Go back to previous topic
Forum nameOkay Activist Archives
Topic subjectRE: depends upon your definition of civilization....
Topic URLhttp://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=22&topic_id=30351&mesg_id=30353
30353, RE: depends upon your definition of civilization....
Posted by urthanheaven, Wed Apr-27-05 04:15 PM
>meaning whether you are classifying in terms of empire,
>kingdom, city-state, territoy, etc.
>You could back even further than the civilizations you
>mentioned to the time when agriculture first took place in the
>Fertile Crescent. To me, that is what dramatically changed the
>human experience, because up until that point we were
>hunter-gatherers living a nomadic lifestyle.

good point. i'm trying to back up the theory that all civilization, and it's tenets including architechture, astrology, astronomy, religion, government, science and mathematics come from africa and not from sumer's patron giant aliens.

>The Sumerians weren't an empire, but more like a centralized
>state. Sumerian civilization dates are approxmiately 2900 -
>2350 BC. After Sumer, King Sargon established what many feel
>was technically the first empire. The dates for the Akkadian
>Empire are from 2334 - 2230 BC.
>Egypt didn't become an empire until the new kingdom in which
>it expanded its territory into Nubia and the Levant, however
>the dynastic period of Egypt meaning when we can clearly
>idenity Egyptian pharaohs began around 3000 BC when King
>Narmer unified upper and lower Egypt.
>I'm not sure which African civlizations you are talking about,
>so you're gonna have to be more specific.

it seems like there were several main ones. west africa's mali empire, when did that start? kemet and nubia, i don't offhand know the names of some of the apparently very complex south and central african civilizations, and there is rumor that nubia, which begat khemet was inspired by the twa(?) people who are supposedly the ancestors of modern bushmen.

europe's claim to a non african (or rather not looking like an african civilization) is the babylonians, the akkadians, the summerians and the assyrians from what i can tell. i'm not even writing my sources as much as looking for sources to defeat that argument or frame it in the desperate attempts by europe to reframe and revise history to suit their imperial ideals and validate thier accomplishments outside of the role of theft, the out right robbery of africas people land resources and knowledge which backed their exploits.

>As far as where black, whites, etc came from...we are all the
>same species originating from east Africa 150,000 years ago.
>When Homo sapiens left Africa, they adapted to various
>climates which explains why such variations in appearance took
>place. However, we are all very similar genetically. And yes
>Africans are the oldest populations because there is more
>genetic diversity within the continent of Africa than outside
>of it, meaning Africans have been around the longest and have
>had more time to diversify.

ok so how is this for a theory. once upon a time there was one people born in the fertile lands of africa. as they began to spread out and migrate, a group got caught behind an ice age that changed their appearance and demeanor from one in relation to abundance to one in relation to an over all lack of resources. survival tactics neccessary to exist in such inhospitable climates became enculturated behaviors. eventually this group was reunited with the main body of human kind, but found as they had spent so much time and effort on their survival that they were technologically and civilizationally (not a real word...) behind the rest of human kind. they were taught by proximity and direct intervention the tools of existance in this realm, but thier prevailing attitudes in reference to limited resources made them harsh and war like, troublesome and selfish, putting them in instant conflict with their african counterpart. flash forward 2-5000 years and now you have the current social and geo political climate in which europeans push their advantage almost like they've got some type of long time grudge against africans doing their own thing, or for that matter anyone else.

could this be accurate? could this be why any lighter skinned race, like the arabs of old are so historically vicious to africans? these are all byast blanket statements, and i would like to either be able to back them up or put them to rest.

the struggle continues.