posted
Obelix, could you please give a direct quote on what Henri Frankfort says about the Africaness of divine kingship in ancinet Kmt? I never read any of his books but saw him referenced by Egyptologist about the African nature of divine kingship.
You don't have to supply the direct quote but I would appreciate it greatly if you did.
Obelisk_18 Member # 11966
posted
Henri Frankfort was a Dutch Egyptologist in the lower half of the twentieth century, in the days of Seligman and Smith (ah the double S), when it was thought that the high civilization attained by the Egyptians alone "refuted" its Africanity, or at least if it was racially "African" it had to be a Semitic cultural import from their Iraqi brothers . But my man Frankfort, along with EA Wallis Budge, somehow saw through the lies, and said that Egypt was both on and of Africa. And of course I can supply you with a quote, here's the one from last thread from his book Kingship and the Gods :
"We know that the physique of the inhabitants of this valley from the Delta deep down into Nubia remained much the same from predynastic to late historic times...It seems that Pharaonic civilization arose upon this northeast African Hamitic substratum".
And here's a reference to Frankfort in the study "Nabta Playa And It's Role in Northeast African Prehistory"
"Another way of exploring this is by examining those aspects of political and ceremonial life in the Predynastic and Old Kingdom that might reflect impact from the Saharan cattle pastoralists. In this we have been preceeded by Frankfort (1978: 3–12) who, in his major study of Egyptian and Mesopotamian religions and political systems, argued that the Egyptian belief system arose from an East African substratum and was not introduced from Mesopotamia. To support his position Frankfort pointed to the similarities in religious beliefs the early Egyptians shared with Nilotic cattle pastoralists. During the Old Kingdom, cattle were a central focus of their belief system. They were deified and regarded as earthly representatives of the gods. A cow was also seen as the mother of the sun, who is sometimes referred to as the ‘‘Bull of Heaven.’’ The Egyptian pharaoh was a god (similar to the Shillok king, and not an intermediary to the gods as in Mesopotamia)." And now scholars seem to think that Egypt's cultural source likely came from the Sahara than East Africa with the discovery of Nabta Playa: "It seems likely, however, that had Frankfort known that cattle pastoralists were in the adjacent Sahara several thousands years before the Predynastic, he would have seen the Western Desert cattle pastoralists as the more likely source for the Old Kingdom religious beliefs than the East African pastoralists."
quote:Originally posted by Obelisk_18: northeast African Hamitic substratum
^ The reason that Supercar took exception to this is because the concept of Hamitic substratum exists in anthropology precisely to deny the native Africanity of Nile Valley civilisation.
The term Hamite as used by Frankfort means the following:
I once related this quote to Wally because he used the Columbia encyclopedia as a source, but left out the part about 'caucasoid settlers', as if it were irrelevant. It is not. It was the sole reason for the existence of a hamitic catagory in linguistics and ethnology.
The term has been abandoned in the above disciplines precisely because its very basis was bogus.
The moral to the story is - Be careful with what you quote because it dosen't always say what you think it does.
The devil is in the details.
Obelisk_18 Member # 11966
posted
Yes, but I once again don't think Frankfort meant that Ancient Egyptians were descended from an ancient migrating "caucasoid" race, he used the term "Hamitic" because that was the word used to refer to the Afro-Asiatic languages and the people of East and North Africa back then. If he was ideological he would have said that Egyptian culture was an import from Mesopotamia, which he truthfully said it wasn't. That would be like saying if some one found a skull to conform to the "Negroid phenotype" then they autmatically believe in the reality of race, but they don't, they just say, that based on anthropological nomenclature, the skull was "negroid". Get what I'm saying .
rasol Member # 4592
posted
^ No I don't get it, and neither do you, because you are not listening to what your source is saying.
He is not referring to language, he is referring to phenotype:
"We know that the physique of the inhabitants of this valley from the Delta deep down into Nubia remained much the same from predynastic to late historic times...It seems that Pharaonic civilization arose upon this northeast African Hamitic substratum"
You are hearing what you want to hear and ignoring what your source actually said. Either that or you are misquoting your source.
At any rate, please listen carefully:
The only function of Hamite in outdated anthropology - was to define that which is African, but *not* 'negro'.
In said anthropology - Hamite and Negro are antonyms. Hamite and Caucasian are synonyms.
If you use this term, in and anthropological context this is what you are buying into.
Unfortunately Africanists who use these terms anyway, simply do not understand what they are saying.
There is a very subtle Eurocentric argument that they are in effect supporting and is going over their heads.
Some will try and remake a new 'definition' of Hamite.
But this is pointless because the term has no credibility in current anthroplogy, and is racist in outdated anthropology.
Lastly, some attempt to circle round this difficulty by invoking the Bible as the original source of Hamites meaning - this definitely has historical value for many reasons - but it has no anthropology value and so is non sequitur for referencing Hamite as a racial or linguistics catagory.
There are no Hamites in anthropology or linguistics, period.
Djehuti Member # 6698
posted
ditto
Hikuptah Member # 11131
posted
Rasol u are saying that the Word Ham has no Lingustics or racial catagory so why do lingustics use the term Semitic & Cushitic so is Hamitic considered the same as Cushitic. I understand your point Rasol in my class at UCLA they tried to put the Hamites & Cushitic speakers as White and in many of my books from College they distiguished the people of the Horn as Ancient Whites who are related to the Ancient Egyptians who are White.
I was wondering why do u find all of the Afro-Asiatic speakers mostly in Ethiopia and not in Sudan or Egypt.
rasol Member # 4592
posted
rasol Member # 4592
posted
quote:Rasol u are saying that the Word Ham has no Lingustics or racial catagory
It's not a matter of what I am saying.
In current linguistics and anthropology 'hamitic' is dead. It no longer exists in either discipline. That's why the references come from old texts and not current ones.
quote:so why do lingustics use the term Semitic & Cushitic
For the same reason they use the term Latin and Japanese - because you can demonstrate thru linguistics the existence of related languages concordant with the terms.
There are no languages concordant with Hamite, nor was the term - derived from the Bible - linguistic. Biblical Ham has nothing to do with language.
quote:so is Hamitic considered the same as Cushitic.
Nope. see above.
quote: and in many of my books from College they distiguished the people of the Horn as Ancient Whites who are related to the Ancient Egyptians who are White.
Yep. That's what it's for.
We have to get more students of African history to understand that the entire racial discourse in history exists to service European triumphalism and grandstanding.
Europeans didn't build the pyramids.
They didn't invent reading or writing or agriculture or civilisation.
They inherited all of these things from Africa and Asia.
Race is the propaganda mechanism by which Europeans claim the acheivements of non-Europeans, by inventing a European centered race catagory and then claiming all human acheivement as the province of 'their race'.
- Thru race, people are white, european and caucasian even when they are *not.*
- Hamites are the Black people who are nontheless white and so not 'really' Black.
- Hamites are the Africans who are nontheless European and so 'not really' African.
- Hamites are the Caucasians whose ancestors have never been within a thousand kilometers of Caucasia, a region that is chosen as a racial mythology because Noah of the Bible is supposed to have landed on mount Ararat - in the caucasus mountains.
In short - it's prepostrous.
Therefore it's ineffective to quarrel with Eurocentrics over their self serving divisions of 'races' - which amounts to furthering their ridiculous discourse.
Instead - have to deconstruct the entire faulty concept at it's root.
quote: I was wondering why do u find all of the Afro-Asiatic speakers mostly in Ethiopia and not in Sudan or Egypt.
Remember Chadic is also Afrisan or Afro-Asiatic.
There are over 100 Chadic languages. Nigeria and Niger have Chadic and Berber languages - and so probably more individual Afrisan languages than Egypt or Sudan.
Africa Member # 12142
posted
It's weird that people still use the following term: hamite...this is garbage...Europeans and Asians look like Africans...not the other away around...my Asian and European friends understand that in 2006, when I explain how Africans are diverse...if the likes of Johann Friedrich Blumenbach still think that "Caucasian" exist, if they go to Africa, they will have nightmares...because that's where you find people who have the characteristic of the so called "Caucasian" in its extreme form...translation:"Aryans" are mongrels if you use Africans as a base...
posted
^ Quite correct. Africa is where all humans originate and therefore where all physical diversity finds it root.
Although there are limitations in such a view - it's possible to look at all physical diversity as "African."
However....it is *not* possible to view human diversity as European or caucasian.
Simply put - Europeans do ultimately come from Africa.
Africans and most people on Earth for that matter - do not come from Europe, and have few or no ancestors who ever lived there.
Djehuti Member # 6698
posted
quote:Originally posted by Hikuptah: ...I understand your point Rasol in my class at UCLA they tried to put the Hamites & Cushitic speakers as White and in many of my books from College they distiguished the people of the Horn as Ancient Whites who are related to the Ancient Egyptians who are White.
Wow! Are you serious Hikuptah?! And I thought UCLA was a "progressive" college! What are doing teaching this out-dated inaccurate nonsense??
quote:I was wondering why do u find all of the Afro-Asiatic speakers mostly in Ethiopia and not in Sudan or Egypt.
As Rasol says, Chadic-Afrasian languages are found from Sudan to Nigeria. You also have the Berber languages which are spoken from western Egypt to Morocco and Niger. The Beja language is also spoken in Sudan and Egypt, and the Egyptian language itself was Afrasian. You also have Cushitic languages that are spoken as far south as Tanzania. So where did you get the idea that Afrasian is somehow contained in the Horn?
Obelisk_18 Member # 11966
posted
Djehuti, babe, don't be so naive and think that just because it's the twenty first century white people are gonna flush ideology down the toilet and straight out admit that Ancient Egyptians, the progenitors of Western civilization, were African in both race and origin . Why don't my people instead of B***ing about the white man's interpretation of our history start actually doing research in our history? DO I have to bring up that quote by chancellor williams again???
rasol Member # 4592
posted
quote:Wow! Are you serious Hikuptah?! And I thought UCLA was a "progressive" college! What are doing teaching this out-dated inaccurate nonsense??
I'm going to guess that they don't literally teach this because they would need to lie.
The primary method used to further the Eurocentric discourse in the Nile Valley is passive-aggressive dissembling.
For example - you discuss Egypt as a part of the western historical revisionism that is the "Middle East". You avoid placing it in it's proper Nile Valley African context.
A good example of this approach was a recent Documentary on Nubia in which the narrator kept stressing that Nubians were Africans. Now the contemporary western scholarship has officially conceded that Ancient Egyptians were also Africans [read the current Oxford History of Ancient Egypt], and that they were ethnically most closely related to the "Nubians" [Yurco, Weeks], but that doesn't mean they have to go out of their way to state it.
So...by saying Nubians are Africans....by *not* saying the same for Ancient Egyptians....and by saying Egypt is a part of the "middle east", you effectively mislead your audience without literally lying.
Djehuti Member # 6698
posted
^^Of course, Rasol. Eurocentrism these days relies on such passive aggressive, covert tactics. Which is why I'm surprised that a university today even one such as UCLA would actually outright teach the Hamitic myth which was debunked a long time ago. Apparently some people fail to understand that.
quote:Originally posted by Obelisk_18: Djehuti, babe, don't be so naive and think that just because it's the twenty first century white people are gonna flush ideology down the toilet and straight out admit that Ancient Egyptians, the progenitors of Western civilization, were African in both race and origin . Why don't my people instead of B***ing about the white man's interpretation of our history start actually doing research in our history? DO I have to bring up that quote by chancellor williams again???
Obelisk, not all white people are as biased or Eurocentric as you think. Also, it would be straight academic dishonesty for any university to teach material that is outdated, let alone debunked by modern science so my surprise and questions to Hikuptah's response is in no way "naive".
And please stop with the "babe" unless you are female, which I am assuming you are and not to question your 'black' identity but I've never heard any black person in the ATL talk the way you do with your incessant reference to "cha-chi". By the way you sound, I am going to have to assume you live in Peach tree city-- the "peachy" part of Atlanta, if you know what I'm saying! LOL
Calypso Member # 8587
posted
Rasol Wrote:
quote:Race is the propaganda mechanism by which Europeans claim the acheivements of non-Europeans, by inventing a European centered race catagory and then claiming all human acheivement as the province of 'their race'.
Quite True Rasol. Nor is this device a thing of the past. One always has to be on the look out for this eurocentric obsession. In Jared Diamond's popular work: Guns, Germs, and Steel; this author, who is ostensibly progressive displays a map in which a line is drawn, roughly from the horn of Africa westward to about Mauritania. He declares the population above this line to be white.
Djehuti Member # 6698
posted
^LOL Really, Calypso! I've seen the book in my local library and have always wanted to read it though not really having the time.
So the guy basically goes with the old segregate and confine blacks to south of the Sahara while everyone else on the continent is 'white'. So I guess Nubians were white too.
Obelisk_18 Member # 11966
posted
Ah Jared Diamond, I call him a humanitarian Eurocentrist . Someone gave me the book as a gift, and I was shocked at that, that segregation line he draw seperating north and sub-saharan africa. Since when were "whites" in the Sudan? You know what other research Jared Diamond has done on my people, measuring our nutz, what kind of sick man is he????
Obelisk_18 Member # 11966
posted
I guess you haven't been around alot of black people then, Djehuti . And are you black yourself? You know blacks are as diverse in their language as they are in phenotype, don't you .
Calypso Member # 8587
posted
Djehuti wrote:
quote:So the guy basically goes with the old segregate and confine blacks to south of the Sahara while everyone else on the continent is 'white'. So I guess Nubians were white too.
According to his demarcation the Nubians are white. He sees north Africa as a continuation of Eurasia.
Obelisk_18 wrote:
quote:Ah Jared Diamond, I call him a humanitarian Eurocentrist.
Good way of putting it.
Calypso Member # 8587
posted
Admittedly this is straying off topic but this is a synopsis of one of the chapters in GG&S.
quote:Chapter 19: How Africa Became Black
Africa has a high diversity of peoples and languages due to diverse geography and long prehistory. North African "whites" resemble whites in the Middle East and Europe and mostly speak Afro-Asiatic languages, of which the Semitic languages are an offshoot. Pygmies, now confined mostly to Central Africa, were once more widespread but were engulfed by Bantu farmers, and their languages were lost even where they continue to live. Similarly, Khoisan (Bushmen and Hottentots) were once widespread as were their click-laden languages, but now they have been marginalized to desert areas the Bantu could not farm. Madagascar has blacks blended with Indonesians speaking Austronesian languages (following the Austronesian migration from Asia c. 300 - 800 AD). "Blacks" occupy most of S. Sahara and sub-Saharan Africa. They mostly speak non-Bantu and Bantu versions of the Niger-Congo languages (which arose in W Africa: Cameroon and Nigeria) with some pockets remaining of Nilo-Saharan languages. The Bantu farmers dominated as they spread c. 3000 BC to 500 AD due to superior plant and animal domestication (incl. crops which like summer rains). They also had iron and bronze. They extended their range to Natal on the East coast and, as the Xhosa people, extended their range to the Fish River 500 miles east of Cape Town.
Diamond's take on the people of North Africa doesn't even resort the somewhat subtler Hamitic ruse. He outright appropriates the people, their history and their culture to europeans.
quote:His book is for American consumption, and he's the product of the American society, very few Europeans would call people from the Maghreb (North Africa) white
They wouldn't be considered white in America either and Diamond doesn't consider them white....either.
Once again - don't underestimate the *cynicism* that goes hand in hand with racist ideology.
It's not about what you believe, it's about what you can get away with.
South Africa's apartheid regime declared the Japanese to be 'white', in order to get their support - or at the very least some money.
They also declared whites to be *the majority* based on some of the same specious reasoning that Diamond regurgitates.
It didn't work though.
ausar Member # 1797
posted
What is Jared Diamond's credentials anyway? I don't believe he is a biological or physical anthropologist.
Africa Member # 12142
posted
Rasol, I lived in Europe: people from the Maghreb are viewed as Arab Africans, they usually hang out with Black Africans...And I lived in the United States...all of the sudden my fellow Africans(from the Maghreb) became white. And they quickly realize that. Many use to tell us what some white Americans thought about Blacks, stuff we couldn't hear because they couldn't tell it in front of Black people...and they felt sorry, because they know they are Africans as well...I'm not sure based on the above quotes that Jared Diamond doesn’t think that people from the Maghreb are white or “Caucasian” which include Indian, people from the Maghreb and Western Asians in some official American classifications. Please note that “Caucasian” is a classification seldom used in Europe which shows how White Americans tried to include as many people as possible in their fold.
quote: What is Jared Diamond's credentials anyway? I don't believe he is a biological or physical anthropologist.
On the back cover of GG&S it says that he is a professor of geography at UCLA.
Djehuti Member # 6698
posted
^Just comes to show that certain old biased ideologies can still thrive in even the most 'liberal' and progressive institutions like UCLA. The thing is the guy seems to only have credentials in geography but not history or anthropology.
quote:Originally posted by Obelisk_18: I guess you haven't been around alot of black people then, Djehuti .
LOL Actually I have, but non who sound like you.
quote:And are you black yourself?
No, but it doesn't matter.
quote:You know blacks are as diverse in their language as they are in phenotype, don't you .
Of course, but now that I think of it I have heard of few people who sound like you regardless of background. In fact the few people I've seen like I said are a little 'peachy'. But whatever your personal lifestyle is, it doesn't matter.
Getting back to the topic. Western scholars in the past have written theses on the Egyptian concept of the 'divine king' and how this institution is widespread within the African continent. Of course, these scholars began to attribute such an institution to 'Hamites', as they did with other traces of higher or advanced culture in the African continent even Sub-Sahara.
I'll try to find the writtings on this, especially recent ones which debunk this nonsense.
Obelisk_18 Member # 11966
posted
Ah, glad to see you responded Djehuti . But since you're not black, um, STFU . And I don't know if I'm "Peachy" but just to tell you a little bout me I like my women thick but I don't spend money like it's gonna rot real quick .
Anyways, I remember you mentioning a certain scholar, besides Ehret, admitting the Africanity of both the culture and race of Egypt..And what did Keita's mentor, Larry Angel, say of Egyptians, and do you think that the population of egypt, remained pretty much the same throughout the dynastic era?
Djehuti Member # 6698
posted
quote:Originally posted by Obelisk_18: Ah, glad to see you responded Djehuti . But since you're not black, um, STFU . And I don't know if I'm "Peachy" but just to tell you a little bout me I like my women thick but I don't spend money like it's gonna rot real quick .
LMAO Well sorry if I offended you. And if you really like women, well then you must be more in touch with your feminine side. But enough of your personal life!
quote:Anyways, I remember you mentioning a certain scholar, besides Ehret, admitting the Africanity of both the culture and race of Egypt..And what did Keita's mentor, Larry Angel, say of Egyptians, and do you think that the population of egypt, remained pretty much the same throughout the dynastic era?
The scholar I mentioned was Michael Rice who is an Egyptologist and author of the book Who's Who in Ancient Egypt. A couple of other Egyptologists who accept the Africanity of Egypt is Toby Wilkinson- author of Genesis of the Pharaohs, and Barbara S. Lesko- author of Great Goddesses of Ancient Egypt. Rasol also mentioned Egyptologists Frank Yurco and Kent Weeks, but I'm sure there are plenty of others.
As for anthropologists, the only people I know who studied Egyptian remains was Sonia Zakrewski and Keita. As for Keita's mentor Larry Angel, I have no idea what he says about the Egyptians directly, but he does note that Neolithic remains just outside of Egypt notably the Natufians of the Levant and others in Anatolia and the Aegean have "negroid" characteristics that match those of predynastic Egyptian remains.
All in all, white Westerners have begun to accept the FACTS. Of course there are those who still desperately try to cling on to tradition, and the general public hasn't really caught up, so we have a long way to go.
posted ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
. But my man Frankfort, along with EA Wallis Budge, somehow saw through the lies, and said that Egypt was both on and of Africa. And of course I can supply you with a quote, here's the one from last thread from his book Kingship and the Gods : 
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
. And are you black yourself? You know blacks are as diverse in their language as they are in phenotype, don't you