Uh, if you watch your own video you will see that he refers to 'democracy' in the great kingdoms of Africa and goes on to list only those that post-date Greece. His thesis that all prehistoric societies used 'democractic' means is laughable. I could go on and on. My point is that the proper response to a racist Eurocentric world view is not to invent a competing essentialist history. Listen closely and you will see that that is exactly what Dr. Williams is doing.
Your response is typical. You Know He isn't inventing anything. Read the book. How you claim that Kush/Egypt is postdated by Greece?? Egypt's glory alone along with it's of period world domination was at least several thousand years than the birth of Alexander. Come again when you have read the book. Other than that don't bother. Haha, the professor does not mention Egypt when talking about democracy because it was not a democracy (but rather a theocratic monarchy). Christ I hope you'll visit there one day so you can see it for yourself. They wrote their damn history on the walls everywhere for everyone to see. I know that I was blown away when I visited. The fact that Egypt was a great civilization that pre-dates Greece is not in dispute. What is in dispute is his assertion that Africans were messing with democracy prior to Greece. I beg you to actually listen critically to what people are saying before you start quoting them. Also, read some other scholars who take a less polemical view of the development of African civilization like Skip Gates or Basil Davidson.
I beg you to actually listen critically to what people are saying before you start quoting them. Also, read some other scholars who take a less polemical view of the development of African civilization like Skip Gates or Basil Davidson.
The simply fact that you don't the answer to this question proves your ignorance on this subject.One key thing for you to learn here is that just because a White man taught it doesn't mean it's the truth. Read "The Destruction of Black Civilization and Great issues of a Race from 5000 BC to 2000 AD" Then get back to me on this subject.
Easy champ. Who said my professors or his resources are White? Listen man... You obviously don't understand that bias goes both ways. The names of the books you identified dont really scream Objective. Identifying bias is the name of the game with ANY sort of "information". I said isn't Iraq in Asia because I didn't know why he brought an Asian country into a discussion over Europe and Africa. Im not going to go read a book so I can participate in this discussion with you. Why don't you pull some facts that can be correlated from one of the books your talking about and we can discuss it from there.
I just meant that MonoCulture farming existed in europe and didn't exist so much in Africa. Not that Europe had it first. I was just giving a list of what I thought led Europe to colonize Africa.
Isn't Iraq in Asia?
I think the drawing of continent boundary's is as arbitrary as a race.
Why did you bring that up though? just so I can understand what your trying to say.
That Iraq had monoculture and still got invaded?
I guess I should clarify... by saying that I meant... IN the context when the Colonization initially occurred... those were the reasons why the occurred.
Like I said, I have no dog in this fight. I don't disagree with the jist of your argument.
I just misunderstood you to mean that monoculture farming was invented by the Europeans, which in context of this discussion needed to be clarified.
UnConSci: Africa is underpopulated because of the enslavement of Black Africans by Europeans.
Everyone: Menes was considered from "Upper Egypt," which is technically Southerly Egypt on a map, and should be considered as coming from the Sudan area, not Ethiopia.
Not that it matters, or that I really care to refute the contributions of Upper Egypt/Nubia and "Black" Africans to Egyptian culture, but recent genetic marker testing has shown that remains of Egyptian mummies show much more similarity and affinity to Semitic/"White" genetic markers than "Black African" markers.
What I learned from this thread is that everyone in the world is white, except for StressDollaz and the guy that wrote "The Destruction of Black Civilization: Great Issues of a Race from 4500 BC to 2000 AD"
I could be wrong but I think Unsci is talking about some of the similar arguments made in books like "Guns, Germs and Steel."
I think his "underpopulation" argument is either misspoken or just plain wrong but the gist of what I think he means to say is that population/growth pressures in Europe is one of the things that sped up their rate of both military and trade development, one of the major results being is that several European nations developed extensive, powerful navies which would become crucial during the Age of Discovery --> Age of European Colonization.
Africa, absent those same pressures to "modernize" in the military sense, were thus left as a distinct disadvantage which, combined with their geographic proximity to Europe, made them an easy target for colonizers who 1) had a need for the natural and human resources (read: slavery) in Africa, 2) were trying to expand markets for their goods (hence, colonies) and 3) had the military power to enforce their will.
This has little to do with the intellectual contributions made by African societies, especially Islamic Moors (too numerous to even count) from the Northern part of the continent. One of the big "what ifs?" of history was how the path of European civilization would have gone had the Crusades failed and parts of Europe (Spain, for example) remained under Moorish control.
Not that it matters, or that I really care to refute the contributions of Upper Egypt/Nubia and "Black" Africans to Egyptian culture, but recent genetic marker testing has shown that remains of Egyptian mummies show much more similarity and affinity to Semitic/"White" genetic markers than "Black African" markers.[/b]
Since it doesn't matter and you don't care. This is only partially true.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Africa, absent those same pressures to "modernize" in the military sense, were thus left as a distinct disadvantage which, combined with their geographic proximity to Europe, made them an easy target for colonizers who 1) had a need for the natural and human resources (read: slavery) in Africa, 2) were trying to expand markets for their goods (hence, colonies) and 3) had the military power to enforce their will.
When I read the Chancellor Williams book (over 10 years ago), I recall it pinpointing Africa' s failure to invest heavily in iron[/b] as a weapons material at a time when invading cultures were as the primary cause of its colonization.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Not that it matters, or that I really care to refute the contributions of Upper Egypt/Nubia and "Black" Africans to Egyptian culture, but recent genetic marker testing has shown that remains of Egyptian mummies show much more similarity and affinity to Semitic/"White" genetic markers than "Black African" markers.
The continent of Mu predates Egypt as well as Atlantis...and is likely the true birthplace of man. It's been said that Mu had a racially diverse population that eventually seeded the modern continents with their racial make-ups. The primary contingent of black Lemurians first settled in Asia...thus the Asiatic descriptor of the black race. And from there, they eventually relocated to Egypt where they were subsequently enslaved.
So even according to the broader historical account, the Egyptian slavemasters very well might have been non-blacks.
Not that it matters, or that I really care to refute the contributions of Upper Egypt/Nubia and "Black" Africans to Egyptian culture, but recent genetic marker testing has shown that remains of Egyptian mummies show much more similarity and affinity to Semitic/"White" genetic markers than "Black African" markers.
The continent of Mu predates Egypt as well as Atlantis...and is likely the true birthplace of man. It's been said that Mu had a racially diverse population that eventually seeded the modern continents with their racial make-ups. The primary contingent of black Lemurians first settled in Asia...thus the Asiatic descriptor of the black race. And from there, they eventually relocated to Egypt where they were subsequently enslaved.
So even according to the broader historical account, the Egyptian slavemasters very well might have been non-blacks.
ummm... NAH!
b/w
Shhh! You might awaken the mighty Cthulhu!
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Not that it matters, or that I really care to refute the contributions of Upper Egypt/Nubia and "Black" Africans to Egyptian culture, but recent genetic marker testing has shown that remains of Egyptian mummies show much more similarity and affinity to Semitic/"White" genetic markers than "Black African" markers.
The continent of Mu predates Egypt as well as Atlantis...and is likely the true birthplace of man. It's been said that Mu had a racially diverse population that eventually seeded the modern continents with their racial make-ups. The primary contingent of black Lemurians first settled in Asia...thus the Asiatic descriptor of the black race. And from there, they eventually relocated to Egypt where they were subsequently enslaved.
So even according to the broader historical account, the Egyptian slavemasters very well might have been non-blacks.
Not that it matters, or that I really care to refute the contributions of Upper Egypt/Nubia and "Black" Africans to Egyptian culture, but recent genetic marker testing has shown that remains of Egyptian mummies show much more similarity and affinity to Semitic/"White" genetic markers than "Black African" markers.
The continent of Mu predates Egypt as well as Atlantis...and is likely the true birthplace of man. It's been said that Mu had a racially diverse population that eventually seeded the modern continents with their racial make-ups. The primary contingent of black Lemurians first settled in Asia...thus the Asiatic descriptor of the black race. And from there, they eventually relocated to Egypt where they were subsequently enslaved.
So even according to the broader historical account, the Egyptian slavemasters very well might have been non-blacks.
ummm... NAH!
Don't say it to me, say it to Sun Ra.
Sun Ra ≠ Historian
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Not that it matters, or that I really care to refute the contributions of Upper Egypt/Nubia and "Black" Africans to Egyptian culture, but recent genetic marker testing has shown that remains of Egyptian mummies show much more similarity and affinity to Semitic/"White" genetic markers than "Black African" markers.
The continent of Mu predates Egypt as well as Atlantis...and is likely the true birthplace of man. It's been said that Mu had a racially diverse population that eventually seeded the modern continents with their racial make-ups. The primary contingent of black Lemurians first settled in Asia...thus the Asiatic descriptor of the black race. And from there, they eventually relocated to Egypt where they were subsequently enslaved.
So even according to the broader historical account, the Egyptian slavemasters very well might have been non-blacks.
Not that it matters, or that I really care to refute the contributions of Upper Egypt/Nubia and "Black" Africans to Egyptian culture, but recent genetic marker testing has shown that remains of Egyptian mummies show much more similarity and affinity to Semitic/"White" genetic markers than "Black African" markers.
The continent of Mu predates Egypt as well as Atlantis...and is likely the true birthplace of man. It's been said that Mu had a racially diverse population that eventually seeded the modern continents with their racial make-ups. The primary contingent of black Lemurians first settled in Asia...thus the Asiatic descriptor of the black race. And from there, they eventually relocated to Egypt where they were subsequently enslaved.
So even according to the broader historical account, the Egyptian slavemasters very well might have been non-blacks.
ummm... NAH!
Don't say it to me, say it to Sun Ra.
Sun Ra ≠ Historian
You sure about that?
Maybe a jazz historian or something like that, but prehistory, nah!
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Not that it matters, or that I really care to refute the contributions of Upper Egypt/Nubia and "Black" Africans to Egyptian culture, but recent genetic marker testing has shown that remains of Egyptian mummies show much more similarity and affinity to Semitic/"White" genetic markers than "Black African" markers.
The continent of Mu predates Egypt as well as Atlantis...and is likely the true birthplace of man. It's been said that Mu had a racially diverse population that eventually seeded the modern continents with their racial make-ups. The primary contingent of black Lemurians first settled in Asia...thus the Asiatic descriptor of the black race. And from there, they eventually relocated to Egypt where they were subsequently enslaved.
So even according to the broader historical account, the Egyptian slavemasters very well might have been non-blacks.
ummm... NAH!
Don't say it to me, say it to Sun Ra.
Sun Ra ≠ Historian
You sure about that?
Maybe a jazz historian or something like that, but prehistory, nah!
Not that it matters, or that I really care to refute the contributions of Upper Egypt/Nubia and "Black" Africans to Egyptian culture, but recent genetic marker testing has shown that remains of Egyptian mummies show much more similarity and affinity to Semitic/"White" genetic markers than "Black African" markers.
The continent of Mu predates Egypt as well as Atlantis...and is likely the true birthplace of man. It's been said that Mu had a racially diverse population that eventually seeded the modern continents with their racial make-ups. The primary contingent of black Lemurians first settled in Asia...thus the Asiatic descriptor of the black race. And from there, they eventually relocated to Egypt where they were subsequently enslaved.
So even according to the broader historical account, the Egyptian slavemasters very well might have been non-blacks.
ummm... NAH!
Don't say it to me, say it to Sun Ra.
Sun Ra ≠ Historian
You sure about that?
Maybe a jazz historian or something like that, but prehistory, nah!
Sorry...but you know not what you speak of.
Dude went to school for Music, since when does that make you a prehistorian? Kinda like being a community organizer/bean counter makes you a meteorologist.
I could be wrong but I think Unsci is talking about some of the similar arguments made in books like "Guns, Germs and Steel."
I think his "underpopulation" argument is either misspoken or just plain wrong but the gist of what I think he means to say is that population/growth pressures in Europe is one of the things that sped up their rate of both military and trade development, one of the major results being is that several European nations developed extensive, powerful navies which would become crucial during the Age of Discovery --> Age of European Colonization.
Africa, absent those same pressures to "modernize" in the military sense, were thus left as a distinct disadvantage which, combined with their geographic proximity to Europe, made them an easy target for colonizers who 1) had a need for the natural and human resources (read: slavery) in Africa, 2) were trying to expand markets for their goods (hence, colonies) and 3) had the military power to enforce their will.
This has little to do with the intellectual contributions made by African societies, especially Islamic Moors (too numerous to even count) from the Northern part of the continent. One of the big "what ifs?" of history was how the path of European civilization would have gone had the Crusades failed and parts of Europe (Spain, for example) remained under Moorish control.
Yea thats pretty much what I was saying.
I said they were underpopulated... because they are and were though. Is that sensationalist or something? They were underpopulated before slavery, during, and after. This led to economic comfort that would make it unnecessary to make the jump to agriculture. Which would allow for freed up calories and specialization which would lead to technology boosts. Yea this is kinda the same stuff as guns germs and steal though. But its a bit tacked on and a bit left out. I didn't say the reason Africa got invaded was a lack of domesticatable mammals or anything.
When the Moors invaded they ruled with tolerance and intelligence. Im not saying anything shitty about Africa. Complex societies aren't better... they just have more moving parts, more strain, and have to worry about large scale military.
I dont even know what were arguing about anymore though.
The best way I can describe it is.... There is lots and lots of habitable, farm-able, grazable, build-able land. Much more so than everywhere else. So I guess Im defining Africa's population based on the rest of the world. Im not implying correctness or incorrectness to how Africa is laid out. It just is what it is. Because of this under population proper resistance to foreign invaders from an over populated country was impossible.
With technology development... the name of the game is free calories within your society to spend on technology. You need to be agriculturalists or industrialists to persue technology. Africans were mostly hunters and gatherers and horticulturalists. Both systems produce just about what you need to survive... horticulturalists produce a little more but just enough to support their larger population.
Not that it matters, or that I really care to refute the contributions of Upper Egypt/Nubia and "Black" Africans to Egyptian culture, but recent genetic marker testing has shown that remains of Egyptian mummies show much more similarity and affinity to Semitic/"White" genetic markers than "Black African" markers.[/b]
Since it doesn't matter and you don't care. This is only partially true.
I wasn't refuting Nubia's contributions, in fact I highlighted it in my post discussing Menes. The point I was trying to make is that Egypt was one of the earliest melting pots and flash points for ancient peoples to flock to, and that the mummies of Egypt were found to share more affinity to "white" genetic markers by and large. I personally despise discussions trying to make Egypt "different" and not a part of Africa.
Not that it matters, or that I really care to refute the contributions of Upper Egypt/Nubia and "Black" Africans to Egyptian culture, but recent genetic marker testing has shown that remains of Egyptian mummies show much more similarity and affinity to Semitic/"White" genetic markers than "Black African" markers.[/b]
Since it doesn't matter and you don't care. This is only partially true.
I wasn't refuting Nubia's contributions, in fact I highlighted it in my post discussing Menes. The point I was trying to make is that Egypt was one of the earliest melting pots and flash points for ancient peoples to flock to, and that the mummies of Egypt were found to share more affinity to "white" genetic markers by and large. I personally despise discussions trying to make Egypt "different" and not a part of Africa.
Most scholars view it as a totally different cultural area.
Sub-Saharan Africa is typically what most people mean when they discuss Africa
The best way I can describe it is.... There is lots and lots of habitable, farm-able, grazable, build-able land. Much more so than everywhere else. So I guess Im defining Africa's population based on the rest of the world. Im not implying correctness or incorrectness to how Africa is laid out. It just is what it is. Because of this under population proper resistance to foreign invaders from an over populated country was impossible.
With technology development... the name of the game is free calories within your society to spend on technology. You need to be agriculturalists or industrialists to persue technology. Africans were mostly hunters and gatherers and horticulturalists. Both systems produce just about what you need to survive... horticulturalists produce a little more but just enough to support their larger population.
I don't think "underpopulated" is really the "best way" to describe it. It's "under" only when compared to the density of European societies at the time. What exactly is an "ideal" population anyway? There's no gold standard - there's only "over" vs. "under" in relative terms.
People consider Los Angeles to be "overpopulated" but compare the density here with, say, Calcutta. By that standard, L.A. is probably underpopulated.
So these terms don't make a lot of sense. I think what you're saying is that the lower population in Africa created social conditions in which their rate of military advancement was behind that of Europe's. That's not "underpopulation" though, which suggests that Africa, under more appropriate circumstances, should have been more populated. It's inherently assigning accountability when, in this case, it's not Africa - as a continent - had a one-child rule going and thus, lead to its underpopulation.
This might seem semantic but really, the only reason people are reacting negatively to your post is because it sounds like you're suggest Africa has only itself to blame for being colonized.
Comments
word? sounds interesting. what's this book about? can you post a picture of it maybe as well? thanks in advance!
Your response is typical. You Know He isn't inventing anything. Read the book.
How you claim that Kush/Egypt is postdated by Greece?? Egypt's glory alone along with it's of period world domination was at least several thousand years than the birth of Alexander. Come again when you have read the book. Other than that don't bother.
Haha, the professor does not mention Egypt when talking about democracy because it was not a democracy (but rather a theocratic monarchy). Christ I hope you'll visit there one day so you can see it for yourself. They wrote their damn history on the walls everywhere for everyone to see. I know that I was blown away when I visited. The fact that Egypt was a great civilization that pre-dates Greece is not in dispute. What is in dispute is his assertion that Africans were messing with democracy prior to Greece. I beg you to actually listen critically to what people are saying before you start quoting them. Also, read some other scholars who take a less polemical view of the development of African civilization like Skip Gates or Basil Davidson.
Easy champ. Who said my professors or his resources are White? Listen man... You obviously don't understand that bias goes both ways. The names of the books you identified dont really scream Objective. Identifying bias is the name of the game with ANY sort of "information". I said isn't Iraq in Asia because I didn't know why he brought an Asian country into a discussion over Europe and Africa. Im not going to go read a book so I can participate in this discussion with you. Why don't you pull some facts that can be correlated from one of the books your talking about and we can discuss it from there.
Like I said, I have no dog in this fight. I don't disagree with the jist of your argument.
I just misunderstood you to mean that monoculture farming was invented by the Europeans, which in context of this discussion needed to be clarified.
UnConSci: Africa is underpopulated because of the enslavement of Black Africans by Europeans.
Everyone: Menes was considered from "Upper Egypt," which is technically Southerly Egypt on a map, and should be considered as coming from the Sudan area, not Ethiopia.
Not that it matters, or that I really care to refute the contributions of Upper Egypt/Nubia and "Black" Africans to Egyptian culture, but recent genetic marker testing has shown that remains of Egyptian mummies show much more similarity and affinity to Semitic/"White" genetic markers than "Black African" markers.
Stre$$ isn't racist. He just hates Dominicans, that's all.
is white, except for StressDollaz and the guy that wrote "The
Destruction of Black Civilization: Great Issues of a Race from
4500 BC to 2000 AD"
I think his "underpopulation" argument is either misspoken or just plain wrong but the gist of what I think he means to say is that population/growth pressures in Europe is one of the things that sped up their rate of both military and trade development, one of the major results being is that several European nations developed extensive, powerful navies which would become crucial during the Age of Discovery --> Age of European Colonization.
Africa, absent those same pressures to "modernize" in the military sense, were thus left as a distinct disadvantage which, combined with their geographic proximity to Europe, made them an easy target for colonizers who 1) had a need for the natural and human resources (read: slavery) in Africa, 2) were trying to expand markets for their goods (hence, colonies) and 3) had the military power to enforce their will.
This has little to do with the intellectual contributions made by African societies, especially Islamic Moors (too numerous to even count) from the Northern part of the continent. One of the big "what ifs?" of history was how the path of European civilization would have gone had the Crusades failed and parts of Europe (Spain, for example) remained under Moorish control.
Since it doesn't matter and you don't care. This is only partially true.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/02/black-pharaohs/robert-draper-text
When I read the Chancellor Williams book (over 10 years ago), I recall it pinpointing Africa' s failure to invest heavily in iron[/b] as a weapons material at a time when invading cultures were as the primary cause of its colonization.
The continent of Mu predates Egypt as well as Atlantis...and is likely the true birthplace of man. It's been said that Mu had a racially diverse population that eventually seeded the modern continents with their racial make-ups. The primary contingent of black Lemurians first settled in Asia...thus the Asiatic descriptor of the black race. And from there, they eventually relocated to Egypt where they were subsequently enslaved.
So even according to the broader historical account, the Egyptian slavemasters very well might have been non-blacks.
ummm... NAH!
b/w
Shhh! You might awaken the mighty Cthulhu!
Don't say it to me, say it to Sun Ra.
Sun Ra ≠ Historian
You sure about that?
Maybe a jazz historian or something like that, but prehistory, nah!
Sorry...but you know not what you speak of.
Dude went to school for Music, since when does that make you a prehistorian? Kinda like being a community organizer/bean counter makes you a meteorologist.
Yea thats pretty much what I was saying.
I said they were underpopulated... because they are and were though. Is that sensationalist or something? They were underpopulated before slavery, during, and after. This led to economic comfort that would make it unnecessary to make the jump to agriculture. Which would allow for freed up calories and specialization which would lead to technology boosts. Yea this is kinda the same stuff as guns germs and steal though. But its a bit tacked on and a bit left out. I didn't say the reason Africa got invaded was a lack of domesticatable mammals or anything.
When the Moors invaded they ruled with tolerance and intelligence. Im not saying anything shitty about Africa. Complex societies aren't better... they just have more moving parts, more strain, and have to worry about large scale military.
I dont even know what were arguing about anymore though.
Just because the entire continent wasnt filled, why is that underpopulated.
I dont get?
good stuff, one of his best really
With technology development... the name of the game is free calories within your society to spend on technology. You need to be agriculturalists or industrialists to persue technology. Africans were mostly hunters and gatherers and horticulturalists. Both systems produce just about what you need to survive... horticulturalists produce a little more but just enough to support their larger population.
I wasn't refuting Nubia's contributions, in fact I highlighted it in my post discussing Menes. The point I was trying to make is that Egypt was one of the earliest melting pots and flash points for ancient peoples to flock to, and that the mummies of Egypt were found to share more affinity to "white" genetic markers by and large. I personally despise discussions trying to make Egypt "different" and not a part of Africa.
to put it really simply. They were underpopulated to make the jump to advanced agriculture or industrialization. thats what i meant.
coincidence?
Most scholars view it as a totally different cultural area.
Sub-Saharan Africa is typically what most people mean when they discuss Africa
But your spaekin from the Euro perspective. Should the rest of the world industrialize because Europe did? Africa needed to copy Europe?
I don't think "underpopulated" is really the "best way" to describe it. It's "under" only when compared to the density of European societies at the time. What exactly is an "ideal" population anyway? There's no gold standard - there's only "over" vs. "under" in relative terms.
People consider Los Angeles to be "overpopulated" but compare the density here with, say, Calcutta. By that standard, L.A. is probably underpopulated.
So these terms don't make a lot of sense. I think what you're saying is that the lower population in Africa created social conditions in which their rate of military advancement was behind that of Europe's. That's not "underpopulation" though, which suggests that Africa, under more appropriate circumstances, should have been more populated. It's inherently assigning accountability when, in this case, it's not Africa - as a continent - had a one-child rule going and thus, lead to its underpopulation.
This might seem semantic but really, the only reason people are reacting negatively to your post is because it sounds like you're suggest Africa has only itself to blame for being colonized.