|
>Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't part of Turkey in Europe? > >Take some geography lessons
part of turkey is in europe. many turkish people ARE wannabe europeans. but culturally, soically, etc etc the common turkish person has just as much in common with brish or french as with an ethiopian.
>The Yoruba and Akan are very DISTINCT groups, too. >Nonetheless they both possess languages from a common >ancestor, and possess many similarities. Overall in the >world scheme of things they shared more in common with one >another than not.
your point about different african groups may or may not be true. but the groups mentioned in this discussion (western european, eastern european, turkish, arab, persian, indian) they dont share that much in common to group them as one.
do they have the same origin? maybe, maybe not. it doesnt matter. we all share a common origin if we go back enough. i dont care if my great grandfather was a damn cockroach....what i want is my due as a human being. and that has been fucked over by western european colonialism. by rich mudaphucas u who dont give a fuck, even if u the same color/tribe.
"indo-european" theory is still a theory. developed by William Jones in order to include brahminic knowledge into the fold of "europeans" the same way they try to do with egyptian civilization.
the indo-european language theory only goes as far as turkish, kurdish, and somewhat persian. evn those are suspect.
it is based on these things. i'll give u some examples of urdu, spanish, english.
do=dos=two teen=tres=three nauN=nuevo=nine das=diez=ten nahiN=no=no maaN=mama=mother
thats REALLY it, when u get to indo languages....rest is baseless....the no, and mother word are the same in many african languages and vietnamese too...so? IT MAY BE MORE IN common with turkish and kurdish, but not by much.
>There is a history of conflict amongst just about EVERY >group in the WORLD!!!! > >French vs. English (European) >Han vs. Mongolians (Asia) >Igbo vs. Yoruba (Afrika) >Do I need to continue? That argument is thrown out too.
the history of conflict doesnt mean that they are together and seperate. it shows where we are today. while u benefit from american AND first world priviledge, turkish, persian, indian, arab, even eastern european kids eat food off the street. why? colonialism, western domination, racism, etc etc...
THAT is real life shit...not academic theorizing that u and yuckwheat are doing.
>More rhetoric. I'm sure I can find a Hutu who doesn't want >to be grouped along with Tutsi in Rwanda because of years of >group infighting. But ask just about any continental >Afrikan abroad being "lumped together" with other Afrikans >when comparing them lifestyles to foreign realities.
honestly, in some ways, an ethiopian and some west afrikans has more in common with me than with a south afrikan. family structure, social structure. and in some ways they dont. where do u draw the line?
>Besides "lumping" groups together is not an attempt to >"delegitimize" anyone's reality. It is simply a matter of >taking out inconsequentials to focus on what is necessary. >From the perspective of a Fiji apple, I'm sure that a Golden >Delicious apple is totally different in taste and look. >However they are both apples. And when the two are compared >to A zucchini and acorn squash (which are both types of >squash) then we see that although both are types of food >derived from plants they can be "lumped together" in two >groups: apples and squash. For the sake of discussion this >is logical and makes for efficient, simplified and >comprehensible groups for comparing/contrasting.
so what is inconsequential and waht is necessary? the fact that my reality growing up is more similar to soemone in afrika than you? not having food, medicine? being screwed over by hypocritical leaders and the west (which u are a part of and enjoy priviledges of)?
>>seems like black skin, white mind/heart to me. > >Seems likes common sense to me.
so the fact that the slums of africa and india are virtually the same and affected by colonialism/globalizatoion is less common and meaningful than skin color and origin? so what do i have in common, reality wise, with say a french, or even bulgarian, or a rich pakistani even?
so who has more in common: a slum dweller from kibera (kenya) and kachi basti (pakistan)? OR a slum dweller from kinshasa and mobutu?
u can choose the academic theorizing answer or the ground reality.
****************************************************************
look yall, it cool to take pride in one's own. im ok with that. its cool to say, look we gotta do this on/for our own. its cool to say that we have such and such history and present with this group, and these dynamics that need to be fixed. its okay to say that we (as afrikans or indians or vietnamese) have to deal with this in OUR OWN WAY/CULTURE.
its NOT cool to say these people are all the same. thats when u delegitimize my reality and history. when cultures, and people were raped and taken away the same damn way as in africa as in india as in suth east asia as in the americas.
anything that doesnt deal with peoples reality is just academic theorizing or, in this case, racialism.
|