Afrocentracism

[Incongruous]

This topic interest's me greatly because of the profound changes it might bring about in historical thinking. But I also denounce a few of the scholars that debate over it as they stir up immense racial hatred. One book attempted not to, Not Out Of Africa but some say they have found racial undertones in it.

I suspect many of you might think I wish to underhandedly stir up racial conflict in the forum. I am not.

Here's a link http://www.worldagesarchive.com/Indi...ackAthena.html

[Papewaio]

So Athens was black based on a vase having silhouetted figures?

Surely there would need to be other clues like cultural package (particular tools used in Athens and Africa), DNA traces, writings and other artifacts of civilisation that would back it up.

[Incongruous]

The Afrocentris's base alot of stuff on the Greek writers.
Also I lean more toward's the people who denounce the movement as they provide more substance and less racial hatred.

[ajaxfetish]

What I've read suggesting Greeks/Ancient Egyptians were black Africans is pretty unconvincing. It seems to want history to conform to personal desires rather than the other way around.

Ajax

[Rosacrux redux]

The "Black Aphrodite", huh? Yes, the most ridiculous theory ever to hit the media, even more ridiculous than theories about (insert XYZ nation here) being the offspring of Atlantian and/or Lemurian origin.

Even Egypt wasn't "black" at any time - besides the time after the restoration of the New kingdom, when the kushites took over the place. But that's it, one dynasty out of ...how many? 40?

Oh, whatever... people are coming up with ludicrous ideas every now and then, that's a given with human nature...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The Black Athena theory is a peculiar mix of racism and self loathing. Bernel has decided that, "his race," never did anything worthwhile and so he feels the need to apropriate the Ancient and Classical tradition. Like most charges of Western racism it has no real basis in fact. I would refer him to Nubia and Numidia. Neither the Greeks nor the Egyptians were Black and sooner or later he will have to learn to live with that.

Its like white supremists saying Jesus was white. Sure he was probably a bit lighter than what we think of today as Arabs but he wasn't Germanic.

[nokhor]

pardon my ignorance, but why would Jesus be lighter than what we think of today as Arabs?

[Watchman]

Good question actually. Weren't the Semic folks of the region (among which both the Arabs and Jews get counted AFAIK) pretty similar physically ?

[Adrian II]

What I've read suggesting Greeks/Ancient Egyptians were black Africans is pretty unconvincing. It seems to want history to conform to personal desires rather than the other way around.

Ajax

Forget the Black Athena nonsense. Blacks were part and parcel of Ancient society on all levels, no more and certainly no less.

Many years ago I studied for an exam on classical archaeology. Apart from studying and copying early Mediterranean kuroi, vase panels and Roman emperor bustes at the municipal museum, I had to read a list of titles. One of those was Blacks in Antiquity which is a classic these days but was rather revolutionary at the time. It is an excellent textbook, well-balanced, painting an interesting picture of blacks -- or 'Ethiopians' as they were generally known -- in ancient Greek and Roman society in their roles of diplomats, servants, ahtletes or warriors. It has many fascinating illustrations. The gist of the book was that blacks were not glorified or despised, but simply accepted as ordinary human beings. In fact the illustrations in themselves already prove this point; they depict blacks with great attention to detail, emotion, expression, circumstance -- in other words: with full artistic empathy.

[Rosacrux redux]

That's nitpicking, really, but Jesus would be (and probably was) in every conceivable way of a semitic build and color complex, so he would be very much like what we know Arabs to be today - or even indigenous Israelites (not those of the diaspora that returned, most of them haven't got any semitic features at all - blame it on interbreeding or on their Khazar ancestry).

But the blond, blue-eyed Jesus and the fair Mary, is a nice post-medieval fairy tale, to make Jesus accesible to whites... I mean, have you people ever seen how they portray Jesus in Japan or in Africa? With Asiatic and Afro characteristics and colours respectively. It's just a way to bring the religion close to the intended audience.

Edited to add: Adrian is right on the general positioning of the Blacks in the ancient societies. Not as much in the classical Greek world, but certainly in the Hellenistic world and even more into Roman times. The stupid invention of Racism came along much, much later - at the time the Blacks were accepted as what they were = human beings on their own merit

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

I thought that the blond blue-eyed depiction of Jesus was derived from classical depictions of Apollo rather than being a "convert Whitey" ploy by the Jewish Christians.

[Rosacrux redux]

That's an explaination alright, but the first images of Jesus as fair and blue-eyed are a) centered in western europe (in Byzantium he was always portrayed dark-skinned, with dark hair, and brown, green-brown and in few occassions even black eyes) and b) came along way too late to have anything to do with Appolo.

I didn't said it was "a plot by the Jewish Christians", I implied that the western artists, in order to reach their audience, depicted Jesus as they did.

Boy, you are reading too many conspiracy theories

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

Boy, you are reading too many conspiracy theories

Nah, I just got out of the backroom. It seems to be open season on Jews in there whenever Israel comes up.

Just what I heard as regards Apollo. I'm quite willing to believe it was a mixture of both theories (the familiar portrayal of religious figures as well as happening to look alot more like the locals).

[Samurai Waki]

well technically, Whites (Europeans/Ancient Egyptians) and Middle Easterners (Arabs and Iranians) are nominally caucasian in origin, so its really nothing to get upset over. Its not Jesus's skin that counts, its the message, but I think too many people are daft to realize that.

As far as the Black Athena theory that is laughable. (see I laughed). Genetic Anthropology is thought to be the most reliable form of tracing a people's origins, and has so far, has gone undisputed, and further, it hasn't really unmasked anything we didn't already know. For the greater part of history, African's were rather inclusive, and unexpansive. Kush (modern day Sudan), didn't even really have a Black Majority populace, most of the Blacks came from slave traders into Eretria and Ethiopia. The only African Kingdom that ever made an impact on European economics (until the late 1500s) was the Kingdom of Mali. Its not so much that Black culture was lazy, or didn't do anything per se (in fact I am rather fond of African Culture), its just that nobody in their right mind would travel across the bloody sahara, if they didn't really know what awaited them on the other side.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Sorry, to rephrase what I said earlier.

He might have been lighter than what we think of as modern Arabs. What I meant is he could have been lighter skinned than darker Arabs, because there is a variation in skin tone today. There's a Palastinian Christian woman living across the hall here and she just looks tanned when you compare her to me, I'm quite pale. As said above there's very nothing in it anyway.

About the Apollo thing, the halo is derived from the sun rays that were depicted eminating from Apollo's head or brow.

As far as Africans in the Classical World, you only have to look at the number of Romans with niger as a cognomon and you see they were accepted. Racism is a modern invention now perpetuated by its former victims. No white person today should feel any responsibility for slavery, even if our ancestors were involved, we weren't, aren't and we don't support it in any way.

Either way Black Athena is bunk.

[Steppe Merc]

No way, racism always existed, but not as white verus black. Look at how the Romans wrote about the Huns as barely human, or how the Greek and Romans viewed everyone else as barbarians.

Oh, and Iranians were a lot lighter than Arabs, and many were lighter than most Greeks or Romans of the day.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Where did I mention Iranians? I said Palastinian, as in Palastine.

As far as Classical racism, look at your examples. The Hun were a terrible force sweeping across Europe and leaving misary and destruction in their wake. The Barbarians were a constant threat to civilization. Racism against blacks was artificially created, or exagerated, to justify slavery.

Pretty much everyone back then thought everyone else was a "barbarian," for lack of a better word, and that includes the barbarians. That doesn't make it any more right but it does make it very different.

[Steppe Merc]

First of all, I was reffering to this post:

well technically, Whites (Europeans/Ancient Egyptians) and Middle Easterners (Arabs and Iranians) are nominally caucasian in origin, so its really nothing to get upset over. Its not Jesus's skin that counts, its the message, but I think too many people are daft to realize that.

Second of all, most "barbarians" were far from a threat to civilization. The Greeks and Romans viewed the Persians then the Parthians then the Sassanians as barbarians, and they were quite cultured, but because they were different they hated them. The Celts were not a threat to culture, because they had their own advanced culture. Yet they were still reviled.

And so you are saying that as long as they are "bad" it's ok to be racist? Many cultures have often dehuminized their enemies, calling them devils, from the Huns to the Mongols. It's still racism. Besides, I'm sure the people the Romans conquered were just thrilled to see them...

[Samurai Waki]

Really racism towards blacks didn't start until Portugal Colonized places like Gambia and Mozambique, they found out that the Black Men were strong and Fierce, yet their technology was vastly inferior to the Colonists, and so they were thought to be simple minded, brutes, with a good strong back. Actually during the Roman Era, Black Slaves were considered quite a prize, because they were so rare... whilst Barbarian Slaves (like Gauls, Germans, Britons) were considered rather inferior, just because they were common.

Steppe Merc: Isn't the meaning of Iran something like "Land of the Aryans"?

[Steppe Merc]

Well many Iranian called themselves Aryan, or some variation (Eran, Alan, etc.) So yeah, but many Iranians did not live in Iran (but they spoke Iranian). That includes Scythians, Sarmatians, Alans etc. Actually certaint groups tended to be lighter than others, and they ranged from blonde/blue eyed to brown hair/brown eye to black hair to brown eyes. But there was a lot of mixing and matching.

And I don't really know much about it, but I think that your right that white versus black didn't start until later, but there was still certaintly racism (just not white versus black).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Firstly, sorry, got confused before, second I said it isn't right, its different.

The problem with racism is its a natural reaction to those that are different. Human beings, like all organisms are designed to procreate. Only with us we don't want our kids to just look like us; they need to speak, dress and think like us as well. Anything which threatens our way of life is a threat and as such would naturally neeed to be destroyed.

Racism abounds today in many places and is tolerated because it doesn't follow colour boundries. For example, there is deep rooted racial hatred between the English and the French, on a national level. The Welsh, Scots and Irish all hate the English. There are funny things between the Spanish and Portugese, I understand. North and South America.

All these are examples of racial hatred but nine times out of ten no one bats an eyelid. Why? Because the "racism" is between people who have cultural rather than ethnic differences.

To deal with your examples, the Persian-Greek thing has to do with the Persian Wars. Also the Greeks were very inclusive, being Greek had nothing to do with living in Greece. It was to do with language, culture and religion, tick all three boxes and you're Greek.

The Celts? yes they had an advanced culture and every now and then they tried to export some of it into Northern Italy, while char-grilling the locals. The Celts hated the Romans, and with no more or less justification.

All the above are threats to Civilisation, that Civilisation being Greek and Roman.

Don't turn that round to make me say theirs was the only valid civilisation, the other side of the coin is exactly the same.

[Steppe Merc]

Ok, sorry I misentirpreted your post. Yeah, I think I more or less agree with you then, you end up hating whoever threatens you.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Sure, don't worry about it, it's always difficult to have these kinds of disscussions over the internet. The difference with modern racism is its based just on colour, the original reasons for the whole black/white divide are lost in the mists of time for most people and all thats left is hatred. On both sides.

Its like the prejudice against ginger people in England, most people don't like ginger people, but they have no idea why. The reason probably has something to do with the Scots and the Irish but people don't know that so they're just prejudice against people because of two genes they have.

[ajaxfetish]

Forget the Black Athena nonsense. Blacks were part and parcel of Ancient society on all levels, no more and certainly no less.

Many years ago I studied for an exam on classical archaeology. Apart from studying and copying early Mediterranean kuroi, vase panels and Roman emperor bustes at the municipal museum, I had to read a list of titles. One of those was Blacks in Antiquity which is a classic these days but was rather revolutionary at the time. It is an excellent textbook, well-balanced, painting an interesting picture of blacks -- or 'Ethiopians' as they were generally known -- in ancient Greek and Roman society in their roles of diplomats, servants, ahtletes or warriors. It has many fascinating illustrations. The gist of the book was that blacks were not glorified or despised, but simply accepted as ordinary human beings. In fact the illustrations in themselves already prove this point; they depict blacks with great attention to detail, emotion, expression, circumstance -- in other words: with full artistic empathy.

I agree with you completely.

Ajax

[Incongruous]

Bugger the black Athena theory that is stupid, but I merley intended this as a way to show that African peoples were not always savages.
I suppose the Zulu Empire can show you that. As far as some of the Afrocentrist gut's go most of them are racists, like the people who wrote the article I posted here about two months ago.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No one here has said African people were savages, that said the South African peoples were less technologically developed, but if neccessity is the mother of invention I guess they never needed bronze etc.

[Incongruous]

I didn't say anyone "here" claimed they were savages.

[Leonin Khan]

Bugger the black Athena theory that is stupid, but I merley intended this as a way to show that African peoples were not always savages.
I suppose the Zulu Empire can show you that. As far as some of the Afrocentrist gut's go most of them are racists, like the people who wrote the article I posted here about two months ago.

europeans are still savages im one 2

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Europeans are still savages? Have you taken a look at the African continant lately?

[Leonin Khan]

what is your definition of savages...??? i dont see a reason to call europeans civilised either. oh yeah we like to keep that image up but i dont buy it.