This question is being posed really to Utamaroho and Solarus but anyone who knows the Afrikan way of thinking/living can also add in. When you guys look at Afrikan people and culture within Afrika, I've noticed that you tend to seperate elements like Islam and Christianity particularly as "non-Afrikan" and you paint them as detrimental to original Afrikan culture. To a large extent I see where you are coming from and I agree with you on certain things. However, my question about the Afrikan discourse is I'm wondering if its not a little revisionist in its picture of Afrika. It reminds me a lot of Hindu revivalism/nationalism in India. The Hindu nationalists tend to portray what the see as "non-Hindus" (Muslims, Christians, etc.) as detrimental to Hinduism. They however disregard the fact that both these religions have been syncretised highly within the Hindu culture of India. They seem to be missing the reality of the situation that Hindus and Muslims and Christians have been living with very similar at times cultural background. From my understanding of Afrika, there has also been a high syncretisation of Islam and Christianity within Afrikan culture. You can prove me wrong but this is from what I know.
Don't you think going to visit Afrika would be important in actually seeing the Afrikan way of life rather than just reading theories about it? And if you have been to Afrika(Solarus) how has that affected your viewpoint about Afrikan discourse?

afrikan thought starts BEFORE the introduction of these alien ideologies... one would have to go THERE to even begin. After that a steady chronological progression through time will 1)point to the specific instances of these foreign influences and 2) how they changed what existed BEFORE.

simply put, after the influx of these systems there is no longer a "pure" afrikan way of thought, but something more "synthesized" of the two. one which in all reality is the "actualization" of afrikan thought. (synthesis over division)

It's sorta like how one would start with a base color for painting and coming up with something different with every addition of other colors. the base and foundation is present, one has to just compare and contrast that (what is remembered and retained) with what exists presently.

There ARE people (afrikans) who hold onto the traditions in their pure form and can simultaneously interact with the changing face of their systems as well. These are the people who i'd ask of afrikan theory before the people whose origins in afrikan cultures lie in that "mixed" place.

Red, Black, Green

>
>There ARE people (afrikans) who hold onto the traditions in
>their pure form and can simultaneously interact with the
>changing face of their systems as well. These are the people
>who i'd ask of afrikan theory before the people whose
>origins in afrikan cultures lie in that "mixed" place.

1. Who are these people? Are they only true Afrikans because they're not Muslims/Christians (or other outside influence)? Are there not Muslims/Christians who for the most part hold Afrikan traditions with some variation? The Muslim/Christian doctrines haven't they been accepted into the Afrikan way of thinking , the pantheon of beliefs?Has not Islam and Christianity affected indigenous Afrikan traditions somewhat as well, even for Afrikans who aren't Muslim/Christian?Isn't there diversity of traditions in Afrika between various ethnic groups anyway? What is/are the underlying thing(s) that makes one Afrikan?Have you been to Afrika? Do you think that "real" Afrikans have problems with Islam/Christianity?

Thank you.

but i'd suggest reading C.S. Lewis's "Mere Christianity". he's a christian apologist who wrote the BEST discourse on what being a "real" christian is. In it, he explains the difference between "calling" yourself something with reference to the original and skewed definitions...and BEING the thing you're calling yourself. He makes distinctions between the word connotations of "gentleman" and "christain". I'd check that out, because it basically explains the logical progression of thought i think you're trying to understand. It's at EVERY local library.

"In order to see the underlying similarities in the many different peoples and their cultures in Africa, you'd have to listen, read, interact, or live and experience a substantial amount of these cultures". this can be done outside of geopolitical or continental barriers. After a while, i think it'd be fairly easy to see the "whole" and have an understanding of what people (like myself) mean when referring to "traditional afrikan ways". i COULD apply a little reductionism...but why??? (you'll see why i said that after your experiences and reading of massive amounts of african literatur/data/experiences)

and yes. i know of MANY people who practice and try to retain the traditional afrilkan ways who see christianity and islam as a problem.

Red, Black, Green

it would be coo' if you (Uta) could answer Kala Abkars questions directly:

1. Who are these people? Are they only true Afrikans because they're not Muslims/Christians (or other outside influence)? Are there not Muslims/Christians who for the most part hold Afrikan traditions with some variation? The Muslim/Christian doctrines haven't they been accepted into the Afrikan way of thinking , the pantheon of beliefs?Has not Islam and Christianity affected indigenous Afrikan traditions somewhat as well, even for Afrikans who aren't Muslim/Christian?Isn't there diversity of traditions in Afrika between various ethnic groups anyway? What is/are the underlying thing(s) that makes one Afrikan?Have you been to Afrika? Do you think that "real" Afrikans have problems with Islam/Christianity?






------

Fox has got nothin' on us.

Okayplayers guerilla love
and Quest4Knowledge bringing you fair & balanced moderation since 2003.

Make sure you know the guidelines before posting: http://okayplayer.com/guidelines

Not happy about your post being locked? Want a thread archived? See a post that shouldn't be up? Feel free to Inbox me at Quest4Knowledge or E-Mail me at KemeticSunrise@aol.com

---
In memory of my sig..

but i can see where it seems somewhat avoiding the answer...

because i don't have time to type out a number of examples, i'll just throw out two names: Ayi Kwei Armah (of Senegal) and his book "2000 Seasons" so that you can get an idea of the perspective traditional indigenous afrikans have of christianity/islam if they haven't "assimilated" or "fused" those two belief systems with their own. there are NUMEROUS other examples and literature i can provide of HOSTS of others who write and speak in the same vein.

and to the other query: no i have not been to the continent.

Red, Black, Green

Why would you say that he(Armah) is representative of the average "Afrikan"?

Also, how does one practice "traditional Afrikan thought" with out living amongst true "Afrikans" to see practical things?One can read a lot of theories and ideas about Afrika and even practice but since youre dealing with a culture I dont know how you can be part of it without being amongst it. Hindus who live in Amrika and have grown up here really shouldnt say that they are Indian Hindu and that they know or relate. So why should an Amrikan, albeit a well versed scholar on Afrikan thought, say that he is "Afrikan"? By the way, my questions here aren't meant to be incendiary in any way. I'm just interested.

i can call and explain this a LOT faster than typing.

Red, Black, Green

It seems by this logic Afrikan thought cannot evole and continue to be considered,again by this logic, Afrikan thought. Do you consider the Europeans to have their own "pure" thought; or the Chineses for that matter?

Peace
H

was it when these religions began to be tainted by western consumerism?

was it when there religions began to alter indigenous ideologies?

was it when indigineous people stopped following ways that had been specifically honed and developed for the specific needs of their communities and started adopting ideologies brought by outsiders that the outsiders claimed were better for them?

was it in the openness to new ideas and people that the indigineous people showed?

was it because they couldn't adopt these new cultures and then hold them true to the way they had been developed for another group and not them?

was it when these new introduced elements changed their roots so profoundly that they had to reintroduce their soil altogether?

how far back do we have to go to find something pure/real/true?

.....

"Who need fossil fuel when the sun ain't goin' nowhere"
- Amiri Baraka

http://www.okayplayer.com/guidelines

BUY MY BOOK- only $6! Inbox me for details

"how far back do we have to go to find something pure/real/true?"

-March 23, 1978

truth and evidence is ALWAYS available. most systems operate on what works...not what doesn't work. just find the real cats practicing and DOING the real shit and getting the results they set out for. simple.

Red, Black, Green

that is the vaguest answer you have given yet.

_______________________
"Arm Leg Leg Arm Hate." c/o desus
_______________________
Divine Ruler
http://www.facebook.com/divineruler
__gigs__
__stuff__

.

Red, Black, Green

.

_______________________
"Arm Leg Leg Arm Hate." c/o desus
_______________________
Divine Ruler
http://www.facebook.com/divineruler
__gigs__
__stuff__

You said you understood. Are you just trying to be difficult, or do you need another explanation?



----------------------
Avatar? Nea onnim sua a, ohu; nea odwen se onim dodo no, se ogyae sua a, ketewa no koraa a onim no firi ne nsa.
_______________________

The Love of my life: (Future Mrs. FireBrand)
http://members.tripod.com/~samblondie/sampage2.htm

Refreshing Lyrics:
http://www.ohhla.com/anonymous/nas/gods_son/i_can.nas.txt

"Everywhere is war- m'say war" -- Bob Marley

Give back:
www.jampact.org.

www.jru.org.jm
Gone clear...Jamaican Rugby nah ras. Mo' Fiya!


"Be intent on action, not on the fruits of action; avoid attraction to the fruits and attachment to inaction! Perform action, firm in discipline, relinquishing attachment; be impartial to failure and sucess - this equanimity is called discipling. Wise men disciplined by understanding relinquish the fruit born of action; freed from these bonds of rebirth, they reach a place beyond decay." --Teachings of Krishna

"...If it were not for them in my life I might have not realized just how dangerous Western culture is for thinking Afrikans and would have gone on to become another empty, wasted intellectualizer." --Larry D. Crawford (Mwalimu A. Bomani Baruti)

"Slaves got options...cowards aint got shit." --PS
"Once upon a time, little need existed for making the distinction between a nigga and a black—at least not in this country, the place where niggas were invented" -- Donnell A

.

_______________________
"Arm Leg Leg Arm Hate." c/o desus
_______________________
Divine Ruler
http://www.facebook.com/divineruler
__gigs__
__stuff__

----------------------
Avatar? Nea onnim sua a, ohu; nea odwen se onim dodo no, se ogyae sua a, ketewa no koraa a onim no firi ne nsa.
_______________________

The Love of my life: (Future Mrs. FireBrand)
http://members.tripod.com/~samblondie/sampage2.htm

Refreshing Lyrics:
http://www.ohhla.com/anonymous/nas/gods_son/i_can.nas.txt

"Everywhere is war- m'say war" -- Bob Marley

Give back:
www.jampact.org.

www.jru.org.jm
Gone clear...Jamaican Rugby nah ras. Mo' Fiya!


"Be intent on action, not on the fruits of action; avoid attraction to the fruits and attachment to inaction! Perform action, firm in discipline, relinquishing attachment; be impartial to failure and sucess - this equanimity is called discipling. Wise men disciplined by understanding relinquish the fruit born of action; freed from these bonds of rebirth, they reach a place beyond decay." --Teachings of Krishna

"...If it were not for them in my life I might have not realized just how dangerous Western culture is for thinking Afrikans and would have gone on to become another empty, wasted intellectualizer." --Larry D. Crawford (Mwalimu A. Bomani Baruti)

"Slaves got options...cowards aint got shit." --PS
"Once upon a time, little need existed for making the distinction between a nigga and a black—at least not in this country, the place where niggas were invented" -- Donnell A

but I liked the Black Diasporic thing you broke down.
Peace.

_______________________
"Arm Leg Leg Arm Hate." c/o desus
_______________________
Divine Ruler
http://www.facebook.com/divineruler
__gigs__
__stuff__

Well, I am a young 100% Muslim Ethiopian/Somalian woman, born and raised in Ethiopia. There is much separation in Ethiopia as far as religions go. A lot of the Christians dislike the Muslims just because of our beliefs. Our way of life and basic ways of thinking are at 2 different ends of the pole. I even see it here in the States, thats just how it is back home....and it has been carried on over...Personally I dont have a problem w/ any believers or non-believers..Just thought I'd add this, even though it may not be what u are trying to get at..

@ethiozilla

the romanticization of this so called uniform "afrikan"
thought. That shit didn't exist now or in the past.
There were STATES (countries) that held a dominant sway over
what various ethnolinguistic groups did in there trade
with each other, but this whole unilateral "Afrikan"
thought thing is bogus.

_______________________
"Arm Leg Leg Arm Hate." c/o desus
_______________________
Divine Ruler
http://www.facebook.com/divineruler
__gigs__
__stuff__

How do the Muslims and Christians get along with the indigenous religion cats? Is there shared cultural attributes at all in Ethiopia? Like for example, amongst a certain ethnic group. Lets take Somalis. Are there Christian, Muslim, and or indigenous Somalis? If there are, do they have shared cultural attributes?

I mean we all get along, but there is always that feeling of distinction amongst us. Though we may be at different beliefs, we do share many cultural values, morals, and atributes. We tend not to involve the two....kind of like separation from church and state type of thing..

>How do the Muslims and Christians get along with the
>indigenous religion cats? Is there shared cultural
>attributes at all in Ethiopia? Like for example, amongst a
>certain ethnic group. Lets take Somalis. Are there
>Christian, Muslim, and or indigenous Somalis? If there are,
>do they have shared cultural attributes?

@ethiozilla

>How do the Muslims and Christians get along with the
>indigenous religion cats? Is there shared cultural
>attributes at all in Ethiopia? Like for example, amongst a
>certain ethnic group. Lets take Somalis. Are there
>Christian, Muslim, and or indigenous Somalis? If there are,
>do they have shared cultural attributes?

I am not from Ethiopia but from Kenya,but if you allow me I can answer the above question with reference to my own people.I am of a tribe called the Agikuyu(colloqial term,Kikuyu)and yes there are Christian,Muslim and also Kikuyu who practice the indigenous religion.My answer to your question would be that some cultural attributes that are specific to the Kikuyu apply regardless of religion.My family is Catholic but alot of the things we do even within the Catholic church are from Kikuyu perspective.We have mass in our traditional language(including hymns,and prayers)and for the offering at Mass, it is normal to give fruit from the harvest or even livestock.This is Kikuyu practice.I am not sure how Islamic worship is carried out though, but I would assume that the same does not apply.As far as I have observed,the language used is Arabic and the Kikuyu practices have not made much inroad into the systems of worship here.(Although this might have to do with the fact that there are many more Christian Kikuyu than Muslim)
As far as social practice and day to day behaviour is concerned,The Kikuyu identity is very strong and takes precedence over anything else.That means that customs concerning birth and marriage and circumcision etc are still followed today and apply across religious boundaries.Interestingly,my cousin got married last Summer and there was a big fuss and alot of family dispute because her husband to be was from another tribe.It didn't matter that he was a good Catholic man who teaches at a good Catholic School.What makes this even more interesting is that my Aunt awhile ago converted to Islam but there was not much concern because at the end of the day,we still saw her as a member of our tribe first and anything else second.These are just some examples of the relevance we still attach to our traditional heritage and there are countless other examples I won't bore you with.
Another poster(Allah) has mentioned that we need to stop romanticizing this idea of the single or uniform African thought or practice.I must agree wholeheartedly.There is no such thing and there is no such place.Take it from someone who encounters the day to day realities of what is really just a small piece of Africa.Kenya is not even the size of Texas and we have more than 70(seventy) ethnic groups.Each one thinks it kicks ass and the others come a close second.Imagine how much more the complexity of this is amplified over the entire continent!!! And by the way,alot of us find it insulting and offensive when in discussion we are lumped together as "those Africans".Discussions of this type fail to take account of the fact of the different Nationalities and ethnicities.These nationalities and ethnicities are very unique and individual and it is lazy to think otherwise.But y'all just didn't know





"Fighting for peace is like fucking for celibacy"

Join the fray: http://freddkambo.blogspot.com

"are you black? a nerd? don't fit in with your peers? got no game? YOU SHOULD FORM A ROCK BAND, DUNNY!" AF


Too many Emcees not enough mics.(fugees)

See this is the insight that I was looking for. Religion plays its part and there have been divisions but in many cases tribal allegiances are more important than religious ones.

>This question is being posed really to Utamaroho and Solarus
>but anyone who knows the Afrikan way of thinking/living can
>also add in. When you guys look at Afrikan people and
>culture within Afrika, I've noticed that you tend to
>seperate elements like Islam and Christianity particularly
>as "non-Afrikan" and you paint them as detrimental to
>original Afrikan culture. To a large extent I see where you
>are coming from and I agree with you on certain things.
>However, my question about the Afrikan discourse is I'm
>wondering if its not a little revisionist in its picture of
>Afrika. It reminds me a lot of Hindu revivalism/nationalism

No it is not revisionist. First off, as I discussed in a former post "God is IMMANENT," various Afrikan groups tend to be very inclusive when it comes to religious practices, beliefs and/or deities. By this alone, foreign religions already had open door. If we then look at specific cases we see that conversion was generally ushered in by ECONOMIC/POLITICAL BENEFITS. For example, the conversion of King Ezana(sp?) of Axum allowed for better relations with then Christian Egypt and the larger Byzantine Empire; the conversion of the mansas and royalty of the ancient MAli empire to Islam allowed the empire to gain better trade relations with the greater Muslim world; scores of kidnapped and forcibly enslaved Afrikans converted to Islam to gain their freedom from their captors. In all these cases it si obvious that the conversion was not done so simply because someone saw the "truth" of g.o.d. or a.l.l.a.h. but moreso because of economic gain, betterment of international relations or improvement of social status.

Initially there are going to be an obvious syncretization of beliefs. This is obvious in the Kingdom of Mali example when traveler Ibn Battuta visited Mali. He spoke of many differences and drew a distinct line between the people of Mali (who were all technically Muslim) and his own Muslim group in North Afrika. Over time and much money (initially spent by the frivolous Mansa Musa trying to show off his bling bling to Arabs) Arab scholars set up shop teaching Afrikans how to be better Arabs instead of Afrikans.

This technique also occurred in East Afrika where East Afrikans took over the Arab job of capturing more Afrikans for Arab enslavement. Thanks be to a.l.l.a.h.

And yes there is a high degree of syncretization. I would argue that the degree of syncretization varies according to a people's access of teachers of foreign doctrines. In general, in West Afrika for instance, I think one is more likely to find more syncretized (or "afrikanized") versions of ISlam than one would find in Christianity. I think this would be the case simply because modern Christianity had more dedicated and stringent teachers of the religion than did past Muslims.

Overall however, syncretization or not, I would argue that Islam and Christianity ultimately do or will overshadow traditional Afrikan ways of thought simply because of their(Islam and christianity) isolating, segregating and/or excluding natures, thus making any syncretization minimal or negligible.

>Don't you think going to visit Afrika would be important in
>actually seeing the Afrikan way of life rather than just
>reading theories about it?

No because the "Afrikan way of life" exists throughout the diaspora. I've elements of it in America and I've seen the survival of it within MAroon communities of the Americas as a whole. (What IS the "Afrikan way of life?")

>And if you have been to
>Afrika(Solarus) how has that affected your viewpoint about
>Afrikan discourse?

I haven't been to the continent yet but from the views of some close brothas of mine who stayed in the continent for a year it strengthened their resolve. Seeing Afrikans worship alien dieties and the sickness that evolves from it (self-hate, negative look on past traditions and thus one's (particular Afrikan)group as a whole). The sickness only quickens and solidifies the ability of foreigners to sway the minds and hearts of Afrikans for their (foreigners') benefits.

PS. Before anyone responds with some silly ish, I'm not using "Arab" and "Muslim" synonymously but I am advocating that the origin and evolution of Islam emanates from a greater Arab worldview.

PEace

____________________________
"the real pyramids were built with such precision that you can't slide a piece of paper between two 4,000 lb stones, and have shafts perfectly aligned so that you can see a tiny aperture through dozens of these mammoth blocks

>
>No it is not revisionist. First off, as I discussed in a
>former post "God is IMMANENT," various Afrikan groups tend
>to be very inclusive when it comes to religious practices,
>beliefs and/or deities. By this alone, foreign religions
>already had open door. If we then look at specific cases we
>see that conversion was generally ushered in by
>ECONOMIC/POLITICAL BENEFITS. For example, the conversion of
>King Ezana(sp?) of Axum allowed for better relations with
>then Christian Egypt and the larger Byzantine Empire; the
>conversion of the mansas and royalty of the ancient MAli
>empire to Islam allowed the empire to gain better trade
>relations with the greater Muslim world; scores of kidnapped
>and forcibly enslaved Afrikans converted to Islam to gain
>their freedom from their captors. In all these cases it si
>obvious that the conversion was not done so simply because
>someone saw the "truth" of g.o.d. or a.l.l.a.h. but moreso
>because of economic gain, betterment of international
>relations or improvement of social status.

Okay. Except for the slaves, most of your examples are royalty or political leaders. However, do you have information as to occurences of conversion amongst the average Afrikan? Also the slaves youre talking about,did they become Muslims to gain freedom in non-Afrikan lands?(North Africa, the Middle East)or amongst Afrikan Muslim slaveholders?Also some information as to why the leaders themselves thought it fit to become Muslims? Was there an Islamic hegemony on trade?I have a hard time believing that ordinary people only converted for economic gain. I assume they just added Islam/Christianity to their belief systems or just coexisted with it. I do agree that economic interests were considered, especially amongst the elite.






>

>Initially there are going to be an obvious syncretization of
>beliefs. This is obvious in the Kingdom of Mali example when
>traveler Ibn Battuta visited Mali. He spoke of many
>differences and drew a distinct line between the people of
>Mali (who were all technically Muslim) and his own Muslim
>group in North Afrika. Over time and much money (initially
>spent by the frivolous Mansa Musa trying to show off his
>bling bling to Arabs) Arab scholars set up shop teaching
>Afrikans how to be better Arabs instead of Afrikans.

So for example Timbuktu was a place for Islamic learning but also Arabization? There were no Afrikan teachers there? Islam was taught primarily by Arabs? Arabs did not intermarry with the community? My experience with this comes from my knowledge of Islam in India. Arabs, Persians and other Middle Easterners came to Bengal and set up shop there but they eventually (most of them) became Bengalised. So Arabs that went to West Afrika didnt become Afrikanised over time? See in Bengal, there is more of a balance between Islam and the beleifs that preceded its arrival there(primarily Hinduism)even though Bengalis dont realise this. Many pre-Islamic festivals are still celebrated. So this is no more in Afrika?


>
>This technique also occurred in East Afrika where East
>Afrikans took over the Arab job of capturing more Afrikans
>for Arab enslavement. Thanks be to a.l.l.a.h.

No thanks be to Arabs and Persians. Similar things have happened to Bengal and other non-Arab Muslim areas. Bengali children are kidnapped on the daily to work in Saudi Arabia and Bengali girls as well as Somalian girls are used as prostitutes in the Gulf. Most Bengalis aren't anti-Islam because of what Arabs do however, they just might not like Arabs. And I assume that is what is true in Afrika but youre telling me that Afrikan Muslims don't think that theyre different somewhat from Arabs?



>
>And yes there is a high degree of syncretization. I would
>argue that the degree of syncretization varies according to
>a people's access of teachers of foreign doctrines. In
>general, in West Afrika for instance, I think one is more
>likely to find more syncretized (or "afrikanized") versions
>of ISlam than one would find in Christianity. I think this
>would be the case simply because modern Christianity had
>more dedicated and stringent teachers of the religion than
>did past Muslims.
>
>Overall however, syncretization or not, I would argue that
>Islam and Christianity ultimately do or will overshadow
>traditional Afrikan ways of thought simply because of
>their(Islam and christianity) isolating, segregating and/or
>excluding natures, thus making any syncretization minimal or
>negligible.
I can't speak for Christianity but Islam has syncretised well in India. I'm not sure if you feel this way because of the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in Afrika?(which I feel is also revisionist)So youre saying that throughout history that Afrikan way of life has been syncretised but at the same deleted by Islam?


>
>>Don't you think going to visit Afrika would be important in
>>actually seeing the Afrikan way of life rather than just
>>reading theories about it?
>
>No because the "Afrikan way of life" exists throughout the
>diaspora. I've elements of it in America and I've seen the
>survival of it within MAroon communities of the Americas as
>a whole. (What IS the "Afrikan way of life?")

Indo-carribeans have bits and pieces of Indian culture within them but they wouldnt dare to call themselves Indian. That would be an insult. Besides the Maroons in Jamaica or Guyana(I might be missing some places)how could you say that Amrikan Blacks can call themselves African? Call-and-response and polyrhythms only takes you too far.


>
>>And if you have been to
>>Afrika(Solarus) how has that affected your viewpoint about
>>Afrikan discourse?
>
>I haven't been to the continent yet but from the views of
>some close brothas of mine who stayed in the continent for a
>year it strengthened their resolve. Seeing Afrikans worship
>alien dieties and the sickness that evolves from it
>(self-hate, negative look on past traditions and thus one's
>(particular Afrikan)group as a whole). The sickness only
>quickens and solidifies the ability of foreigners to sway
>the minds and hearts of Afrikans for their (foreigners')
>benefits.

So Afrikan Muslims hate the fact that they are Afrikan? I think you're essentialising them a little bit to much. I know non-Arab Muslims have complexes but they also have to face the reality of where they live. And what ever is the norms will have to compromise with their religion. This sort of victimisation of Afrikan culture is sort of misleading. Such a great culture wouldn't fight for representation amongst competing cultures doesnt make sense to me. I dont think that Islam or Christianity will overshadow Afrikan culture. Afrikan culture is not weak.
>
>PS. Before anyone responds with some silly ish, I'm not
>using "Arab" and "Muslim" synonymously but I am advocating
>that the origin and evolution of Islam emanates from a
>greater Arab worldview.

Islam might emanate from an Arab worldview but it slowly changes as it travels and it always has. Arabs call a lot of people Kaffir and its not just Malians. Its Bengalis and Pakistanis as well.

>
>PEace

Thanks for answering and I hope you respond.

Codahafez

>Okay. Except for the slaves, most of your examples are
>royalty or political leaders. However, do you have
>information as to occurences of conversion amongst the
>average Afrikan?

Varies with the time and period. I discussed the conversion of mali but also I will say that with ANY religion that actively SEEKS converts, the people who are at the lower levels of society or are downtrodden because of social/religious reasons (in traditional AFrikan systems social and religious go hand-in-hand) will often be the first to convert to anything new. The idea is that anyone that has a problem with the social order will be seeking ways of leaving/changing/resisting it and conversion to a new religion/ideology is often the first route taken. Chinua Achebe details in _ThingsFallApart_ how this occurred amongst the Igbo with Christianity during the early colonization of Nigeria.

>Also the slaves youre talking about,did
>they become Muslims to gain freedom in non-Afrikan
>lands?(North Africa, the Middle East)or amongst Afrikan
>Muslim slaveholders?

Both

>Also some information as to why the
>leaders themselves thought it fit to become Muslims?

I don't think anyone can definitely say "why" but I do think it is apparent that initially it was a byproduct of improving trade relations only to eventually lead to a more stricter practice of Islam because of the gaining of Islamic teachers.

>Was there an Islamic hegemony on trade?

No/Yes. I say "no" because Muslims did not "control" the Transaharan trade but they WERE largely the "middlemen" in the process. West Afrikans had the gold, North Afrikans had the salt. By the time of the late empire of Mali, I think that majority of the people involved in the trade were followers (in some fashion or form) of Islam.

>I have a hard time
>believing that ordinary people only converted for economic
>gain.

Well in the empire of Mali, the royalty converted so the conversion of their people is sure to follow. The strength of their conversion (as i said before) only increased with the increase of Islamic teachers and scholars in the land. Remember the people of MAli were inclusive of Islam, which means that they might accept religion, take what's good to them and leave the rest, but over time access to a more in-depth Islamic education causes the exclusion of past traditions.
>I assume they just added Islam/Christianity to their
>belief systems or just coexisted with it.

Exactly. Like I said traditional Afrikan systems are largely inclusive of other beliefs and systems, therefore it is only natural that people accepted or at the very least, tolerated foreign systems. However Islam/Christianity largely negate and in many cases actively try to suppress AFrikan systems as a whole.

>So for example Timbuktu was a place for Islamic learning but
>also Arabization? There were no Afrikan teachers there?

Islamic learning = Arabization.

I'm sure over time enough AFrikan teachers reared in Islamic rhetoric took over. Also considering that many teachers were from Egypt anyway (still plenty of indigenous Afrikans there), there were definite "Afrikan" teachers. It is documented that Mansa Musa on his return from the hajj brought several Islamic scholars back to Mali after his travels.

>Islam was taught primarily by Arabs? Arabs did not
>intermarry with the community?

With any belief system, factors such as "race," "ethnicity," kwk. become negligible. Once someone is reared in a belief system they easily become perpetrators of it. A simple example is the fact that many Afrikans in a America think like Europeans and might as well be dark-skinned white people.

Oh and yes some Arabs did intermarry with the community or at least bore children with community members.

>So this is no more in Afrika?

Depends where you are and who is in power. The hausa of West Afrika (Hausaland is part of several different West Afrikan countries) for instance still have many of their pre-Islamic traditions in tact despite the fact that they are largely Islamic as a group and have been for years. However, the fact remains that THEY controlled their own communities unlike the Arab/Muslim dominated Sudanese government that actively outlaws and suppresses native Nubian traditions such as wrestling matches.

Afrika is a big continent and the people's experiences can and do at times differ with with one anothers'.


>No thanks be to Arabs and Persians. Similar things have
>happened to Bengal and other non-Arab Muslim areas. Bengali
>children are kidnapped on the daily to work in Saudi Arabia
>and Bengali girls as well as Somalian girls are used as
>prostitutes in the Gulf. Most Bengalis aren't anti-Islam
>because of what Arabs do however, they just might not like
>Arabs.

>And I assume that is what is true in Afrika but youre
>telling me that Afrikan Muslims don't think that theyre
>different somewhat from Arabs?

I'm not saying anything. Some do, some don't. Overall isn't a goal of Islam to imitate the lifestyle of the Prophet Muhammad?
Also isn't another goal of Islam to see oneself as part of a larger Muslim brotherhood?

I'm sure a far removed group (far from a large Arab community) such as the Hausa would see themselves more different from Arabs versus East Afrikan Muslims who are closer in proximity (and blood) to Middle Eastern Arabs. I've definitely heard of cases along the Swahili Coast where claiming descendancy from Arabs is akin to having more white in one's blood in the Americas

>


>I can't speak for Christianity but Islam has syncretised
>well in India. I'm not sure if you feel this way because of
>the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in Afrika?(which I feel
>is also revisionist)So youre saying that throughout history
>that Afrikan way of life has been syncretised but at the
>same deleted by Islam?

Yeah somewhat in varying degrees.

>Indo-carribeans have bits and pieces of Indian culture
>within them but they wouldnt dare to call themselves Indian.
>That would be an insult. Besides the Maroons in Jamaica or
>Guyana(I might be missing some places)how could you say that
>Amrikan Blacks can call themselves African?
>Call-and-response and polyrhythms only takes you too far.

Languages, practices, ceremonies, thought processes, values, kwk.

all are evident in the daily lives of Afrikan descendants in the Americas. From my experiences INDIANS in the caribbean DO consider themselves INDIAN (see Trinidad or Guyana?). In Panama, there is a group of people who call themselves "Los Congos." the list goes on and on.

As far as in the United States, well many Afrikans might as well be dark-skinned white people but there are still elements of Afrocultural values that are evident among Afrikan Americans (e.g. communalism, expressive individuality, and as you mentioned the ever-so-popular practice of call-and-response).



>So Afrikan Muslims hate the fact that they are Afrikan?

No I didn't say that, absolutely. I stated that as a possible evolution just like having a negative outlook on one's traditions. Nevertheless I have seen the impact of Islam and/or Christianity causing a DEFINITE hate in the fact that one is a member of a traditional Afrikan group

>think you're essentialising them a little bit to much. I
>know non-Arab Muslims have complexes but they also have to
>face the reality of where they live. And what ever is the
>norms will have to compromise with their religion. This sort
>of victimisation of Afrikan culture is sort of misleading.

>Such a great culture wouldn't fight for representation
>amongst competing cultures doesnt make sense to me. I dont
>think that Islam or Christianity will overshadow Afrikan
>culture. Afrikan culture is not weak.

Whether or not Afrikan culture is "weak" is not the issue. (BTW it definitely ISN'T weak). The issue is whether one's following of Islam or Christianity will cause them to negate one's particular traditional Afrikan group belief systems. In some cases Islam and Christianity are successful and in some cases they aren't. Nevertheless, the exclusive nature of those religions makes the conflict, inevitable.

PEace

____________________________
"the real pyramids were built with such precision that you can't slide a piece of paper between two 4,000 lb stones, and have shafts perfectly aligned so that you can see a tiny aperture through dozens of these mammoth blocks

>
>
>Varies with the time and period. I discussed the conversion
>of mali but also I will say that with ANY religion that
>actively SEEKS converts, the people who are at the lower
>levels of society or are downtrodden because of
>social/religious reasons (in traditional AFrikan systems
>social and religious go hand-in-hand) will often be the
>first to convert to anything new.

See over here you might be talking more about Western Christians than Muslims. I know there have been forced conversions into Islam through invasions but the Islamic missionary zeal is something that I have never experienced. I've never heard Muslims say "Oh those kaffirs in Polynesia need some Islam in their life, lets go there and fix em up!" or even mentioned this idea vaguely. However, Muslims do preach. In Bengal Sufi saints came from the Middle East and preached and people converted but even then the indigenous Bengali Hindus accepted these saints and joined in worship with them. But I still cant agree with you that Islam/Muslims ACTIVELY seek converts.

The idea is that anyone
>that has a problem with the social order will be seeking
>ways of leaving/changing/resisting it and conversion to a
>new religion/ideology is often the first route taken.
>Chinua Achebe details in _ThingsFallApart_ how this occurred
>amongst the Igbo with Christianity during the early
>colonization of Nigeria.
What were some reasons that people had problems with the Afrikan social order?How were they placed amongst the social order after they converted if there wasn't economic gain if Muslims werent the ruling class? In Bengal for example the majority of the peasants converted to Islam but the rulin landowners were mainly Hindu in many cases. This did not happen in Afrika? There were no indigenous Afrikans ruling over Muslims?I know Afrikan religious systems are inclusive but there had to have been some disdain for people who converted to Islam because they were once the lowest on the societal chain? There was no "Mlechha" (Sanskrit for "foreigner", "barbarian")complex that Hindus gave Muslims? Indigenous Afrikans didn't look down on foreigners or foreign customs at all? Even amongst contact with other tribes, there was no loooking down of lets say Yoruba vs. Igbo?





>
>I don't think anyone can definitely say "why" but I do think
>it is apparent that initially it was a byproduct of
>improving trade relations only to eventually lead to a more
>stricter practice of Islam because of the gaining of Islamic
>teachers.
Muslim North Africans wouldn't trade with non-Muslim Afrikans because they werent Muslim? How did becoming nominal Muslims help the Afrikans kingdoms?



>

>
>>I have a hard time
>>believing that ordinary people only converted for economic
>>gain.
>
>Well in the empire of Mali, the royalty converted so the
>conversion of their people is sure to follow.

Is this a right assumption? History has shown us that many a ruling elite were different religiously from their constituents. My example of Bengal is one(Hindu elite over Muslim peasantry)Just because my king is Muslim doesnt necessarily mean that I would have to be. Is Mali a common enough example in Afrika? Is it common enough to say that Islam will kill Afrikan ways of living?



The strength
>of their conversion (as i said before) only increased with
>the increase of Islamic teachers and scholars in the land.
>Remember the people of MAli were inclusive of Islam, which
>means that they might accept religion, take what's good to
>them and leave the rest, but over time access to a more
>in-depth Islamic education causes the exclusion of past
>traditions.
There were more scholars than religious preachers?Was Timbuktu or places like it accesible to all?The peasant was introduced to Islam through the scholar and not the preacher in Afrika?I ask this because theres a huge difference between the scholar and the preacher in Islam. Theres usually more preachers than scholars in a group of Muslims. And preachers tend to adapt to the environment more often than scholars who will have an Arabist viewpoint usually. The Islamic scholar as primary teacher of islam is foreign to me.



However Islam/Christianity
>largely negate and in many cases actively try to suppress
>AFrikan systems as a whole.
How has Islam negated Afrikan ways of living? Has this always been overwhelming or more common within this last century?If its been common within the last century I would assume it would be due to the new Islamic fundamentalism which is Arabist and is revisionist. And I agree that the Arabist viewpoint would negate Afrika but not Islam practiced in Afrika. Theres a big difference.




>Islamic learning = Arabization.

No not necessarily. Like I said Islamic learning came through preaching in many areas and it definetely either compromised its Arab background in order to harmonise with its new surroundings.But if it was like how you say it was,then over time it would likely be more Afrikanised than Arabised. It doesnt seem logical that way especially in West Afrika what with its distance.
>
>I'm sure over time enough AFrikan teachers reared in Islamic
>rhetoric took over. Also considering that many teachers
>were from Egypt anyway (still plenty of indigenous Afrikans
>there), there were definite "Afrikan" teachers. It is
>documented that Mansa Musa on his return from the hajj
>brought several Islamic scholars back to Mali after his
>travels.
>
>>Islam was taught primarily by Arabs? Arabs did not
>>intermarry with the community?
>
>With any belief system, factors such as "race," "ethnicity,"
>kwk. become negligible. Once someone is reared in a belief
>system they easily become perpetrators of it. A simple
>example is the fact that many Afrikans in a America think
>like Europeans and might as well be dark-skinned white
>people.

okay Agreed but the Afrikans that went to Amrika were forcefully immersed into a culture into which they were the minority. Islam comes into Afrika as the minority. In certain areas it holds sway and Im sure in other areas it doesnt. And even in areas where it holds sway without a strong Arab presence I cant really see how Afrikans became so "Arab" as you say without being close to the Middle East.
>
>Oh and yes some Arabs did intermarry with the community or
>at least bore children with community members.
>
>>So this is no more in Afrika?
>
>Depends where you are and who is in power. The hausa of
>West Afrika (Hausaland is part of several different West
>Afrikan countries) for instance still have many of their
>pre-Islamic traditions in tact despite the fact that they
>are largely Islamic as a group and have been for years.
>However, the fact remains that THEY controlled their own
>communities unlike the Arab/Muslim dominated Sudanese
>government that actively outlaws and suppresses native
>Nubian traditions such as wrestling matches.
>
>Afrika is a big continent and the people's experiences can
>and do at times differ with with one anothers'.
See this is the probably the most important thing you typed in my opinion. Afrika is diverse and expereinces vary so Hausas arent insecure about their Afrikanness but maybe Eastern Afrikans could be more apt to be so. So with this in mind, why is Islam bad when its been expereinced in different ways by different groups?




>
>
>>No thanks be to Arabs and Persians. Similar things have
>>happened to Bengal and other non-Arab Muslim areas. Bengali
>>children are kidnapped on the daily to work in Saudi Arabia
>>and Bengali girls as well as Somalian girls are used as
>>prostitutes in the Gulf. Most Bengalis aren't anti-Islam
>>because of what Arabs do however, they just might not like
>>Arabs.
>
>>And I assume that is what is true in Afrika but youre
>>telling me that Afrikan Muslims don't think that theyre
>>different somewhat from Arabs?
>
>I'm not saying anything. Some do, some don't. Overall
>isn't a goal of Islam to imitate the lifestyle of the
>Prophet Muhammad?
yeah but that doesnt mean you gotta have 4 wives. If its not common in your region then people don't?I think this idea is more in a general universalist sense even though its not practiced as such by most Muslims. Muhammads view of women will differ as its interpreted in different regions. And I'm sure Muhammamed's lifestyle has been interpreted differently in Afrika.



>Also isn't another goal of Islam to see oneself as part of a
>larger Muslim brotherhood?
Sure but I dont see how this stops you from being Hausa and me from being Bengali. We pray towards Mecca but you eat okra and I eat shrimp. We dress differently, language, cultures everything different. Its kind how you define Afrikan cultures. You recognise their differences but see theirs some common links between them. You say Yoruba and Igbo got things in common so through Islam a Muslim could rationalise it as we all Muslims no matter what our language is.


>
>I'm sure a far removed group (far from a large Arab
>community) such as the Hausa would see themselves more
>different from Arabs versus East Afrikan Muslims who are
>closer in proximity (and blood) to Middle Eastern Arabs.
>I've definitely heard of cases along the Swahili Coast where
>claiming descendancy from Arabs is akin to having more white
>in one's blood in the Americas

I have too but still these are specific cases. And youre right in the Muslim brotherhood their is a percieved Arabness once your country is closer to Saudi Arabia but it is far from the truth in most cases.
>
>>

>
>
>Languages, practices, ceremonies, thought processes, values,
>kwk.



>
>all are evident in the daily lives of Afrikan descendants in
>the Americas. From my experiences INDIANS in the caribbean
>DO consider themselves INDIAN (see Trinidad or Guyana?).
They are Indian in relation to Afro-Trinidadians but not in the whole diaspora of Indian people. Geography changes a lot. If you go to Richmond Hill(Indo-Carribean) in Queens and then you go to Jackson Heights(South Asian) its a world of difference.


In
>Panama, there is a group of people who call themselves "Los
>Congos." the list goes on and on.
>
>As far as in the United States, well many Afrikans might as
>well be dark-skinned white people but there are still
>elements of Afrocultural values that are evident among
>Afrikan Americans (e.g. communalism, expressive
>individuality, and as you mentioned the ever-so-popular
>practice of call-and-response).
From my experince living in Jamaica Queens amogst West Indian Blacks, Amrikan Blacks, and Afrikans I've seen more differences than similarities. I saw elements of the Amrikan Black community when I lived in Cleveland but still it was much different than my Afrikans friends houses. Matter of fact I related almost like another South Asian to my Igbo friend Emeka (and vice versa)than lets say to my man Vernell Hunt.Vernell Hunt said I worshipped "the fireplace" (in response to me telling him I was Muslim) and laughed that I took my shoes off in my house. Emeka was cool with everything we did in my crib and vice versa. The fact that I had to stand up in Emeka's house when his mother came in the room just like my Bengali upbringing was a big thing back then. That is just one example. There are countless other ones I dont have to time to type now.


>

>
>No I didn't say that, absolutely. I stated that as a
>possible evolution just like having a negative outlook on
>one's traditions. Nevertheless I have seen the impact of
>Islam and/or Christianity causing a DEFINITE hate in the
>fact that one is a member of a traditional Afrikan group

I;ve seen this too but it really is a minority of people who think like this from my experience. Not enough to kill Ananse and I also dont think Muslims want to kill Ananse but to syncretise with him.
>
>>think you're essentialising them a little bit to much. I
>>know non-Arab Muslims have complexes but they also have to
>>face the reality of where they live. And what ever is the
>>norms will have to compromise with their religion. This sort
>>of victimisation of Afrikan culture is sort of misleading.
>
>>Such a great culture wouldn't fight for representation
>>amongst competing cultures doesnt make sense to me. I dont
>>think that Islam or Christianity will overshadow Afrikan
>>culture. Afrikan culture is not weak.
>
>Whether or not Afrikan culture is "weak" is not the issue.
>(BTW it definitely ISN'T weak). The issue is whether one's
>following of Islam or Christianity will cause them to negate
>one's particular traditional Afrikan group belief systems.
>In some cases Islam and Christianity are successful and in
>some cases they aren't.

Nevertheless, the exclusive nature
>of those religions makes the conflict, inevitable.

The xclusive nature only in cases like Sudan lets say or East Afrika or Mali but there are tons of either cases where the conflict is avoidable or not even brought up. In Islam's case(I'm not arguing for Christianity here) I dont think getting rid of Islam is necessarily the good thing. Keeping it there and absorbing it into Afrika would be the right thing to do (and I think thats what has been going on)
>
>PEace

Peace

>Don't you think going to visit Afrika would be important in
>actually seeing the Afrikan way of life rather than just
>reading theories about it?

No because the "Afrikan way of life" exists throughout the diaspora. I've elements of it in America and I've seen the survival of it within MAroon communities of the Americas as a whole. (What IS the "Afrikan way of life?")

.....

"Who need fossil fuel when the sun ain't goin' nowhere"
- Amiri Baraka

http://www.okayplayer.com/guidelines

BUY MY BOOK- only $6! Inbox me for details

What elements? How are they present amongst Amrikan Blacks?

look around

see for yourself

black american people are african people who've been placed in america for a while. although white people tried hard as hell to erase any sense of history, culture and/or humanity from black people, there is no denying the strong african foundation- it still leaks out all over the place

.....

"Who need fossil fuel when the sun ain't goin' nowhere"
- Amiri Baraka

http://www.okayplayer.com/guidelines

BUY MY BOOK- only $6! Inbox me for details

>No it is not revisionist. First off, as I discussed in a
>former post "God is IMMANENT," various Afrikan groups tend
>to be very inclusive when it comes to religious practices,
>beliefs and/or deities. By this alone, foreign religions
>already had open door.

This "inclusiveness" is NOT a good thing then, IMO. It leaves the door wide open for every tom, dick and harry to enter and pollute us if they have the necessary will to AND we do not care to effectively defend ourselves against their onslaught.

>If we then look at specific cases we
>see that conversion was generally ushered in by
>ECONOMIC/POLITICAL BENEFITS. For example, the conversion of
>King Ezana(sp?) of Axum allowed for better relations with
>then Christian Egypt and the larger Byzantine Empire; the
>conversion of the mansas and royalty of the ancient MAli
>empire to Islam allowed the empire to gain better trade
>relations with the greater Muslim world; scores of kidnapped
>and forcibly enslaved Afrikans converted to Islam to gain
>their freedom from their captors. In all these cases it si
>obvious that the conversion was not done so simply because
>someone saw the "truth" of g.o.d. or a.l.l.a.h. but moreso
>because of economic gain, betterment of international
>relations or improvement of social status.
>

Obviously then, Africans didn't just leave the door open, our ancestors did that AND took off their pants and bent over. How could africans have been so easily conquered and also enticed by petty economics to allow these deadly foreigners into our lands to poison us if this were not the case?

If you do not impose your will over others, your will, will be imposed on is a lesson Africans have sadly failed to learn to this very day.

SAD.

Your whole outlook on it is not healthy. Youre letting Western ideas of dominance get to you. Even your language, "pulled their pants down and bent over" is on some Western rape shit. People can get along without one having to exert dominace over the other.

perhaps they can, but it is best not to assume so from jump. it is best to assume the worst until proven wrong.........

in a situation where the interests of europeans/eurasians and africans is consistently diametrically opposed, it is a win or lose proposition.


>Your whole outlook on it is not healthy. Youre letting
>Western ideas of dominance get to you. Even your language,
>"pulled their pants down and bent over" is on some Western
>rape shit. People can get along without one having to exert
>dominace over the other.

Okay, but that sure don't sound African. That shit don't sound balanced out. I can't speak for Europeans I guess. Eurasians to you are whom?

I have a gut feeling that you associate Arabs, Persians, and Indo-Aryans as "gross , European like oppressors"and put Dravidians into the "need to be saved by Afrikans" box.

By the way, I'm not saying you shouldnt be defensive but you also shouldnt be on some nihilistic shit either.

By the way, aren't you half-Indian?

>Okay, but that sure don't sound African.

i do not care about what "sounds" african or about what africans did, unless it can help me now. i only care about what i come to know through study and experimentation is in the best interests of recently descended african people, because i am one (otherwise i would not) in the here and now.


>Okay, but that sure don't sound African. That shit don't
>sound balanced out. I can't speak for Europeans I guess.
>Eurasians to you are whom?

Eurasians I would define as people from Western Europe into the Northern part of South Asia. They range in skin colour from pinkish to a light brown, straight to curly hair, high nasal index, etc.

>I have a gut feeling that you associate Arabs, Persians, and
>Indo-Aryans as "gross , European like oppressors"and put
>Dravidians into the "need to be saved by Afrikans" box.

I do not care about "Dravidians". I'm sure they have their problems, I have mine. I will focus mine, while they hopefully focus on theirs. My well-being is not tied up with their's.

And yes, Arabs, Persians, and Indo-Aryans are gross.

>
>By the way, I'm not saying you shouldnt be defensive but you
>also shouldnt be on some nihilistic shit either.
>
>By the way, aren't you half-Indian?

yes, partially indo-guyanese, but an irrelevant matter since i am not a part of that community in any way.

>>Okay, but that sure don't sound African.
>
>i do not care about what "sounds" african or about what
>africans did, unless it can help me now. i only care about
>what i come to know through study and experimentation is in
>the best interests of recently descended african people,
>because i am one (otherwise i would not) in the here and
>now.
What experimentation?


>
>
>>Okay, but that sure don't sound African. That shit don't
>>sound balanced out. I can't speak for Europeans I guess.
>>Eurasians to you are whom?
>
>Eurasians I would define as people from Western Europe into
>the Northern part of South Asia. They range in skin colour
>from pinkish to a light brown, straight to curly hair, high
>nasal index, etc.
Ahh, the "Great Aryan Invasion" theory. This could be true racially but the extreme differencesin worldview (and I do mean extreme)between London and Lahore is big.Most cats who live in North India (and Bengal is considered part of North India)can't even think of being put in the same box as a Frenchman or even the same race. There has been great intermingling within North India (throughout the subcontinent actually)and I'm nottalking about Aryan-Dravidian. There has been crazy intermingling with other tribal groups. A lot of the Sanskrit derived languages still have much vocabulary that is taken from the tribal languages.Many of the rituals are still there.What have North Indians done to Afrikans?
>
>>I have a gut feeling that you associate Arabs, Persians, and
>>Indo-Aryans as "gross , European like oppressors"and put
>>Dravidians into the "need to be saved by Afrikans" box.
>
>I do not care about "Dravidians". I'm sure they have their
>problems, I have mine. I will focus mine, while they
>hopefully focus on theirs. My well-being is not tied up with
>their's.
>
>And yes, Arabs, Persians, and Indo-Aryans are gross.

Why are they "gross"?Particularly Indo-Aryans?
>
>>
>>By the way, I'm not saying you shouldnt be defensive but you
>>also shouldnt be on some nihilistic shit either.
>>
>>By the way, aren't you half-Indian?
>
>yes, partially indo-guyanese, but an irrelevant matter since
>i am not a part of that community in any way.

I find it interesting so youre basically a self-hating dougla.

>>>Okay, but that sure don't sound African.
>>
>>i do not care about what "sounds" african or about what
>>africans did, unless it can help me now. i only care about
>>what i come to know through study and experimentation is in
>>the best interests of recently descended african people,
>>because i am one (otherwise i would not) in the here and
>>now.
>What experimentation?

my own personal life experiences.

>
>
>>
>>
>>>Okay, but that sure don't sound African. That shit don't
>>>sound balanced out. I can't speak for Europeans I guess.
>>>Eurasians to you are whom?
>>

>Ahh, the "Great Aryan Invasion" theory. This could be true
>racially but the extreme differencesin worldview (and I do
>mean extreme)between London and Lahore is big.

There may be "extreme" differences, but in terms of what matters to me their relations with africans: they all have had a consistent antagonistic relationship with africans. In differing degrees perhaps, but none is an ally nor neutral party.

>Most cats who
>live in North India (and Bengal is considered part of North
>India)can't even think of being put in the same box as a
>Frenchman or even the same race. There has been great
>intermingling within North India (throughout the
>subcontinent actually)and I'm nottalking about
>Aryan-Dravidian. There has been crazy intermingling with
>other tribal groups. A lot of the Sanskrit derived languages
>still have much vocabulary that is taken from the tribal
>languages.Many of the rituals are still there.What have
>North Indians done to Afrikans?

The treatment of Siddis/Hubshe (recent African descendents) in South Asia, despite their relatively small population is nothing to boast about.

The "leech" like precense of N. Indians in East African countries like Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda and their buffer class status in South Africa.

>>
>>And yes, Arabs, Persians, and Indo-Aryans are gross.
>
>Why are they "gross"?Particularly Indo-Aryans?
>>

Arabs - gross because they are infighting, first cousin marrying barbarians that started the slave trade of africans for commerical purposes, invaded africa, and horribly polluted parts of africa with their patriarchal psychotic culture through the vehicle of religion.

Persians - gross for their role in the indian ocean slave trade, their invasion of ancient egypt, and giving the world freddy mercury.

Indo-Aryans - gross because of their high lactose diet, their caste system, and their horrible, horrible music and movies.

>>>
>>>By the way, I'm not saying you shouldnt be defensive but you
>>>also shouldnt be on some nihilistic shit either.
>>>
>>>By the way, aren't you half-Indian?
>>
>>yes, partially indo-guyanese, but an irrelevant matter since
>>i am not a part of that community in any way.
>
>I find it interesting so youre basically a self-hating
>dougla.

nope. just not a part of that community.

>There may be "extreme" differences, but in terms of what
>matters to me their relations with africans: they all have
>had a consistent antagonistic relationship with africans. In
>differing degrees perhaps, but none is an ally nor neutral
>party.

but they have enough alliance to be grouped together? evn aside fromt hat history would show otherwise. there were african leaders (good and bad), traders and mercenaries in india. with arabs maybe, but even then there are just as many counter examples. there are just as many examples of antagonism within all of these cultures (african, arab, indian, european) too.

>The treatment of Siddis/Hubshe (recent African descendents)
>in South Asia, despite their relatively small population is
>nothing to boast about.

which ones? the makranis of western coast of pakistan who live just like other poeple of balochi descent who are fisherman? or the royal shiddis of hyderabad who are among the elite/high caste there? or the ones in gujrat, who really are oppressed...

>The "leech" like precense of N. Indians in East African
>countries like Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda and their buffer
>class status in South Africa.

while some of that is true, those classes were brought in AND created by the british. but what about the balochis in kenya who are mixed in even among tribes? the pathans in zimbabwe who came before "british imported" classes who live, and look like the shona and ndebele? rhe ones that fought with and for the Mau Mau in kenya? the ones who fought along side the africans against other arab-indians in zanzibar?

u fail to acknowledge the differences that occur betwen those that came earlier and those that were brouth by british for a specific purpose....

>Arabs - gross because they are infighting, first cousin
>marrying barbarians that started the slave trade of africans
>for commerical purposes, invaded africa, and horribly
>polluted parts of africa with their patriarchal psychotic
>culture through the vehicle of religion.
>
>Persians - gross for their role in the indian ocean slave
>trade, their invasion of ancient egypt, and giving the world
>freddy mercury.
>
>Indo-Aryans - gross because of their high lactose diet,
>their caste system, and their horrible, horrible music and
>movies.

so there was no slavery or patriarchy before foreign contact? at all?

freddy mercury was pathan, closer to afghani...but i feel you on that one...

the high lactose diet only applies to punjabis, like me. caste system instituted by less than 5% of population upon others. and still central only to hinduism. the history of anti-casteism within india? doesnt count? plenty of casteism in africa too.

horrible movies? yes. music? no, but thats all relative...and irrelevent really...

>nope. just not a part of that community.

but if everyone else's blood is tainted and fucked up as a group, (ignoring dissent, differences within each group like you did), then arent u the same by the same logic?

>
the pathans in
>zimbabwe who came before "british imported" classes who
>live, and look like the shona and ndebele? >

Which pathans look like the shona and ndebele?

pathans i met in mashvingo.

You mean they are Karanga? Are they mixed race or pure asians?

mixed race

shona and pathan.

u from zimbabwe? where?

I'm from Zimbabwe and you?

im from pakistan.

but i worked in mashvingo for a summer. i enjoyed very very much. i had been in US for 10 years, never been back home. i had made plans to go back to pakistan, but my mother wouldnt let me, too dangerous. so i found an opportunity to go to zimbabwe.

u shona?

MY father is ndebele/kalanga and my mother is SaManyika.

thats peace.

>but what about the balochis in kenya who are mixed in even >among tribes? the pathans in zimbabwe who came before "british >imported" classes who live, and look like the shona and >ndebele? rhe ones that fought with and for the Mau Mau in >kenya? the ones who fought along side the africans against >other arab-indians in zanzibar?

you could add the fact that the Colored population in SA includes descendents of South Asian and Indonesian slaves, but in any case, what about them? i mean, you could find white people as well who intermarried in africa or fought with the anc or whatever, but what would that really say about the wages of whiteness?

and whether or not these historical antagonism was created by white elites -- i mean, divisions between the white working classes and black slaves in the US was most certain created and exacerbated by white elites, that these things are historical constructions doesn't change their status as social facts.

i think there are excellent reasons for africans to distrust south asians, and i think there are equally excellent reasons -- from indentured-labor era Trinidad to the anti-Indian calypsos of today, the social prejudices against coolies in the French Antilles, the riots in South Africa and Guyana, the expulsion from Uganda, the anti-Indian incitements in Kenya, dare i mention larme price and 9/11 -- for the distrust to be returned.


>freddy mercury was pathan, closer to afghani...but i feel
>you on that one...

i thought freddy was a parsi?


>but if everyone else's blood is tainted and fucked up as a
>group, (ignoring dissent, differences within each group like
>you did), then arent u the same by the same logic?

afairead him, he was talking about culture, not blood.

i'm not arab, persian or indo-aryan, but if someone were to say that they found my culture gross, i don't think i would trouble myself to point out that we've done <whatever>. as long as they aren't making mendacious claims of solidarity, i have no problem with it.

>you could add the fact that the Colored population in SA
>includes descendents of South Asian and Indonesian slaves,
>but in any case, what about them? i mean, you could find
>white people as well who intermarried in africa or fought
>with the anc or whatever, but what would that really say
>about the wages of whiteness?

"wages of whiteness" - interesting term...heehee

>i think there are excellent reasons for africans to distrust
>south asians, and i think there are equally excellent
>reasons -- from indentured-labor era Trinidad to the
>anti-Indian calypsos of today, the social prejudices against
>coolies in the French Antilles, the riots in South Africa
>and Guyana, the expulsion from Uganda, the anti-Indian
>incitements in Kenya, dare i mention larme price and 9/11
>-- for the distrust to be returned.

i think it is perfectly fine to have distrust. it is important to know where it came from. for both sides. i find that for most part it comes from colonialism. i certainly also know the parts that south asians themselves are responsible for perpetuating oppression. and that is what that community is responsible for recognizing and fixing. same for other communities.


>i thought freddy mercury was a parsi?

hmm, i dunno. i remeber people making fun of him and pathans in pakistan...and the village he was from...but i might be wrong...

>>but if everyone else's blood is tainted and fucked up as a
>>group, (ignoring dissent, differences within each group like
>>you did), then arent u the same by the same logic?
>
>afairead him, he was talking about culture, not blood.
>
>i'm not arab, persian or indo-aryan, but if someone were to
>say that they found my culture gross, i don't think i would
>trouble myself to point out that we've done <whatever>. as
>long as they aren't making mendacious claims of solidarity,
>i have no problem with it.

the way yuckwheat put his argument, it certainly seemed like both blood and culture.

as i said before, i dont care if he finds me (or anything else) gross, stupid, dirty, etc.

BUT lumping different peoples into one group is problematic, when oppressed people in that group are struggling to fight the same oppression from within and from the outside.

SECONDLY, all groups of people in history have within them oppressive characters and oppressed. those who wish to perpetuate oppression and those that resist. those that promote hatred and those who oppose it. THIS DISCUSSION SEEMED TO BECOME ONE ABOUT WHO THE REAL INDIANS/whoever ARE? heehee...are the real indians the one who perpetue caste? so anti-caste people from india arent indian?

thats the problem with looking at groups in broad sweeps. saying indian peoples are casteist ignores and delegitimaizes ALL the efforts of indian people struggling against it.

same goes for other groups.

whats "mendacious?"

>BUT lumping different peoples into one group is problematic,

i think someone else said the same thing to you below. i.e. you can't have it both ways, objecting to being included with arabs and persians, and at the same time objecting to people not using larger categories that included all colonized people.


>indian peoples are casteist

indian people are casteist.

i mean, this strikes me as a statement of utter banal obviousness, as obvious as saying yts are racist and men are sexist. because rather obviously, one is speaking of a dominant paradigm in a society which shapes the views of the vast majority. that x or y is an exception who proposes to change the rule brings warmth to my heart and everything, but it doesn't falsify the statement as such.


>whats "mendacious?"

lying, false.

>>BUT lumping different peoples into one group is problematic,
>
>i think someone else said the same thing to you below. i.e.
>you can't have it both ways, objecting to being included
>with arabs and persians, and at the same time objecting to
>people not using larger categories that included all
>colonized people.

i think one has practical function in helping overcome oppression. the other is just an arbitrary grouping.

>>indian peoples are casteist
>
>indian people are casteist.

americans are racist and zionists. what do u think?

considering that about 30-40% of subcontinental population doesnt believe in it. (muslims, sikhs, buddhists, christians, tribals)

secondly, a system imposed by less than 5% (brahmins) of the population in which almost 50% (dalits, shudras, and tribals) of the people are suffering from that oppression/system.

>i mean, this strikes me as a statement of utter banal
>obviousness, as obvious as saying yts are racist and men are
>sexist. because rather obviously, one is speaking of a
>dominant paradigm in a society which shapes the views of the
>vast majority. that x or y is an exception who proposes to
>change the rule brings warmth to my heart and everything,
>but it doesn't falsify the statement as such.

in both your examples, both yt and men benefit from that priviledge, to different degrees. yt men are not oppressed by yt supremecay. men are not oppressed by patriarchy. they are dehumanized, but not oppressed.

>i think one has practical function in helping overcome
>oppression. the other is just an arbitrary grouping.

well, what you find practical, other people apparently find arbitrary. and vice-versa. saying something is practical/arbitrary here doesn't say anything except that you find it useful/not.


>>>indian peoples are casteist
>>
>>indian people are casteist.
>
>americans are racist and zionists. what do u think?
>
>considering that about 30-40% of subcontinental population
>doesnt believe in it. (muslims, sikhs, buddhists,
>christians, tribals)


uh, dude, give me a break. muslims, christians and sikhs aren't casteist? i suggest you do more reading of dalit literature or even just look around you, even in the US.


>secondly, a system imposed by less than 5% (brahmins) of the
>population in which almost 50% (dalits, shudras, and
>tribals) of the people are suffering from that
>oppression/system.

being oppressed by a system doesn't mean you can't be its agent.

which brings us back to the original point.

>well, what you find practical, other people apparently find
>arbitrary. and vice-versa. saying something is
>practical/arbitrary here doesn't say anything except that
>you find it useful/not.

i guess you could say that. i can see it you saying it to me.

but can u give any practical dimension to a "i/a/p/e grouping"?

>uh, dude, give me a break. muslims, christians and sikhs
>aren't casteist? i suggest you do more reading of dalit
>literature or even just look around you, even in the US.

remnants of the caste system are there, but even then they are subverted in different ways. these groups dont actively believe in the system. thats why dalits convert to sikhism, christianity, islam, and buddhism. and for most part, significantly improve their lives.


>being oppressed by a system doesn't mean you can't be its
>agent.

yes, but me saying african americans are racist is a problemtatic statement. thats something i had to struggle to understand.

are women agents of domestic abuse?

are african americans agents of white supremecy?

>which brings us back to the original point.

uh...whats was the original point?

please,
the indians in kenya are not mixed in at all. they isolate themselves. i'm not even sure if any of them fought with the mau mau. but they are a distict separate entity. what tribe do they mix in with?

"while some of that is true, those classes were brought in AND created by the british. but what about the balochis in kenya who are mixed in even among tribes? the pathans in zimbabwe who came before "british imported" classes who live, and look like the shona and ndebele? rhe ones that fought with and for the Mau Mau in kenya? the ones who fought along side the africans against other arab-indians in zanzibar?"

.
http://perspectivesudans.blogspot.com/
i myself would never want to be god,or even like god.Because god got all these human beings on this planet and i most certainly would not want to be responsible for them, or even have the disgrace that i made them.

there is a difference between the ones who came before the british (the balochis) and those who came later...

the balochis are well mixed, even inland...versus the ones who came later to work the railroads, and then later as merchants (mostly gujrati) dont have much mixing....

many balochis did fight with the mau mau. i know some gujratis helped them, especially lawyers, but not much more than that.

they all have
>had a consistent antagonistic relationship with africans. In
>differing degrees perhaps, but none is an ally nor neutral
>party.

but in the history of the world, who *has* been a consistent ally of whom?


>Indo-Aryans - gross because of their high lactose diet,
>their caste system, and their horrible, horrible music and
>movies.

don't dravidians also have a caste system and a high lactose diet? i don't know about the horribleness or otherise of music and movies.

>Eurasians I would define as people from Western Europe into
>the Northern part of South Asia. They range in skin colour
>from pinkish to a light brown, straight to curly hair, high
>nasal index, etc.

that range of "eurasian" (whatever the fuck that means)
yuckwheat provided would actually range from pink to blue-black. plenty of people (30% and up) who darker than the avergae african american. many people, including some in my family have straight up "african hair" and wide noses. "asian" eyes. afghan noses. there are all sorts of mixtures even within individuals and families. and all these are supposed to be the same?

and as brother akbar said above, the "aryan invasion" theory (still a theory, made by european people) were true, it would apply to the high caste brahmins and kashatriyas, who make up at most 10-20% of the subcontinent. mostly in gujrat, UP, madhya pradesh, rajisthan, and haryana.

north (and south too) india contains mixtures of mongols, dravidians, tribals, "aryans", kushans, huns, greek, african, arabs, persians, afghans. and on the street it is evident. dont be mistaken by tv or books. just as american tv or books arent a good representation of people here, its the same there.

>
>>Eurasians I would define as people from Western Europe into
>>the Northern part of South Asia. They range in skin colour
>>from pinkish to a light brown, straight to curly hair, high
>>nasal index, etc.
>
>that range of "eurasian" (whatever the fuck that means)
>yuckwheat provided would actually range from pink to
>blue-black.

no, it wouldnt. living in eurasia does not equal being a eurasian. eurasians as i have defined them are the majority and dominant population within that region. eurasians is a broad category, it dos not mean they are all the same, it means they frequency of shared traits is high, when compared to other broad categories.

this is true whether you like it or not.

so my cousin is really not my cousin?

i remeber u posting a picture of a "dark skin caucasian." so he is really not punjabi/sindhi?

equivalent to acceptance. It only means that something won't necessarily be thrown out of the door upon initial contact. There are plenty of examples to show that foreign ideas/religion were NOT accepted upon initial contact.

I would say inclusiveness is akin to giving someone the benefit of the doubt. While i definitely do believe it is a useful philosophy, I do agree one can make it too inclusive without proper scrutiny. I speculate that in some cases, the introduction of foreign practices to Afrikans by other Afrikans (particularly those in the same group) caused the practiced to be less scrutinized because of natural group trust.

____________________________
"the real pyramids were built with such precision that you can't slide a piece of paper between two 4,000 lb stones, and have shafts perfectly aligned so that you can see a tiny aperture through dozens of these mammoth blocks

Was there a strain of thought in Afrikan society that demonstrated aversion to Islam/Muslims? There were not Afrikans who gained nothing by being Muslim who had disdain for Afrikans who did convert? The Afrikans who did convert, according to you, converted because of economic gain, upward social mobility, etc. So since they were former low class people, how did the high class Afrikans look at them?

>Was there a strain of thought in Afrikan society that
>demonstrated aversion to Islam/Muslims?


>There were not
>Afrikans who gained nothing by being Muslim who had disdain
>for Afrikans who did convert?

I don't understand this question.

>The Afrikans who did convert,
>according to you, converted because of economic gain, upward
>social mobility, etc. So since they were former low class
>people, how did the high class Afrikans look at them?

It's not necessarily just an issue of class. For instance in the comment I made about Chinua Achebe describing the conversion of Igbo to Christianity, in one case the son of a extremely proud warrior in the village converted to Christianity in great part due to the dislike of his father and his inability to forgive him for killing the child of an enemy village who had come to be the son's best friend/brother. In another case, twins were seen as bad luck to the Igbo and often left in the wilderness to die upon birth. So twins that were left in the wilderness were taken by missionaries and raised by them only to be the most loyal of converts (for obvious reasons).

I say this to show that it wasn't just a function of "class" as reasons for persons to make the conversion. Therefore I can't see how I can answer that question. Looking at West Afrika I can't see where conversion your question would apply concerning Islam specifically.

____________________________
"the real pyramids were built with such precision that you can't slide a piece of paper between two 4,000 lb stones, and have shafts perfectly aligned so that you can see a tiny aperture through dozens of these mammoth blocks

what's that?

"The only thing we wanted for our country was the right to a decent existence, to dignity without hypocrisy , to independence without restrictions... The day will come when history will have its say."-Lumumba

"The only thing we wanted for our country was the right to a decent existence, to dignity without hypocrisy , to independence without restrictions... The day will come when history will have its say."-Lumumba

I probably used the wrong term in trying to describe it. Afrika is very diverse thats why I am trying to get at what exatcly Utamaroho and Solarus mean by "Afrikan"

I mean the traditional cultural cores and belief systems of those groups indigenous to the continent.

For example:
Yoruba
Akan
Mbundu
Ewe
Xhosa
Zulu
Shona
Gikuyu
Vai

are just a few examples of groups that are "traditional Afrikan groups."

As far as diversity I don't deny that, however most of these groups have MUCH in common when it comes to core beliefs when it comes to there particular cultures. This topic has been discussed on these boards before though so I will direct you to posts created by myself and Utamaroho in the archives.

PEace

____________________________
"the real pyramids were built with such precision that you can't slide a piece of paper between two 4,000 lb stones, and have shafts perfectly aligned so that you can see a tiny aperture through dozens of these mammoth blocks

what's the deal with replacing the C in Africa with a K?

I'm pretty sure "c" is not a consonant in any indigenous language there (or in other places - including parts of Europe) so I guess the spelling occurs in that way when heads are trying to speak on or from an "Afrocentric" (or "Afrikan") point of view.


*EDIT* I could be wrong but thats what they told me when I first came back.


------

Fox has got nothin' on us.

Okayplayers guerilla love
and Quest4Knowledge bringing you fair & balanced moderation since 2003.

Make sure you know the guidelines before posting: http://okayplayer.com/guidelines

Not happy about your post being locked? Want a thread archived? See a post that shouldn't be up? Feel free to Inbox me at Quest4Knowledge or E-Mail me at KemeticSunrise@aol.com

---
In memory of my sig..