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=30354
30354, RE: depends upon your definition of civilization....
Posted by Harmonia, Wed Apr-27-05 06:58 PM

>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

Well, let me ask you, do you believe the civilizations in the New World, most notably the Inca, Aztec, Maya, Chavin, Chimu, Moche, Toltec, Olmec, Zapotec, etc are derived from Africa as well? These places evolved independently from the Old World, but they had all of those features you mentioned above. Basically what I'm trying to say that proving where the origins are civilization comes from is problematic because how exactly would you prove that? How can you show which came first and that there was direct contact and influence? Better yet, why can't there be multiple origins of civilization? There were major developments in Afria, the Middle East, and East Asia that have their own origins.
But like I mentioned before, agriculture in the Old World is first evident in the Fertile Crescent, not the continent of Africa and agriculture is what lead to sedintary villages, accumalation of access food, which then lead to unequal social positions.

>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.

I can't think of the dates off hand to the places you mentioned. I'm sure someone else can fill you in.

>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.

Which civilization are you talking about now that you say Europe claims is non African?
Europe has done much over the year to discredit African influence, I'm just not sure that by negating Mesopotamian influence rights the situation.

>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.

I think you may be over generalizing in the sense that you make it seem that all Europeans are the aggressors and all Africans are the victims and I can't cosign on that. Things are much more complex than that. Also, be careful when you align environmental conditions and physical appearance to personality. Europeans did this same thing to Africans, especially African slaves. They justified their dominance over Africans by saying Africans were lazy due to their environmental conditions. They even went as far as to name bogus medical conditions to explain the behavior of Africans (I can't remember the names of these bogus medical conditions but it was a so called doctor from the U.S. South that had done this and his beliefs were widely accepted).