I wonder why 'googling by skimming' is not leading our pseudo-historians to freely downloadable sources such as:
From: "Charles Makakala Jr makakalajr@yahoo.com [Wanazuoni]" <Wanazuoni@yahoogroups.com>
To: "Wanazuoni@yahoogroups.com" <Wanazuoni@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 7, 2015 11:40 PM
Subject: Re: [Wanazuoni] Why Mark Zuckerberg wants everyone to read the Islamic book 'The Muqaddimah'
If a tree falls in a forest and there is no one to hear it does it make a sound? If an ancient sage could not read or write, and we have no record of his works, did he exist? But, alas, it is easier to just assume that he must have existed because, well, we are great people, aren't we?Evolutionists have some kind of the litmus test for their theory: if one were to provide evidence of rabbit fossils in a pre-Cambrian period, their theory falls.Talk is cheap, and we can discuss some things endlessly. That is the reason I tend to, regardless of the risks associated with the approach, stick my neck out every now and then. I can easily be proven wrong if three published texts of African scholars that predate year 1000 AD. The choice of that year is not arbitrary: first, in the rest of the world, a lot was already happening, and, second, one would wish to judge Sub Saharan Africa before the arrival of the major foreign forces.Sabatho non-committedly provide the Ethiopian example. However, I was aware of the existence of Nubia or more formally the Kingdom of Kush and I mentioned it in my previous post. Many associate Kush with Ethiopia but its true geographical location encompassed a much larger region lying mainly in Sudan but also southern parts of Egypt and Ethiopia. I am afraid that for the same reasons I ruled out Egypt I will also rule out Nubia/Kush. While the two were separate kingdoms the connection between them was very deep. Even the word Nubia is Egyptian. For me I consider these kingdoms to be an African puzzle: how could they develop so far ahead in ancient times while none of that development appear to have leaked to the rest of the continent? Or do we have evidence of permanent buildings from anywhere else in Africa (apart from the North) even 1000 years after these kingdoms? (W.r.t. Nubian texts, what I know is that their script is yet to be deciphered. I don't think if this has changed lately. That would have made world news I guess.)@Baha: I used the words 'more sophisticated forms of government'. In other words I make an allowance for crude or basic forms of government, not what we associate with advanced civilisations. Again, it is important to define 'civilisation' appropriately for us to agree here. I tend to take more of a Huttington definition in this matter.To conclude: my explanation will fail with simple evidence which our embattled African historians should be able to easily provide. Alternatively, if I am asked to use the same yardstick then I could pick England and show evidence of the Romans presence there going back 2000 years. Finding texts dating even 500 AD will be quite easy. But since England is an easy picking, I will ask my critics to provide, in their estimate, a more daunting example and I will try to tackle the challenge.Charles.On Sunday, June 7, 2015 4:10 PM, "sabatho nyamsenda sany7th@yahoo.com [Wanazuoni]" <Wanazuoni@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Baha,I am afraid that we are engaging in a useless debate. It's a fool's errand to "decolonize" the mind of this colonised African.We know that, for instance, Greek or Roman civilisation had nothing to do with the rest of Europe. Neither did it 'trickle down' to the rest of Europe during the time. Greeks saw the rest of Europe as barbaric. Aristotle's 'natural slaves' were actually other Europeans. They were called barbarians, and were enslaved by Greeks. Ancient Greece was not part of Europe, and it would be an insult to the likes of Aristotle to call them Europeans.Yet, during renaissance, Europe claimed that its civilisation was internal, which should be traced back to the Greek times. This claim was made in spite of the fact that renaissance Europe inherited nothing from the Greeks/Romans. As I said in my previous commentaries, they had to go and recover Greek texts from Islamic communities.When renaissance and post-renaissance Europe makes claims on Greco-Roman civilisation, no colonised Charles Makakalas would rise up and tell them "Men, your are crazy. Neither Greece no Rome was part of Europe!" For it is their natural right to claim intellectual superiority.Charles is also saying, "The argument is that Africans DID NOT have (great) intellectuals. (Let me stick my neck here: I will concede this point if one can provide me only THREE scholarly works produced in SSA before the turn of the 2nd millenium AD.)"Why don't you use the same yardsticks to judge Europe? Do you count Ethiopia to be part of your SSA? If yes, then "google" and you'll get information about the recently discovered ancient texts of Ethiopian scholars.This argument is embedded on the assumption that all great intellectuals of the past must have known how to read and write. They should have written texts. No written texts no intellectuals!Would this apply to Socrates who did not write any book? Oh! No, he was European. This principle can only be applied to Africans, to be precise, black Africans.Societies should be judged on what they had, not what they didn't have.
From: "bahabp2003 bahabp2003@yahoo.com [Wanazuoni]" <Wanazuoni@yahoogroups.com>
To: Wanazuoni@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, June 7, 2015 11:05 AM
Subject: Re: [Wanazuoni] Why Mark Zuckerberg wants everyone to read the Islamic book 'The Muqaddimah'
Another misinformation no wonder you are a very good follower of anything West, now more than anything I understand why history should be compasary to all disciplines wheather you are taking aeronautical or deep sea studies in Africa .......khaaaaa so for you civilization starts with Islam and Arabs, so my question is when these contact began how did these fellows know that there was some medium of exchange and did transact at the end of the day???
"Charles Makakala Jr makakalajr@yahoo.com [Wanazuoni]" <Wanazuoni@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
I have also been enjoying a free Barcelona football masterclass. Let me see if I can extend similar educational benefits to others in the forum...Europe and Asia share one landmass, yet many of us take it for granted that these are two continents. However, when it comes to Africa, regardless of the fact that anthropologists and historians have widely documented the fact that the Sahara desert tended to limit human migration and interactions between the north and south, we find it difficult to appreciate the differences which may be created by this natural barrier. In the Eurasia case we can easily appreciate more artificial distinctions in climate, culture, language, history, religion, scripts, racial boundaries, etc. but in the African case we insist on making the continent uniform while those distinctions are even more pronounced here. This is why I think it is better to google in an attempt to reach a more informed judgment rather than choosing to not follow where logic leads because we are adamant on outsourcing the 'conclusion' faculty to others. That is an attitude problem, more information won't be helpful there.Now, I would like to believe that ancient Egypt was distinctively African, or, since the rest of Africa had nothing comparable to it (apart from possibly Nubia), distinctively Egyptian. It stands to reason then that the neighbouring peoples must have borrowed skills and knowledge from the great Egyptian people, whether it is acknowledged or not. So, it would not surprise me if this information comes to light. But this is beside the point. The point is: the current North Africa has been shaped mainly by forces which are foreign to the continent. Hence, the fact that the North has produced many scholars for centuries has more to do with the cultures that influenced it rather than Africa. For example, the Septuagint was translated into Greek in Alexandria but neither Greek, Hebrew, Judaism or the scripts used had anything to do with Africa. It is possible that the only thing the north contributed is conducive location.Lest we are misunderstood, we are not arguing that Africans are incapable of developing great intellectuals. Take a Namibian bushman as a toddler, raise him with the privileges accorded to Prince Harry, and he will turn to be equally competent, or better. The argument is that Africans DID NOT have (great) intellectuals. (Let me stick my neck here: I will concede this point if one can provide me only THREE scholarly works produced in SSA before the turn of the 2nd millenium AD.) Again, we are not saying that other African communities had no interactions with foreigners; the Chinese, Greeks, Indians and Arabs had made contacts with the continent for a while before Europeans. What we are saying is that this interaction was not strong enough in degree to help those communities make the necessary technological and cultural advances to develop as the north did. The point is, they COULD NOT do it on their own even though others had done that centuries before. Only in later years, again, through the influence of Islam and Arabs, do we start to see more sophisticated forms of governments and cultures in West Africa and along the East African coast.What Ibn Khaldun has to say may be quite informative to us today, but to try to brand him as 'African' shows how desperate and dishonest we are. Africa's future cannot be built on the foundation of lies.Charles.On Sunday, June 7, 2015 12:43 AM, "bahabp2003 bahabp2003@yahoo.com [Wanazuoni]" <Wanazuoni@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
By the way Race is just one of the subject he discuses, there is a lot to dig...if you read he uses some religious sentiments,like he will finish any controversy with God only knows...some of us to impress our Instructor we envoked the same, Man, the days when Africa was at the Centre of it...Timbuktu at its height
....those were the days.
With regard to what is Arab, Shangwe Khaldun was a Barber aka waberiberi they are simply not Arabs,or if you want we can venture into topic Arabs, who are Arabs?my people trace their ancestry origin around Iraq and Iran, yet they are not or do not resemble Arabs. Persians etc are not Arabs. Like Moors and Berbers.
wasalaam.
Baha
"Shangwe Muhidin shangwez@yahoo.com [Wanazuoni]" <Wanazuoni@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
I am yet to read the book so my hands are tied. But, to what extent is the book a product of the Arabization of North Africa?@Baha the Tuaregs may not be Arabs biologically but culturally they could be as Arab as Iraqis. This applies to any other ethnicity.I am going to read the book soon!ShangweOn Sunday, June 7, 2015 5:03 AM, "sabatho nyamsenda sany7th@yahoo.com [Wanazuoni]" <Wanazuoni@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Huntington is not even the answer to 'anything'. He is a post-cold war ideologue who has been attempting to justify imperialist invasion of Islamic countries in the name of "clash of civilisations".
From: "bahabp2003 bahabp2003@yahoo.com [Wanazuoni]" <Wanazuoni@yahoogroups.com>
To: Wanazuoni@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2015 11:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Wanazuoni] Why Mark Zuckerberg wants everyone to read the Islamic book 'The Muqaddimah'
Charles,
I am watching the Champions, after reading Ibn Khaldun and many more other scholars who refers to him,this categorization of yours is simply misplaced, so would you name St Augustine of the City of God an Arab?? who taught you that Berbers are Arabs?? unless you are buying into the geographies of Hegel who categorised most of North Africa as belonging to partly Europe and Asia. I have read you read don't jump to quick conclusions a__._,_.___
Posted by: Charles Makakala Jr <makakalajr@yahoo.com>
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (15) 
.
__,_._,___
No comments:
Post a Comment