posted
It is a well established fact that the ancient Egyptians were black Africans, and we all know this fact is supported by virtually all the scientific disciplines one can use on the study of a people-- from the many skeletal including cranial analyses of physical remains, to genetic studies of Egyptian populations, to melanin tests of skin, linguistics, and even all the ethnological examinations and cultural comparisons one can make from the archaeological record. It is clear that the ancient Egyptians were indigenous to the African continent and that as such they would indeed be black and are closely related to other black Africans especially other northeast Africans in their vicinity. The issue then is not really their identity nor is it history itself, much as historiography that is how history is written. And we know that most of this history is and has been dominated for quite some time by the West. The book below is an excellent reading for anyone interested in the historiography of the African continent especially the problems and challenges Western historiography poses.
Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the entirety of African historiography needs a major revision. This does not just include Egypt either. There are too many misconceptions and long-standing assumptions that have yet to be corrected and are still out there polluting the dialogue. The debate over the Moors and the persistance that the Sahara was an impenetrable barrier where the only Blacks that got through were slaves and mercenaries is still trumpeted as the only way to view Black Africa. I can even envision a scenario where the Timbuktu manuscripts are accredited to outside forces and not the natives that have preserved them. The manuscripts aren't prompting a re-imagining of Mali's influence on the medieval world like they should. As a matter of fact, the manuscripts are just getting people to talk about Timbuktu, not Mali which was the African state that controlled Timbuktu for a time.
Posts: 1219 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Imperialism has two characters which I term as "hot imperialism" and "cold imperialism". "Hot imperialism" covers overt military aggression and plunder, while "cold imperialism" is more of the covert and subtle face that runs parallel to the overt face--one which on instance, is inclined to be evasive in character to the average observer. There are folks who simply don't get it that rewriting history by an aspiring imperialist state is part and parcel of imperialism. Foreign policy designs, usually an extension of domestic policy, seep through to academia & mass media, and are channeled through those means, so as to subtly but systematically condition people with world perceptions that encourage them to not speak out and act out against the destructive features of said foreign policy designs. I call it a form of desensitization. I'd given several examples of how these things usually work out [the at times, somewhat symbiotic relationships between imperialism and academia] on my blog, with regards to historiography of the western Sudan: LinkPosts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Imperialism has two characters which I term as "hot imperialism" and "cold imperialism". "Hot imperialism" covers overt military aggression and plunder, while "cold imperialism" is more of the covert and subtle face that runs parallel to the overt face--one which on instance, is inclined to be evasive in character to the average observer. There are folks who simply don't get it that rewriting history by an aspiring imperialist state is part and parcel of imperialism. Foreign policy designs, usually an extension of domestic policy, seep through to academia & mass media, and are channeled through those means, so as to subtly but systematically condition people with world perceptions that encourage them to not speak out and act out against the destructive features of said foreign policy designs. I call it a form of desensitization. I'd given several examples of how these things usually work out [the at times, somewhat symbiotic relationships between imperialism and academia] on my blog, with regards to historiography of the western Sudan: Link
Your website is great!
Posts: 1219 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Imperialism has two characters which I term as "hot imperialism" and "cold imperialism". "Hot imperialism" covers overt military aggression and plunder, while "cold imperialism" is more of the covert and subtle face that runs parallel to the overt face--one which on instance, is inclined to be evasive in character to the average observer. There are folks who simply don't get it that rewriting history by an aspiring imperialist state is part and parcel of imperialism. Foreign policy designs, usually an extension of domestic policy, seep through to academia & mass media, and are channeled through those means, so as to subtly but systematically condition people with world perceptions that encourage them to not speak out and act out against the destructive features of said foreign policy designs. I call it a form of desensitization. I'd given several examples of how these things usually work out [the at times, somewhat symbiotic relationships between imperialism and academia] on my blog, with regards to historiography of the western Sudan: Link
LOL Nice phrases, Explorer. This is kind of like the 'Cold War' where instead of overt aggression through actual head on conflict, it was more like behind-the-scenes aggression. A striking similarity that Western scholars had with communists is the use of historical revisionism as a primary means of propaganda. They would hide the historical reality in favor of the falsity they needed to legitimate their cause, whether it be communism or in this case Western imperialism and the right to rule Africa since Africans were "uncivilized heathens" with supposedly no history.
By the way, there is more to come.
Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
As you can see in the paper above, Seligman was one of the first scholars to openly acknowledge an undeniably strong connection between Egypt and black Africa especially in regards to spiritual beliefs and religious institutions such as divine kingship; however, he attributes all of this to "caucasian" Hamites! Suffice to say, such traditions are to be found nowhere else but in Africa, not even in the adjacent area of Southwest Asia. Not surprisingly there are some as the book calls "charlatans" today who peddle this nonsense of African 'cuacasians' being the founders of complex culture in Africa despite this notion having been debunked long ago.
Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What similarities did Seligman see with Ancient Egyptians and Monophysite Abyssinia. I can see he still claims that Hamite Miracle which is not suprising.
What Similarities and connection do the monopysites have with Ancient Kemet.
Did u see that false door to Amenta that they found in Egypt the First thing i thought of was the False door of the Axum Amenta i heard that it was the same thing
Posts: 410 | From: Al-Ard | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I believe Seligman was in reference to certain traditions or practices of the Monophysites as well as their central belief that Jesus had a total divine nature with only seemingly mortal traits which may be akin to African beliefs of divine kingship. The churches and other monuments dedicated to Jesus like the obelisks and such can be akin to those dedicated to divine kings.
Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seligman was one of the biggest boosters of the Hamitic hypothesis. See his book Races of Africa.
Right there in the first few lines of the posting he establishes the AEs as straight up Caucasian and say they pushed into the African interior spreading all knowledge to the "negroes."
That's not what I call showing connections between Egypt and the rest of Africa. It's a unidirectional diffusion hypothesis that doesn't acknowledge any input from Africans to Egypt nor any African capabilities in any of the arts or sciences.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ... Seligman was one of the first scholars to openly acknowledge an undeniably strong connection between Egypt and black Africa . . . . however, he attributes all of this to "caucasian" Hamites!
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Of course Seligman demonstrates a connection to Africa albeit in a perverted way. The guy notices similarities between ancient Egyptian culture that of other African cultures but instead of attributing this to an African commonality, he instead attributes this to a "caucasian" commonality from outside of Africa. He still acknowledges a connection, yet like so many white Western scholars of his time refuses to believe that such was indigenous to Africa.
This is comical especially since he provides no evidence of such cultural features outside of Africa not even in Southwest Asia, and even in many of these cultures where he sees such similarities, the populations display very stereotypical "negroid" features and just assumes cultural borrowing from "caucasians". I don't know if you recall, but it was either Seligman or Coon that would even point out a hint of "caucasian" features among the "negro" elites like royalty. This was even suggested of the Benin Bronzes! LOLPosts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
According to page 8 he believed that influence went from Kemet to the Congo and then to the Niger..but what do you make of the Twa being brought back from the Kongo to Kemet for the dances of the gods..that would go towards a Kongo or a Great Lakes influence with the possibility of Bes wouldn't it?
Btw Djehuti I-am posting on this particular thread only because you took the time to prepare it and I said I would.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
^ Of course Seligman demonstrates a connection to Africa albeit in a perverted way. The guy notices similarities between ancient Egyptian culture that of other African cultures but instead of attributing this to an African commonality, he instead attributes this to a "caucasian" commonality from outside of Africa. He still acknowledges a connection, yet like so many white Western scholars of his time refuses to believe that such was indigenous to Africa.
This is comical especially since he provides no evidence of such cultural features outside of Africa not even in Southwest Asia, and even in many of these cultures where he sees such similarities, the populations display very stereotypical "negroid" features and just assumes cultural borrowing from "caucasians". I don't know if you recall, but it was either Seligman or Coon that would even point out a hint of "caucasian" features among the "negro" elites like royalty. This was even suggested of the Benin Bronzes! LOL
Still, this would be different from the man "openly" acknowledging "strong connection between Egypt and black Africa", would it not? In fact, he is denying, even according to your own observation, that said "common features" are indigenous to Africa. He is saying that the only reason other Africans came to have it, was presumably by diffusion from the Nile Valley. This is the furthest thing from an "open" acknowledgment.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^What one can only do is fill in the gaps. I.e., are the cultural connections really there.
Indeed, Seligman notes cultural connections throughout Africa, albeit attribution of said connections are noted to be due to influences from the ol' Hamitic strain of non Africans.
But....., since we now know these supposed Hamites are actually indigenous Africans I.e., the Sudanese, Somalis, Fulanis, Tutsis, Kenyans, Eritreans etc...who were being distinguished due to their cranio-facial profiles, and aren't result of non African admixture.
All one can do is analyze the connections Seligman recognized between these cultures in Africa, and if the connections hold any water under this scrutiny.
No doubt we already know there to be a sharing of culture throughout parts of Africa already, since this is what Diop proves, and he read between the lines of these old outdated anthropologists using their works to his (Diop) advantage.
Nowadays, bio-anthropology simply proves everything that Diop said about ancient Egypt, despite a few wrongs here and there from Diop about other things in history, to be right.
Being that Diop was a product of his time, pre-genetic era, of course we know one would expect some errors. Wish Keita would be as motivated as Diop was, perhaps the fear of being viewed as Afro-centric dis-encourages him.
But yea, the connections seem to be there, the only segue seems to be outdated terminology used by Seligman.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: Being that Diop was a product of his time, pre-genetic era, of course we know one would expect some errors. Wish Keita would be as motivated as Diop was, perhaps the fear of being viewed as Afro-centric dis-encourages him.
What do you mean? Keita doesn't strike me as being tentative.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: According to page 8 he believed that influence went from Kemet to the Congo and then to the Niger..but what do you make of the Twa being brought back from the Kongo to Kemet for the dances of the gods..that would go towards a Kongo or a Great Lakes influence with the possibility of Bes wouldn't it?
Btw Djehuti I-am posting on this particular thread only because you took the time to prepare it and I said I would.
That's a strange route. If Niger was influenced by Egypt, you would think it went through Chad and the Yamites first. But let's also not forget that recent discoveries show that influence moved back and forth. The Saharans weren't the only ones being influenced, Egypt was also heavily influenced by them. Someone should start a thread on the Great Lakes Origins. There are two possible routes in my eyes for Great Lakes diffusion. Up through the Sahara via Chad and along Nile in East Africa. At first glance, I don't know how realistic it is to think that a region so far away had a direct link to the growth of Pharoanic civilization without going through some other groups first.
Posts: 1219 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: ^^What one can only do is fill in the gaps. I.e., are the cultural connections really there.
Indeed, Seligman notes cultural connections throughout Africa, albeit attribution of said connections are noted to be due to influences from the ol' Hamitic strain of non Africans.
But....., since we now know these supposed Hamites are actually indigenous Africans I.e., the Sudanese, Somalis, Fulanis, Tutsis, Kenyans, Eritreans etc...who were being distinguished due to their cranio-facial profiles, and aren't result of non African admixture.
All one can do is analyze the connections Seligman recognized between these cultures in Africa, and if the connections hold any water under this scrutiny.
No doubt we already know there to be a sharing of culture throughout parts of Africa already, since this is what Diop proves, and he read between the lines of these old outdated anthropologists using their works to his (Diop) advantage.
Nowadays, bio-anthropology simply proves everything that Diop said about ancient Egypt, despite a few wrongs here and there from Diop about other things in history, to be right.
Being that Diop was a product of his time, pre-genetic era, of course we know one would expect some errors. Wish Keita would be as motivated as Diop was, perhaps the fear of being viewed as Afro-centric dis-encourages him.
But yea, the connections seem to be there, the only segue seems to be outdated terminology used by Seligman.
Let's be clear, we attack a lot of these early scholars but those guys weren't stupid. They created things like the Hamitic hypothesis for a reason. I believe someone should go behind Seligman today to build on his theory, as crazy as that sounds. Because nowadays no one believes in the Hamitic hypothesis (which may be why no one also believes Africans were influenced by or even themselves influenced Ancient Egypt). Robert Bauval's book MAY begin to break that train of thought...but we have to see. So by building on and updating Seligman's work we could prove that Africa was much more connected and "in tune" with one another than previously believed. Right now, people act as if it's impossible for East Africans to be connected to West Africans or vice versa. And whatever movement or communication did occur took thousands of years. This of course ignores things like trade, but let's not forget that it takes a certain advancement of civilization for trading to be really effective and productive. Up until recently, scholars even played down this aspect of African society and if there was trade it was local and didn't cross vast distances. Now of course we know this is not true. For example, the book trade in Mali went all across the Sahara and even to al-Andalus. The gold trade in Mali is still not fully understood and is somewhat underrated but is believed to have effected the medieval world in a major way. That requires MAJOR interaction and trade. The list goes on...
Posts: 1219 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: Being that Diop was a product of his time, pre-genetic era, of course we know one would expect some errors. Wish Keita would be as motivated as Diop was, perhaps the fear of being viewed as Afro-centric dis-encourages him.
What do you mean? Keita doesn't strike me as being tentative.
An example, recently Keita discussed the bio-cultural origins of the ancient Egyptians, during this presentation there were students present that asked Keita a question that I feel would've gotten more of a straight answer if Diop was asked the question in this day and age, I.e., were the Egyptians black, and were there lighterskin people like Cleopatra indigenous to Africa/ancient Egypt? I believe Diop would've answered a flat out NO, while Keita kind of beat around the bush and didn't straight out answer this question clearly.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Yes, this is the exact impression I get from Keita as well. I think it is a shame, since his white peers who are more bold in their outdated racial notions get less criticism for being Eurocentric.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Still, this would be different from the man "openly" acknowledging "strong connection between Egypt and black Africa", would it not? In fact, he is denying, even according to your own observation, that said "common features" are indigenous to Africa. He is saying that the only reason other Africans came to have it, was presumably by diffusion from the Nile Valley. This is the furthest thing from an "open" acknowledgment.
A cultural connection is a connection. Where the origin of that connection was and what 'racial' group it is attributed to is a different story. But yes, I believe Seligman was being genuinely open about these cultural studies despite how wrong he was.
quote:Originally posted by King_Scorpion: That's a strange route. If Niger was influenced by Egypt, you would think it went through Chad and the Yamites first. But let's also not forget that recent discoveries show that influence moved back and forth. The Saharans weren't the only ones being influenced, Egypt was also heavily influenced by them. Someone should start a thread on the Great Lakes Origins. There are two possible routes in my eyes for Great Lakes diffusion. Up through the Sahara via Chad and along Nile in East Africa. At first glance, I don't know how realistic it is to think that a region so far away had a direct link to the growth of Pharoanic civilization without going through some other groups first.
We musn't forget that a large part of the Egyptian ancestry IS Saharan. Perhaps the most well known of custom the Egyptians inherited from their Saharan ancestors is mummification, but there are other things as well that connect them to West Africans that can be explained through Saharan origins such as the animal masks, wigs, etc. I believe Chad is still under-research in terms of archaeology (which is really no different from other African nations), but that Chad is very well a crucial area of contact between the eastern Sahara and that of Central and Western Sahara.
quote: Let's be clear, we attack a lot of these early scholars but those guys weren't stupid. They created things like the Hamitic hypothesis for a reason. I believe someone should go behind Seligman today to build on his theory, as crazy as that sounds. Because nowadays no one believes in the Hamitic hypothesis (which may be why no one also believes Africans were influenced by or even themselves influenced Ancient Egypt). Robert Bauval's book MAY begin to break that train of thought...but we have to see. So by building on and updating Seligman's work we could prove that Africa was much more connected and "in tune" with one another than previously believed. Right now, people act as if it's impossible for East Africans to be connected to West Africans or vice versa. And whatever movement or communication did occur took thousands of years. This of course ignores things like trade, but let's not forget that it takes a certain advancement of civilization for trading to be really effective and productive. Up until recently, scholars even played down this aspect of African society and if there was trade it was local and didn't cross vast distances. Now of course we know this is not true. For example, the book trade in Mali went all across the Sahara and even to al-Andalus. The gold trade in Mali is still not fully understood and is somewhat underrated but is believed to have effected the medieval world in a major way. That requires MAJOR interaction and trade. The list goes on...
I totally agree. I can't help but notice that an inter-regional connection within the African continent is only emphasized when it can be attributed to "caucasians" but now that such silly theories are debunked, this intra-African connection is gets downplayed. This is the point expressed later on by the editor.
Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are you referring to the youtube presentation? I think he (Keita) misinterpretated the question, because the content of Keita's response had nothing to do with mediteranean immigrants in dynastic times, which I think is what the asker meant. The asker should have asked his question clearly and omit the ''60.000 years ago'' bit, because that has nothing to do with dynastic Egypt.
But I agree that at the end, it does look like he is avoiding the question by joking around.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seligman's "acknowledgement" of Egypt's connection to the rest of Africa is only in the sense of say colonial Spain's connection to its Filipine colonies.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Of course Seligman demonstrates a connection to Africa albeit in a perverted way. The guy notices similarities between ancient Egyptian culture that of other African cultures but instead of attributing this to an African commonality, he instead attributes this to a "caucasian" commonality from outside of Africa. He still acknowledges a connection, yet like so many white Western scholars of his time refuses to believe that such was indigenous to Africa.
This is comical especially since he provides no evidence of such cultural features outside of Africa not even in Southwest Asia, and even in many of these cultures where he sees such similarities, the populations display very stereotypical "negroid" features and just assumes cultural borrowing from "caucasians". I don't know if you recall, but it was either Seligman or Coon that would even point out a hint of "caucasian" features among the "negro" elites like royalty. This was even suggested of the Benin Bronzes! LOL
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
If you haven't read that book you need to read several of his smaller papers to understand where he's coming from.
Once you do that you may see why current African studies ignores Seligman's "works."
And, yeah, they weren't stupid. And, yeah, they created the Hamitic hypothesis for a reason. And we know what that reason was
"The incoming Hamites were pastoral ‘Europeans’ –arriving wave after wave– better armed as well as quicker witted than the dark agricultural Negroes."
Can it be any plainer than that?
But it seems so-called Afrocentric historians like to use Eurocentric methodology giving it a black face.
quote:Originally posted by King_Scorpion:
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: ^^What one can only do is fill in the gaps. I.e., are the cultural connections really there.
Indeed, Seligman notes cultural connections throughout Africa, albeit attribution of said connections are noted to be due to influences from the ol' Hamitic strain of non Africans.
But....., since we now know these supposed Hamites are actually indigenous Africans I.e., the Sudanese, Somalis, Fulanis, Tutsis, Kenyans, Eritreans etc...who were being distinguished due to their cranio-facial profiles, and aren't result of non African admixture.
All one can do is analyze the connections Seligman recognized between these cultures in Africa, and if the connections hold any water under this scrutiny.
No doubt we already know there to be a sharing of culture throughout parts of Africa already, since this is what Diop proves, and he read between the lines of these old outdated anthropologists using their works to his (Diop) advantage.
Nowadays, bio-anthropology simply proves everything that Diop said about ancient Egypt, despite a few wrongs here and there from Diop about other things in history, to be right.
Being that Diop was a product of his time, pre-genetic era, of course we know one would expect some errors. Wish Keita would be as motivated as Diop was, perhaps the fear of being viewed as Afro-centric dis-encourages him.
But yea, the connections seem to be there, the only segue seems to be outdated terminology used by Seligman.
Let's be clear, we attack a lot of these early scholars but those guys weren't stupid. They created things like the Hamitic hypothesis for a reason. I believe someone should go behind Seligman today to build on his theory, as crazy as that sounds. Because nowadays no one believes in the Hamitic hypothesis (which may be why no one also believes Africans were influenced by or even themselves influenced Ancient Egypt). Robert Bauval's book MAY begin to break that train of thought...but we have to see. So by building on and updating Seligman's work we could prove that Africa was much more connected and "in tune" with one another than previously believed. Right now, people act as if it's impossible for East Africans to be connected to West Africans or vice versa. And whatever movement or communication did occur took thousands of years. This of course ignores things like trade, but let's not forget that it takes a certain advancement of civilization for trading to be really effective and productive. Up until recently, scholars even played down this aspect of African society and if there was trade it was local and didn't cross vast distances. Now of course we know this is not true. For example, the book trade in Mali went all across the Sahara and even to al-Andalus. The gold trade in Mali is still not fully understood and is somewhat underrated but is believed to have effected the medieval world in a major way. That requires MAJOR interaction and trade. The list goes on...
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Tell me you're joking?
Have you read Races of Africa?
If you haven't read that book you need to read several of his smaller papers to understand where he's coming from.
Once you do that you may see why current African studies ignores Seligman's "works."
And, yeah, they weren't stupid. And, yeah, they created the Hamitic hypothesis for a reason. And we know what that reason was
"The incoming Hamites were pastoral ‘Europeans’ –arriving wave after wave– better armed as well as quicker witted than the dark agricultural Negroes."
Can it be any plainer than that?
But it seems so-called Afrocentric historians like to use Eurocentric methodology giving it a black face.
quote:Originally posted by King_Scorpion:
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: ^^What one can only do is fill in the gaps. I.e., are the cultural connections really there.
Indeed, Seligman notes cultural connections throughout Africa, albeit attribution of said connections are noted to be due to influences from the ol' Hamitic strain of non Africans.
But....., since we now know these supposed Hamites are actually indigenous Africans I.e., the Sudanese, Somalis, Fulanis, Tutsis, Kenyans, Eritreans etc...who were being distinguished due to their cranio-facial profiles, and aren't result of non African admixture.
All one can do is analyze the connections Seligman recognized between these cultures in Africa, and if the connections hold any water under this scrutiny.
No doubt we already know there to be a sharing of culture throughout parts of Africa already, since this is what Diop proves, and he read between the lines of these old outdated anthropologists using their works to his (Diop) advantage.
Nowadays, bio-anthropology simply proves everything that Diop said about ancient Egypt, despite a few wrongs here and there from Diop about other things in history, to be right.
Being that Diop was a product of his time, pre-genetic era, of course we know one would expect some errors. Wish Keita would be as motivated as Diop was, perhaps the fear of being viewed as Afro-centric dis-encourages him.
But yea, the connections seem to be there, the only segue seems to be outdated terminology used by Seligman.
Let's be clear, we attack a lot of these early scholars but those guys weren't stupid. They created things like the Hamitic hypothesis for a reason. I believe someone should go behind Seligman today to build on his theory, as crazy as that sounds. Because nowadays no one believes in the Hamitic hypothesis (which may be why no one also believes Africans were influenced by or even themselves influenced Ancient Egypt). Robert Bauval's book MAY begin to break that train of thought...but we have to see. So by building on and updating Seligman's work we could prove that Africa was much more connected and "in tune" with one another than previously believed. Right now, people act as if it's impossible for East Africans to be connected to West Africans or vice versa. And whatever movement or communication did occur took thousands of years. This of course ignores things like trade, but let's not forget that it takes a certain advancement of civilization for trading to be really effective and productive. Up until recently, scholars even played down this aspect of African society and if there was trade it was local and didn't cross vast distances. Now of course we know this is not true. For example, the book trade in Mali went all across the Sahara and even to al-Andalus. The gold trade in Mali is still not fully understood and is somewhat underrated but is believed to have effected the medieval world in a major way. That requires MAJOR interaction and trade. The list goes on...
So what is your stance exactly since you haven't given it yet in this thread? You're talking to me as if I don't know what the Hamitic hypothesis is. Or worse...I don't know that it's false (or that Seligman was wrong in much of what he said). I'm NOT supporting Seligman's theory, what me and Djehuti are saying is that he OBVIOUSLY saw connections between Non-Egyptian Africans and Egyptians. His way of explaning these connections was to create whole mythological races of white pastoralists that he called Hamites. With this theory, the academic community embraced it with open arms. When the theory fell from grace, so did the idea of cross-cultural links between Africa and Ancient Egypt...because the Africans were Black again lol. Much of Seligman's work may have been pure-T bullcrap, even some of the cultural links may have been forced. But the point is, there are STILL connections to be made between Africa and Ancient Egypt and I think people should stop being afraid to admit this. Funny, how it's been considered an afrocentrist talking point to suggest ethnic groups in West Africa and the Sahara for example may have some distant connection to Egypt. But it was a European scholar (Seligman) who first proposed the idea on an academic level. Diop even suggested this did he not? And now Robert Bauval is pushing the envelope further. I'm simply saying this is an area of African historiography that could use some updated research. I'm not endorsing Seligman's book or theory, just the idea...which I doubt he was the first to have even believed that. So it's not like he has some sort of monopoly on its creation anyway .
Posts: 1219 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
That's besides the point. Quite simply, your assessment that he "openly" acknowledged "strong connection between Egypt and black Africa" is not accurate. He wasn't "open" about this acknowledgement, by your own admission, because he tried to underplay this so-called "connection" by saying its origin lies elsewhere other than Africa. His mindset, again, was that this was simply taught to other Africans by the Nile Valley folks, whom in turn were taught these things by '"Caucasian" Hamites', which according to the guy, would explain why other Africans have similar traditions. Simply saying that there are "imported cultural" links between "Egypt and black Africa" does not diminish the fact that the claim is inaccurate and was in fact made to diminish the "Africaness or black Africaness" of AE, not to enhance it. That is the point I'm relaying.
quote: Where the origin of that connection was and what 'racial' group it is attributed to is a different story.
Precisely, and it makes a big difference in whether to describe his claims as "open" acknowledgment or an indirect one. I certainly don't see his claims as the former.
quote: But yes, I believe Seligman was being genuinely open about these cultural studies despite how wrong he was.
You could say other researchers were being "genuinely open" about their erroneous claims about African historiography, but that doesn't make it accurate, or in AE's case, imply that they were trying to "openly" acknowledge its "Africaness".
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well i acknowledge that Gerald Massey was right when he claimed that Ancient Egypt is looked at different from the rest of the World and African in general.
From reading some of Seligmans stuff he is totally not in agreement with Egypts African connection well actual down plays it as merely Hamitic influence well that is not surprising since he is in the same school of thought as these other idiots.
Most of these historians and egyptologist would never ever dare to compare Ancient egypt to modern africans which is why we will never get any further in African History written by Europeans who think that Ethiopians are pretty hamites and the Bantu is ugly with nothing civilized about him.
Seligman doesnt even want to touch upon the subject of egypts africaness u can tell in his use of words.
Posts: 410 | From: Al-Ard | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ It is exactly this denial that Seligman and his peers had that is now being pointed out in academia. By the way, you are wrong about what you said about Egyptologists and other Western scholars. There are in fact Egyptologists who acknowledge Egypt's African identity and many well known Western scholars and historians on African culture like Christopher Ehret, Graham Connah, Marq de Villiers, etc.
Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is exactly this denial that Seligman and his peers had that is now being pointed out in academia. By the way, you are wrong about what you said about Egyptologists and other Western scholars. There are in fact Egyptologists who acknowledge Egypt's African identity and many well known Western scholars and historians on African culture like Christopher Ehret, Graham Connah, Marq de Villiers, etc
But the problem is they were the ones who set the standard and the distortion last till this very hour..yes other are just now trying to un-do the damage not unlike the Pelt Down Man hoax that lasted nearly a hundred years.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ It is exactly this denial that Seligman and his peers had that is now being pointed out in academia. By the way, you are wrong about what you said about Egyptologists and other Western scholars. There are in fact Egyptologists who acknowledge Egypt's African identity and many well known Western scholars and historians on African culture like Christopher Ehret, Graham Connah, Marq de Villiers, etc.
I haven't read Connah's books, but one reviewer on Amazon (the only review by the way) says he excludes Egypt and the Magreb from African history. This is in reference to his book he released through the Cambridge Press called African Civilizations. Or maybe you're talking about his more recent book called Forgotten Africa?
I know people are tired of me mentioning this book, but the reason I'm so pumped for Black Genesis is because someone is finally tackling the issue head on with new evidence. Sitting on the sidelines saying you think Egypt had an African origin is one thing, going public and writing a book about it is something totally different. I think the academic community has done a good job in scaring people from challenging them on this. I agree Djehuti, there are probably more scholars that agree with us than we know, but they don't want to risk their careers by being labeled an afrocentrist.
Posts: 1219 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
If people want to check out writings on Egypt's connection to the rest of Africa they need to go earlier than Seligman and to author's free of negrophobia.
In this sense, Churchward, Higgins, and Massey are the holy trinity.
And for somebody contemporary with Seligman there's always Eva Meyerowitz whose view of blacks nowhere near approaches Seligman's negrophobia.
Of course Joseph Olumide Lucas is the African scholar of Seligman's and Meyerwitz'a time to look into for a positive approach to connections.
quote:Originally posted by AswaniAswad: Well i acknowledge that Gerald Massey was right when he claimed that Ancient Egypt is looked at different from the rest of the World and African in general.
From reading some of Seligmans stuff he is totally not in agreement with Egypts African connection well actual down plays it as merely Hamitic influence well that is not surprising since he is in the same school of thought as these other idiots.
Most of these historians and egyptologist would never ever dare to compare Ancient egypt to modern africans which is why we will never get any further in African History written by Europeans who think that Ethiopians are pretty hamites and the Bantu is ugly with nothing civilized about him.
Seligman doesnt even want to touch upon the subject of egypts africaness u can tell in his use of words.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Yeah, really.
If people want to check out writings on Egypt's connection to the rest of Africa they need to go earlier than Seligman and to author's free of negrophobia.
In this sense, Churchward, Higgins, and Massey are the holy trinity.
And for somebody contemporary with Seligman there's always Eva Meyerowitz whose view of blacks nowhere near approaches Seligman's negrophobia.
Of course Joseph Olumide Lucas is the African scholar of Seligman's and Meyerwitz'a time to look into for a positive approach to connections.
quote:Originally posted by AswaniAswad: Well i acknowledge that Gerald Massey was right when he claimed that Ancient Egypt is looked at different from the rest of the World and African in general.
From reading some of Seligmans stuff he is totally not in agreement with Egypts African connection well actual down plays it as merely Hamitic influence well that is not surprising since he is in the same school of thought as these other idiots.
Most of these historians and egyptologist would never ever dare to compare Ancient egypt to modern africans which is why we will never get any further in African History written by Europeans who think that Ethiopians are pretty hamites and the Bantu is ugly with nothing civilized about him.
Seligman doesnt even want to touch upon the subject of egypts africaness u can tell in his use of words.
Thanks!
Posts: 1219 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: But the problem is they were the ones who set the standard and the distortion last till this very hour..yes other are just now trying to un-do the damage not unlike the Pelt Down Man hoax that lasted nearly a hundred years.
Of course it were Western anthropologists like Seligman and Coon and Egyptologists like Petrie and Breasted who set the status quo, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be abolished or destroyed when its inaccuracies are exposed. This very book I cite in this thread is proof of that-- that Western scholars and academia at large are beginning to rectify and rewrite the mistakes of their forebearers. And of course African scholars like Diop and others were the first to put impetus to this revolution and still are.
quote:Originally posted by King_Scorpion: I haven't read Connah's books, but one reviewer on Amazon (the only review by the way) says he excludes Egypt and the Magreb from African history. This is in reference to his book he released through the Cambridge Press called African Civilizations. Or maybe you're talking about his more recent book called Forgotten Africa?
I know people are tired of me mentioning this book, but the reason I'm so pumped for Black Genesis is because someone is finally tackling the issue head on with new evidence. Sitting on the sidelines saying you think Egypt had an African origin is one thing, going public and writing a book about it is something totally different. I think the academic community has done a good job in scaring people from challenging them on this. I agree Djehuti, there are probably more scholars that agree with us than we know, but they don't want to risk their careers by being labeled an afrocentrist.
I don't know what Connah wrote in all of his books, but one book of his I have in my possession-- Forgotten Africa: An Introduction to the Archaeology of Africa-- most certainly includes Egypt and the Maghreb in terms of Northwestern Africa.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Yeah, really.
If people want to check out writings on Egypt's connection to the rest of Africa they need to go earlier than Seligman and to author's free of negrophobia.
In this sense, Churchward, Higgins, and Massey are the holy trinity.
And for somebody contemporary with Seligman there's always Eva Meyerowitz whose view of blacks nowhere near approaches Seligman's negrophobia.
Of course Joseph Olumide Lucas is the African scholar of Seligman's and Meyerwitz'a time to look into for a positive approach to connections
Correct. The Western establishment has not always been racist and even during the height of racism, not all of its scholars were racist. Some have painstakingly made the effort to actual cite ancient historical documents refuting the Euro-imperialist belief that blacks were inferior.
Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Seligman was one of the biggest boosters of the Hamitic hypothesis. See his book Races of Africa.
Right there in the first few lines of the posting he establishes the AEs as straight up Caucasian and say they pushed into the African interior spreading all knowledge to the "negroes."
That's not what I call showing connections between Egypt and the rest of Africa. It's a unidirectional diffusion hypothesis that doesn't acknowledge any input from Africans to Egypt nor any African capabilities in any of the arts or sciences.
Yes, and any attempt to spin otherwise is pure dishonesty.
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh yeah, Budges later works are good sources for Egypt - rest of Africa.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeingbuggered:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Seligman was one of the biggest boosters of the Hamitic hypothesis. See his book Races of Africa.
Right there in the first few lines of the posting he establishes the AEs as straight up Caucasian and say they pushed into the African interior spreading all knowledge to the "negroes."
That's not what I call showing connections between Egypt and the rest of Africa. It's a unidirectional diffusion hypothesis that doesn't acknowledge any input from Africans to Egypt nor any African capabilities in any of the arts or sciences.
Yes, and any attempt to spin otherwise is pure dishonesty.
Nobody is "spinning" anything. My point is that it is Seligman who tries to spin Egypt's connections to Africa as being something attributed to "caucasoids". But I never expected someone as psychologically depraved or mentally deficient as yourself to understand.
Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I'm not going to argue with a Jew-frightened troll, and everyone else with rational thinking minds know what I said.
quote:Originally posted by Whatbox: Seligman couldn't deny the connections, so he had to spin things.
Correct. The 'Hamitic Hypothesis' was formulated not only to explain ancient Egyptian civilization and other advanced cultures in Africa but to attribute any connection between them as being due to "caucasoids".
As such here is the next piece...
Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course the real value of the Hamitic hypothesis is that supports the Bible as literal documentation of the origin of humanity and of course therefore the progenitor of all humans from some sort of Eurasian father figure.
So the reality of Africa as birthplace of mankind makes such nonsense irrelevant, yet some cling to it regardless.
Posts: 8893 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Of course the Bible like any other religious text is mythology with some historical accounts albeit obscured by said mythological motifs, especially the farther one goes back in time. That said, the whole story of Noah as a patriarch or founding father that survived the alleged deluge only to repopulate the earth with his offspring is a popular folk myth. Though as Dana and others pointed out, one must look back to ante-diluvian (pre-flood) records to find an at least more accurate picture of human origins. The story of Noah's sons was an attempt to explain how the various peoples and nationalities known to the Hebrews came about if the 'great flood' allegedly destroyed the lands.
But getting back to the topic, it is interesting to see how of all Noah's sons it is Ham and his progeny who get racialized because they represent peoples of African or African derived nations. It is even further interesting to see how this racialization eventually changes to "caucasian" when Western scholars realize the sophistication of these African cultures. What I find hilarious are the writings of white scholars in their pathetic attempts at spinning the obvious black identity of the Egyptians and other Africans!
Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Ham" is racialized in the Babylonian Talmud as cursed with blackness and "shamefully elongated" penis because of the racism on the part of white "Jews" at the time.
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
If people want to check out writings on Egypt's connection to the rest of Africa they need to go earlier than Seligman and to author's free of negrophobia.
In this sense, Churchward , Higgins, and Massey are the holy trinity.
Is this the same Churchward who wrote this?
quote:"AGE AND ORIGIN OF PRIMARY MAN
PALÆOLITHIC (c. 2.5 million - 10,000 years BC) Original or Primary Man
The Non-Totemic group or Pre-Totemic people.
The Pygmy Group (which includes all the so-called Negrillos or Negritos).
> They have no Totems or Totemic ceremonies. > They believe in a Great Spirit. > They propitiate Elementary Powers and Departed Spirits. > Although they have dances, as Sign Language, they have no Totemic Ceremonies. > They have no written language, but speak a monosyllabic language, and have a Sign and Gesture Language. > They have no Mythology or Folk-lore Tales. > They have no Magic. > They have no Initiatory rites. > They have no Tribal markings. > They have limited primitive implements.
The Second or Sub-Group, Descendents of the Pygmies are:—
1. The Bushmen, and the Hottentots who descended from them. 2. The Masaba Negroes who were evolved from a highly developed Pygmy. These sub-classes are not found outside Africa - past or present.
> All these have no Totems or Totemic Ceremonies. > No Mythology. > No Folk-lore Tales. > No Magic. > They speak a monosyllabic language, have no written language but can draw pictures - Signs and Symbols like the Pigmy. > They believe in a Great Spirit. > They propitiate Elementary Powers, or Spirits, and the Spirits of their Ancestors. > They have dances - Sign and Gesture Language. Sign Language includes the Gesture Signs to which the Mysteries were, and are still, danced or otherwise dramatised in Africa by the Pigmy and Bushmen. > Their implements are the same as the Pigmy - primitive.
The Bushman (1) developed from the Pigmy and travelled South and never came North again, and the Hottentot developed from the Bushman and also never came North. These types are only found in South Africa. The Masaba Negro (2) developed from the Pigmy North, East and West. None of these are or ever were Anthropophagous. The Masabas are the connecting links between the Pigmy and:
The Third Group - The Totemic People.
All these have Totams and Totemic Ceremonies and are, or were at one time, Anthropophagous. They are divided into two distinct groups:
1. The True Negroes. These were developed from the Masaba in the West, and have distinct anatomical features from the Nilotic Negroes - they never left Africa except as slaves.
2. The Nilotic Negroes. They can be divided into two distinct classes; a lower type, and a higher type, the latter developed by evolution from the former, each being identified thus:
a) The Lower Class. They have no Mythology. They have no Hero Cult. They have no Tattoo. They raise, however, marks on the skin - Cicatrices.
b) The Higher Class. They have Mythology. They have Hero Cult. They have Tattoo.
Both have Magic, Totems and Totemic Ceremonies.
The descendants of former exodes of these Nilotic Negroes can still be found in many countries. They followed the Pigmy, exterminated him in some places and drove him into more inaccesible spots in others. But the osteo remains of both are found in many parts of the world in different strata, and types of both are still extant in various countries. All the above may be classed as Palæolithic.
posted
I think "free of negrophobia" might be relative. Even with his faults he is still a better nineteenth/early twentieth century source than Seligman.
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I think one would be hard pressed to find a 19th century white scholar free from 'negrophobia' at all, though I don't doubt their existence.
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing: "Ham" is racialized in the Babylonian Talmud as cursed with blackness and "shamefully elongated" penis because of the racism on the part of white "Jews" at the time.
Yes, the Babylonian Talmud is just one of several Talmuds all of which are basically commentaries on the actual Torah. Yet the authority of any Talmud does not hold up to the authority of the Torah itself which mentions NOTHING at all on the racial characteristics of any of Noah's children let alone Noah himself or any other ante-diluvian peoples. Besides, it is clear that Ham was not cursed at all but rather his son Canaan for reasons which are not clear. Many Jewish authors while not as racist or negative on Ham's black identity may still assert said racial identity based on the etymology of Ham's name. Ham in Hebrew means something like warmth, heat, or even hot. From this description, it is inferred that Ham is black and his progeny would go in to inhabit the hot tropical lands. However, again this is only conjecture as neither Ham nor any of his family members color were discussed at all.
Then there is the question. How can Ham be of one skin color but his brothers have different skin colors? What about his father Noah, his unnamed mother or any of the other ante-diluvian peoples??
I am beginning to agree with Dana that it is probable, even likely, that all of Noah's children including Noah himself and his wife were black, if this story is of proto-Semitic origin (if not Sumerian) being that the proto-Semites themselves were of black African origin. The story may have adapted over time to describe non-Semitic or even non African and Southwest Asian peoples and their existence after the flood which is where I think Japheth as ancestor of white peoples comes in.
Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ That explains it. It's not like the 'anguishedofbeingjewfrightened' is an accurate source Jewish writings anyway. LOL
But moving on...
What do Jewish writings say of the physical appearance of ante-diluvian peoples in general??
Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yet the authority of any Talmud does not hold up to the authority of the Torah itself
Not according to Ashkenazim. Talmud is higher.
quote:Then there is the question. How can Ham be of one skin color but his brothers have different skin colors?
Its a myth, silly, it doesn't have to make sense. LOL
quote:There is no 'shamefully elongated penis' in the Talmud Babli. That phrase appears in a post trans Atlantic trade edition of the Tanhuma.
Ok. but still minor point. Fact is, Jewish anti-black racism is generally believed to have started with them.
According to Brackman:
quote:"There is no denying that the [Jewish] Babylonian Talmud was the first source to read a Negrophobic content into the episode by stressing Canaan's fraternal connection with Cush." The Jewish scholars, he said, advanced two explanations for Ham and his children being turned black. According to Brackman, "The more important version of the myth, however, ingeniously ties in the origins of blackness - and of other, real and imagined Negroid traits - with Noah's Curse itself. According to it, Ham is told by his outraged father that, because you have abused me in the darkness of the night, your children shall be born black and ugly; because you have twisted your head to cause me embarrassment, they shall have kinky hair and red eyes; because your lips jested at my exposure, theirs shall swell; and because you neglected my nakedness, they shall go naked with their shamefully elongated male members exposed for all to see..."
posted
I've come across a case made about Ham possibly being a derivative of Kemetic 'Km', which as some of us already know, means 'black', pending additional contextualizing. If so, that would explain how the term came to be associated with "blacks"; not an unreasonable proposition given the fact that Israelite ancestry can be traced back to AE.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I've heard this popular theory too, but I have also heard that it does not stand up to linguistics. The Hebrew 'Ham' and the Egyptian 'Kem' have two very different etymologies as well as phonetic structures with the first letter in particular not being a good consonant shift. 'K' in Semitic and in Afrasian in general would usually shift to 'ch' while 'h' is almost always shifted to 's', which makes me wonder if the Hebrew 'Ham' is synonymous with the Arabic 'Sam'.
Regardless, it is clear that the ancient Israelites and Biblical authors in general considered Hamites black peoples and they even went so far as to call Africa in general 'The Land of Ham'. From this, racist European imperialists begin to call all blacks of Africa inferior and fair game for slavery due to "Ham's curse" even though the Bible stated that only Canaan was actually cursed. When the Euro-Western establishment discovered how advanced and sophisticated Egyptian culture was, they then changed the definition of 'Hamite' to mean black-skinned person to all of a sudden black-skinned "caucasoid". Now a days, when all the racial rubbish including "caucasoid" has been debunked, the academic establishment is by and large silent as to the ethnic identity of the Egyptians. Most sources you read will just admit that Egyptian civilization and culture arose independently along the Nile (in Africa) and just leave it at that. Yet all of us here in this forum are still all too familiar with the 'Hamitic Hypothesis' manifested in a new 'genetic' incarnation. Which is why we hear Euronuts claiming "caucasoid" presence or influence from Ethiopia to Niger and from Rwanda to Zimbabwe! We even see this to be the case with geneticists whom we took to be more sensible like Cruciani only to see him claim 'Eurasian' origins for the R lineages that are predominant among West Africans! The insanity just doesn't stop now does it?
Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic