It is a common misnomer to use it as a race term.
As for the Arabs, the term mediterranean does not in any meaningful way describe the Cushitic/Jectanide origins of these people.
You are merely using the term to hide the truth of the Afro Asiatic origins of the Arabs.
quote:
South American Indians are mostly dark-skinned, so are they "part African"?
Your entire rhetorical line can be reversed.
You might just as well claim that Arabs are
Black with various amounts of ancient/medievil, insignificant "caucasoid "admixture. Structurally, your argument would be no worse than it is now.
quote:
These people are dark-skinned, but they haven´t any visible negroid features.
Specifically: How many arabs have 'pale skin', blonde hair, blue eyes, aqualine noses, and thin lips, that are used to describe the "true caucasian"? The answer is, a virtually negligible number of the them. Now, how many have dark skin, dark eyes, curly hair, and broad noses....the answer is...many millions of them.
Arabs are a mixed race people at root, and by definition. They are part Black...and part White. They have been right from the beginning, and without that mixture, ethnically and culturally.... there is no such thing as Arab. Sorry.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 18 August 2004).]
Pigmentation is the most readily visible signifier of race, and as such it's often used by laymen to detect bi-racial ancestry. Yet it's also the least reliable from this standpoint, as it changes in response to climatic and environmental conditions, both seasonal and long-term.
Skin color is one of the most conspicuous ways in which humans vary and has been widely used to define human races. Here we present new evidence indicating that variations in skin color are adaptive, and are related to the regulation of ultraviolet (UV) radiation penetration.... Skin coloration in humans is adaptive and labile. Skin pigmentation levels have changed more than once in human evolution. Because of this, skin coloration is of no value in determining phylogenetic relationships among modern human groups.
(N. Jablonski and G. Chaplin, J Hum Evol, 2000)
* * *
Skin color should always be taken on some unexposed part of the body. Among Middle Easterners this is simple, because they cover as much of the body as is consistent with their work. The exposed skin color may be a dark brown, while the skin of the underarm is ten shades lighter. (The sun shines brightly in the Middle East.) While fair-skinned people are to be seen, they live chiefly in shaded bazaars and government offices, whence they rarely emerge into the dazzling light of day.
(Carleton Coon, Caravan: The Story of the Middle East)
* * *
Below is the 36-tone chromatic scale devised by Austrian anthropologist Felix von Luschan to assess the unexposed skin of human populations. It's referenced throughout The Races of Europe, and Coon often loosely correlates it with his own broader adjectives for skin tones: In general, pinkish-white corresponds to #3-9 on the scale; white to #7-12; brunet-white to #13-16; and light brown to #15-18. As can be seen, even the darkest Europeans fall well within the lighter end of the spectrum.
Meet Dr. Nina Jablonski, anthropologist at the California Academy of Sciences
Science Interchange reporter Stacey Fowler recently interviewed Nina Jablonski, co-author (with George Chaplin) of a paper entitled "The Evolution of Human Skin Coloration," which will be published in the July 2000 edition of the Journal of Human Evolution. Here are some highlights from the interview:
Dr. Jablonski, could you tell me about the recent research you conducted on the evolution of skin pigmentation?
Skin coloration is one of the most obvious ways in which humans vary from one to another. And so it is of obvious interest to everybody because you look at one another and you say, "Oh, that person's a different color than I am." What I've been interested in is what the evolutionary history of our skin coloration is.
And what is some of that history?
Well, skin is one of those things that isn't preserved in the fossil record. It's not like bones. And so, reconstructing the history of skin, whether we're talking about its sweating abilities or its color, is difficult and has to be done through indirect investigation. However, we've been able to shed some interesting light on this phenomenon by looking at some of the physiological characteristics of skin. For instance, skin--especially dark-colored skin--is particularly good at screening out ultraviolet radiation, and we consider it to be highly adaptive
screening out ultraviolet radiation, and we consider it to be highly adaptive. It turns out that ultraviolet radiation not only causes skin damage, like wrinkling and things like that, but also it has much more sinister effects. It actually can cause the breakdown of some crucial metabolites, or nutrients, in our blood capillaries such as the nutrient folate, which turns out to be critical in normal development. So, if you get too much ultraviolet radiation through your skin, the folate in your blood can actually be broken down by the radiation. And this can have many deleterious effects. And so, having a natural sunscreen in your skin helps to prevent that breakdown of folate.
On the other hand, if you are living in areas where ultraviolet radiation is particularly low, such as areas near the Arctic or Antarctic circles, or actually as you move out of the tropics, you have another problem to deal with. The skin is the place where Vitamin D is synthesized using ultraviolet rays to catalyze the reaction. So you need some ultraviolet light to penetrate the skin in order to make Vitamin D. Vitamin D turns out to be critical to your body because it provides the means whereby you absorb calcium from your food in your digestive system. So if you don't have Vitamin D, you can't absorb calcium from your food and you can't build strong bones.
Making the proper skin color turns out to be a balancing act between having enough natural sunscreen to prevent a lot of damage to the contents of the blood system. On the other hand, you have to let in enough ultraviolet light to still permit the formation of Vitamin D in your skin. So people who live in conditions of lower ultraviolet light, away from the tropics and toward the poles, have to have lighter skin than those people who live closer to the tropics or closer to the equator. Those people really have to have darker skin to protect themselves from ultraviolet light.
Those of us who are sort of in the middle, like inhabitants of most of North America and most of Eurasia, have to have skin that is capable of some level of tanning so that we can protect ourselves from lots of ultraviolet radiation in the late spring and summer. But we can de-pigment ourselves as ultraviolet light becomes less intense in the winter so we can take advantage of the ambient ultraviolet radiation that does exist.
How did skin coloration evolve as our ancestors radiated out from Africa to inhabit other continents?
The history of our own species, Homo sapiens, in terms of skin is a fascinating history. If we look at our earliest Homo sapiens ancestors (about 100 to 150 thousand years ago in eastern Africa), we can reconstruct that those ancestors would have had dark skin to protect themselves from the deleterious effects of ultraviolet light. But those populations began to move out of the tropics and colonize areas that were much less intense in terms of ultraviolet light. As they first moved into the Circum Mediterranean, Western Asia, then onward into Eastern Asia, Europe, Southeast Asia, Australia and so forth, these populations would have to undergo some depigmentation in order for them to be able to synthesize enough Vitamin D in their skin.
Imagine, for instance, the populations that went from East Africa and slowly made their way into central Asia or northern Asia. These populations would have had to undergo quite extensive depigmentation in order to maintain enough Vitamin D synthesis potential in their skin. But imagine some of these populations that were eventually on their way into Southern India, or what is now Sri Lanka. Those populations that also originated, ultimately, in eastern Africa would have undergone some depigmentation as they moved out of the most intense UV of the tropics, and then they would have undergone repigmentation as they moved down, back into the intense ultraviolet regimes of southern India and Sri Lanka.
This same pattern of intense pigmentation to start out with, followed by a period of depigmentation perhaps 10, 20, or 30 thousand years long, followed again by another period of repigmentation, I think has been followed by many different populations as they have gone from one part of the world to another. It's not a deterministic process; it's simply an adaptive process as these populations have changed from one area with one particular ultraviolet light regime to another.
Are we seeing any evidence that skin pigmentation is changing in response to current environmental factors?
One of the most interesting changes that we are seeing today, of course, is that people are moving from one part of the world to another. You have lots of very light-skinned European people who are moving into areas where there's a lot of ultraviolet light -- either to the southern United States or people moving from England to northern Australia, for example. And so we're seeing people who are inherently well-adapted to low levels of ultraviolet light moving into areas where there's a lot of ultraviolet light, causing them to suffer tremendously from ultraviolet light damage to their skin.
On the other hand, we have an interesting phenomenon with people who are moving from where ultraviolet light is very intense, such as Africa and India, into regions where it's less intense, such as the United States or the UK. For instance, these days there are a lot of people from the subcontinent of India, including Pakistan, moving into the UK and the United States where there are much lower levels of ultraviolet light than they're used to. It turns out that these people are particularly susceptible to Vitamin D deficiencies of various kinds.
Although we don't see human skin changing in response to environmental changes because our time frame is too short to see any evolutionary change, what we are seeing are the dramatic effects of human migrations as people move from areas of the world that they are well-adapted to areas of the world where they are not well-adapted in terms of ultraviolet radiation.
If, for instance, an Indian family moved to the UK and lived there for several generations, at what point would their descendants begin to adapt to the climate?
It's hard to say how long this adaptation would take because these days adaptation in any human characteristic is very much mediated by our cultural behavior. Humans do a lot of stuff : They wear clothes, they take
shelter, they take vitamin supplements, they do all these things to change the nature of their interface with their physical environment. So it's now almost impossible to predict how long it might take for a human population to adapt to a different ultraviolet light regime because we do so much meddling.
A final comment?
I think one of the most important findings of our research is that skin color is a highly adaptive feature of the human body. It has changed over thousands of years to reflect environmental conditions. That is a wonderful thing in itself because it means that, basically, the skin is a highly flexible organ. We know this already from other types of physiological studies, but in terms of evolutionary biology it is also very flexible. It can change depending on the environmental conditions, which means that skin color itself is really of no value when we look at evolutionary relationships per se among different human populations. You can have individuals from different populations that share a similar bone structure, for instance, but have a completely different skin color. The two are unrelated. And so we can't use skin color for determining relationships between human groups.
The map above shows the potential for synthesis of vitamin D in human skin, as computed from annual average UV radiation at the Earth's surface (UVMED). The highest annual values for UVMED are shown in light violet, with incrementally lower values shown in dark violet, then in light to dark shades of blue, orange, green and gray. White denotes areas for which no UVMED data exist (Mercator projection). In the tropics, the zone of adequate UV radiation throughout the year is delimited by bold black lines. Light stippling indicates Zone 2, in which there is not sufficient UV radiation during at least one month of the year to produce previtamin D3 in human skin. Zone 3, in which there is not sufficient UV radiation for previtamin D3 synthesis on average for the whole year, is indicated by heavy stippling. In short this means that within the tropics, people can meet their vitamin D needs through casual sun exposure. As you go farther north or south, this becomes an increasing problem. In the area we refer to as Zone 3, this is an acute problem for human populations. Successful habitation of that zone has required evolution of greatly depigmented skin and inclusion in the diet of lots of vitamin D-rich foods (like fish and marine mammals)
http://racialreality.shorturl.com
[This message has been edited by Ayazid (edited 18 August 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by Ayazid:
[B]SKIN COLORPigmentation is the most readily visible signifier of race, and as such it's often used by laymen to detect bi-racial ancestry. Yet it's also the least reliable from this standpoint, as it changes in response to climatic and environmental conditions, both seasonal and long-term.
Actually this is an understatement. There are no absolute visible signifiers of race.
Anthropologists and Geneticists increasingly regard race as being more of a social construct and less of a biological fact.
I will address the rest of this post...in a sec. But must 1st note, that you are wandering off point -
Which is...the Arabs are of mixed origins.
They are part African, part Asiatic, and their physical features, their language, their culture all reflect that fact.
And you have offered no refutation of that fact, in spite of more than a dozen posts intended as such.
And absolutely nothing in your latest, lengthy post disputes this either.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 18 August 2004).]
quote:
Skin color should always be taken on some unexposed part of the body. Among Middle Easterners this is simple, because they cover as much of the body as is consistent with their work. The exposed skin color may be a dark brown, while the skin of the underarm is ten shades lighter. (The sun shines brightly in the Middle East.) While fair-skinned people are to be seen, they live chiefly in shaded bazaars and government offices, whence they rarely emerge into the dazzling light of day.
(Carleton Coon, Caravan: The Story of the Middle East)
You are quoting Carleton Coon, a nefarious racist whose outdated ideas have been completely discredited.
In 1962 Coon published The Origin of the Races which offered a multi-regional hypothesis for the origin of humankind. Coon argued that the human race crossed the threshold into homo sapiens not once, but five times, with whites crossing first and black last, 200,000 years later. Putnam quickly seized on Coon’s theory as proof of the innate inferiority of African Americans and ample justification for segregation. One of the great benefits of my study has been to fully explore Coon’s relationship with Putnam. Privately Coon checked manuscripts and supplied anthropological information for Putnam while publicly maintaining that he had no relationship with the segregationist
Coon was forced to resign his post with the American Association of Physical Anthropologist over this fraud.
Coon believed that Caucasians were the original humans, and that pygmy and others were and inferior sub species. You need to read up on current anthropology, not promote outdated white American racist mythology, in an effort to bolster Arab race mythology, which is an example of going from bad to worse.
Good luck finding any respectable scientist who still supports most of his racist nonsense. Too bad you don't know any better. http://comm.colorado.edu/jjackson/research/nyu%20proposal.htm
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 18 August 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by Ayazid:
.[This message has been edited by Ayazid (edited 18 August 2004).]
lol. good move.
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
lol. good move.
!
[This message has been edited by Ayazid (edited 18 August 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by Ayazid:
And what do you think about article of Dr. Jablonski?
Remember we are discussing the mixed origins of the Arabs based on the anthropological, linguistic, genetic, somatic, cultural and historical evidence, the facts of which you aren't so much disputing as evading.
btw: Loring Brace who argued that the Ancient Kemetians most resembled the modern Somali...which in turn required him to solve the "problem of Somali origins" by hypothesizing that theu were originally non-Black immigrants from Asia...then arguing that the fact that the Somali had dark skin simply proved that they (Asians) must have been living in tropical Africa for "many 10's of thousands of years"..... because it would take at least that long for a previously white people to re-evolve dark skin.
Of course, many critics of Brace noted that his argument was circuitous.
If the Somali were simply viewed as indigenous Africans having always had dark skin....then there is no "problem" and no need to hypothesize an explanation for their origins, that runs counter to all other evidence.
Similar with the Arabs. Their Afro-Asiatic Cushitic/Semitic mixed roots are a known fact. There is no "problem"...except the need to deny it out of racism.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 24 July 2005).]