24/10/2005:
The legacy of Chancellor Williams in:
The Destruction of Black Civilization:
PART ONE
Deborah Gabriel // Copyright © www.blackbritain.co.uk
Dr Chancellor James Williams was born in Bennettsville, South Carolina on 22 December 1898 to a father who had once been a slave and a mother who was a cook, nurse and evangelist.
After receiving an undergraduate degree in Education and a master's degree in History from Howard University, Williams became a visiting research scholar at Oxford University and the University of London in England.
However, it was William's research in African history at Ghana University in West Africa in 1956 that was the beginning of his focus on ancient African civilizations and achievements. In 1964 he looked at 26 countries and more than 100 language groups.
Renowned as a novelist, historian, author and university Professor, Williams is best remembered for his epic work: The Destruction of Black Civilization: Great Issues of a Race from 4500BC to 2000 AD which we will now look at.
Williams motivation for writing 'The Destruction of Black Civilization' stemmed from his belief that white scholars always told the history of Africa as a tale of Arabs and Europeans but never included Africans in Africa.
In his book he asserted that Black kings and pharaohs of Upper Egypt were erased out of history and African names were replaced with Arabic ones.
According to Williams's research the history of the Black race began in Ethiopia and Sudan (formerly southern Ethiopia). The meaning of Sudan is 'land of the Blacks' just as Egypt was once called 'land of the Blacks'.
In ancient times Upper Ethiopia became rich in food production and "stirred the envy of Asia and Europe which caused migrants from these continents to settle in Africa."
Asian and European occupation of the seacoasts of North Africa was easy and first welcomed by the indigenous Black population as trading opportunities but then poor nomads started to flood the most fertile and accessible areas in North Africa.
According to Williams the weaker and more submissive Blacks remained in Asian-occupied territory and became slave labourers. The sexual trafficking of Black women produced a new breed of Afro-Asians who were classed as white or Asian, but not as Black people.
Williams writes that many of the mixed race Africans objected to identification as Black and became known as Egyptians. These mixed race Africans joined with their Asian fathers to enslave Blacks until all of North Africa fell into their hands.
The Asians and Europeans took over the best quarter of African land, the most fertile and inhabitable, leaving the remaining three quarters of virtually uninhabitable land to the indigenous Africans:
" became a wandering people, forever migrating in their own vast homeland, fragmenting from great united nations into countless little splinter societies, considering themselves quite different from their original brothers who were then regarded as strangers and enemies in the endless wars that ensued."
According to Williams the Blacks had everything the world wanted: "gold, diamonds, ivory, copper, iron ore and themselves."
Black achievements in ancient Africa
One of the most significant aspects of William's book is the way in which he corrects centuries of racism that saw white archaeologists and historians seek to deny the presence of African civilization even when the evidence was overwhelming.
For example, even when Sneferu's Black Queen Mertitefs was found by archaeologists she was described as of an inferior race and not of "the high type." The Great Sphinx is the portrait statue of the Black Pharaoh Khafre and his African facial features are quite unmistakeable.
Nekheb was the African Egyptian capital and Thebes and Napata were the cultural centres of the Black world.
It was Black Africans who established the Dynastic system in Egypt about 3100 BC. The chief pyramid builders came from the Fourth Dynasty. Africans also developed one of the oldest written languages. Egyptian is an African language with a later influence similar to Arabic or Swahili.
Early Africans were very religious people and built several religious cities, each one having a special God or Goddess. Many of the temples were more like colleges as different fields of study took place within the temples.
However, Early Greeks and Romans reshaped them making them parts of western culture. Both Europe and Asia seized and transported from Africa as much of the artefacts of its civilization as they could.
As early as the 6th century BC, Cambyses hauled away over $100,000,000 of precious historical materials from Thebes because the Black tombs contained not only historical material but treasures in gold and precious stones.
---------------------------------------------
END.
The Destruction Of Black Civilization:
The Destruction Of Black Civilization:
That was a very interesting article ...thanks for posting.
A smile is a window on your face to show your heart is home
-
serenevalley
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 6:30 am
The Destruction Of Black Civilization:
In essence this is only a continuum of natural selection...survival of the fittest. We still see it today and will forever see it.
Civilization is by itself dynamic and thus evolutionary...change is inevitable and history is the proving ground for it.
Your preoccupation with race in this only smacks of ethnocentrism. Bottomline is no one cares.
Civilization is by itself dynamic and thus evolutionary...change is inevitable and history is the proving ground for it.
Your preoccupation with race in this only smacks of ethnocentrism. Bottomline is no one cares.
The Destruction Of Black Civilization:
serenevalley wrote: In essence this is only a continuum of natural selection...survival of the fittest. We still see it today and will forever see it.
Civilization is by itself dynamic and thus evolutionary...change is inevitable and history is the proving ground for it.
Your preoccupation with race in this only smacks of ethnocentrism. Bottomline is no one cares.
Well put serenevalley and
"WELCOME" to the fray
Civilization is by itself dynamic and thus evolutionary...change is inevitable and history is the proving ground for it.
Your preoccupation with race in this only smacks of ethnocentrism. Bottomline is no one cares.
Well put serenevalley and
"WELCOME" to the fray
"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
The Destruction Of Black Civilization:
Hmmmn, I think this kind of thing is in general simple revisionism, its a bit like creationism in that it trys to fit the archeological evidence and historical records of the past to fit a modern agenda, in this case the political position of black people in Europe and America. There were of course plenty of civilizations in Africa, both north and south, you could think of the Fabled weath of the kings of Mali, the Catheginians, the Egyptians, but it doesn't break down into neat modern racial stereotypes. In sub saharan Africa, the civilizations don't seem to have been very interested in building large stone buildings that we can easily see and go, "ha, here is a civilization" like we can in India, or the Americas, or Asia, or Europe. Doesn't mean that the civilizations were any less interesting, just far less easy to study as they havn't tended to leave anything behind to study. As to comparing the success of civilizational types, this is simple, you don't use modern political morality to judge how sucessful they were, you look at whether they have survivied or not.
European civilization came to dominate other parts of the world, not because Europeans (or white people) are inherently evil or conquest minded, but just because their civilization has been an extremely sucessful one, (in that if it hadn't been sucessful we wouldn't be having this discussion). Likewise the Chinese, who's civilization is even older than that of Europe, and have remained more or less intact as a grouping, and also in the fact that China sa a political entity still exists and lots of its culture and civilization have survived up to the present day, {though it does not have the universal reach of western culture (yet)}. Likewise India and the Islamic World (which is by far the youngest of all the worlds great civilizations BTW, which is perhaps one of the reasons why it comes into conflict so much with others, and particularly the west, the "New Kid on the Block" syndrome maybe). Not so sucessful have been the civilizations of Ancient Eygpyt, Meso America, Mespotamia, etc, which no longer exist except in museums and ruins. Where European Civilization is exceptional is in its military, scientific, and economic prowess, in that it has come to be the basis of most of the ideas of modern warfare, technolgy, and economics. i.e. jet fighters, computers, and capitalism, are inherently Western ideas, and when other civilizations have come into conflict with the West they use Western miltary ideas to do this i.e. Imperial Japan. In history, whenever other civilizations have come into contact with Western civilization and tried to engage it militarily using their traditional methods they have lost, quite badly. The only notable exceptions to this have been the conquests of Genghis Khan, and the challenge of the Moors and Ottomans of Islam, who to date have been the only real threats to Western civilization in its own homeland, Europe, (though ultimately these threats were also defeated). Whatever your views on European, (and now American as well), civilization you cannot deny its power, influence, and sucess, as you will be writing your rebuttals on a P.C., linked to worldwide telecommunications networks developed using Western science and technology, and produced using the capitalist system, in a Western European language, English, that permits the idea of a free and frank exchange of views, which is another Western idea, debating the historical merits of other civilizations compared to that of the West, which is again a generally Western idea.
European civilization came to dominate other parts of the world, not because Europeans (or white people) are inherently evil or conquest minded, but just because their civilization has been an extremely sucessful one, (in that if it hadn't been sucessful we wouldn't be having this discussion). Likewise the Chinese, who's civilization is even older than that of Europe, and have remained more or less intact as a grouping, and also in the fact that China sa a political entity still exists and lots of its culture and civilization have survived up to the present day, {though it does not have the universal reach of western culture (yet)}. Likewise India and the Islamic World (which is by far the youngest of all the worlds great civilizations BTW, which is perhaps one of the reasons why it comes into conflict so much with others, and particularly the west, the "New Kid on the Block" syndrome maybe). Not so sucessful have been the civilizations of Ancient Eygpyt, Meso America, Mespotamia, etc, which no longer exist except in museums and ruins. Where European Civilization is exceptional is in its military, scientific, and economic prowess, in that it has come to be the basis of most of the ideas of modern warfare, technolgy, and economics. i.e. jet fighters, computers, and capitalism, are inherently Western ideas, and when other civilizations have come into conflict with the West they use Western miltary ideas to do this i.e. Imperial Japan. In history, whenever other civilizations have come into contact with Western civilization and tried to engage it militarily using their traditional methods they have lost, quite badly. The only notable exceptions to this have been the conquests of Genghis Khan, and the challenge of the Moors and Ottomans of Islam, who to date have been the only real threats to Western civilization in its own homeland, Europe, (though ultimately these threats were also defeated). Whatever your views on European, (and now American as well), civilization you cannot deny its power, influence, and sucess, as you will be writing your rebuttals on a P.C., linked to worldwide telecommunications networks developed using Western science and technology, and produced using the capitalist system, in a Western European language, English, that permits the idea of a free and frank exchange of views, which is another Western idea, debating the historical merits of other civilizations compared to that of the West, which is again a generally Western idea.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
-
chonsigirl
- Posts: 33633
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am
The Destruction Of Black Civilization:
How do you see the reltionship of Dr. William's work in comparisson to
Martin Bernal's Black Athena?
Martin Bernal's Black Athena?
The Destruction Of Black Civilization:
posted by galbally
Hmmmn, I think this kind of thing is in general simple revisionism, its a bit like creationism in that it trys to fit the archeological evidence and historical records of the past to fit a modern agenda, in this case the political position of black people in Europe and America. There were of course plenty of civilizations in Africa, both north and south, you could think of the Fabled weath of the kings of Mali, the Catheginians, the Egyptians, but it doesn't break down into neat modern racial stereotypes. In sub saharan Africa, the civilizations don't seem to have been very interested in building large stone buildings that we can easily see and go, "ha, here is a civilization" like we can in India, or the Americas, or Asia, or Europe. Doesn't mean that the civilizations were any less interesting, just far less easy to study as they havn't tended to leave anything behind to study. As to comparing the success of civilizational types, this is simple, you don't use modern political morality to judge how sucessful they were, you look at whether they have survivied or not.
Is it revisionism? Yes and no. In the middle ages europeans used to trade with the black african kingdoms along the western coast the gulf of benin etc, (benin bronzes were a highly prized item for instance and still collectors items) and they viewed them as every bit our equal. What changes it was black slavery and when christians began to justify keeping blacks as slaves. It went from no christian should be held as a slave to no christian unless they are black and inferior. In the early american colonies a black man could win his freedom and own property-icnluding other slaves. How it all changed makes fascinating stuff.
If you look at the impact of the european demand for slaves on africa and the constant internicine warfare it caused as black enslaved black to get slaves to trade for european goods it has many similarituies to what happened to the celtic tribes as a resut of the roman demand for slaves and the celtic desire for roman wine and other goods. What makes it so different is the different skin colour.
Same in India, we started out trading with them as supplicants to indian kingdoms learning a great deal from them and gradually took over and ended up convinced of our own racial superiority before finally taking over after the Indian mutiny.
The revisionism was in making our culture somehow morally superior. Manifest destiny is a load of cobblers.
European military, economic and scientific superiority is as much an accident of geography as anything else. Can you imagine what the aztecs or incias would have become if coal and iron had been available as it was in europe and resulted in us experimenting with metals, and the constant warfare and development of better and better ways of killing each other that sparked off much of our approach to research-constant testing and experimenting. or the north american indians had had a comparable draught animal to the horse? The romans developed concrete because the necessary ingredient was all over the place, someone was probably trying to make a mud brick and discivered it by accident.
We learned our mathematics from the mohamedans-why do you think we use 1,2,3,4, arabic numerals, and much of our medicine and approach to it as well. The chinese gave us paper and ink and paper money.
If anything it's luck and eclecticism that lead to the european nations coming to the fore not racial superiority. Most of all perhaps it was eclecticism not elitism and racial snobbery that was responsible. Something it would be a mistake to forget.
Africa did not come under the imperial boot until the 19th century when it was cannon and machine guns against iron age tribesmen. Even then it was close, the Zulus gave us a run for our money. By the time we got to Rhodesia we had machine guns
In 1881 the American inventor, Hiram Maxim, visited the Paris Electrical Exhibition. While he was at the exhibition he met a man who told him: "If you wanted to make a lot of money, invent something that will enable these Europeans to cut each other's throats with greater facility."
Maxim moved to London and over the next few years worked on producing an effective machine-gun. In 1885 he demonstrated the world's first automatic portable machine-gun to the British Army. Maxim used the energy of each bullet's recoil force to eject the spent cartridge and insert the next bullet. The Maxim Machine-Gun would therefore fire until the entire belt of bullets was used up. Trials showed that the machine-gun could fire 500 rounds per minute and therefore had the firepower of about 100 rifles.
The Maxim Machine-Gun was adopted by the British Army in 1889. The following year the Austrian, German, Italian, Swiss and Russian armies also purchased Maxim's gun. The gun was first used by Britain`s colonial forces in the Matabele war in 1893-94. In one engagement, fifty soldiers fought off 5,000 Matabele warriors with just four Maxim guns.
http://www.kwazulu.co.uk/morris.html
Washing of the spears by donald morris is a good read, take out the colour and put it two thousand years earlier and it reads like the rise of the greek states.
The nigerians wiped out two french armies before we got involved by which point our technological advantage was so great it was no contest. The bible mentions several powerful black empires the queen of Sheba was hardly likely to be a blue eyed blond, the empire of kush was possibly destroyed by environmemtal catastrophe as any inherent weakness in the people.
China accounts for two thirds of the worlds population, throughout most of it's history europe has been so backward as to be of little interest. Ghengis Khan created the largest land empire the world has ever seen, arguably they didn't bother with europe because there was nothing there worth bothering about to make it worth the hassle.
We may have won out in the civilsation race for the moment but our doing so was by no means certain and is as much by chance as anything.
On the other hand I reckon the way our political system developed and love of individual freedom owes a great deal to an egalitarian streak running through our culture. Right back to the ancient celts tattooing their bodies, spiking their hair and saying "who says you can be king ya bass"
or to use the more eloquent words of rabbie burns
Ye see yon birkie ca'd a lord,
Wha struts, an' stares, an' a' that;
Tho' hundreds worship at his word,
He's but a coof for a' that.
For a' that, an' a' that,
His ribband, star, an' a' that,
The man o' independent mind
He looks an' laughs at a' that
(Still laughing)
Hmmmn, I think this kind of thing is in general simple revisionism, its a bit like creationism in that it trys to fit the archeological evidence and historical records of the past to fit a modern agenda, in this case the political position of black people in Europe and America. There were of course plenty of civilizations in Africa, both north and south, you could think of the Fabled weath of the kings of Mali, the Catheginians, the Egyptians, but it doesn't break down into neat modern racial stereotypes. In sub saharan Africa, the civilizations don't seem to have been very interested in building large stone buildings that we can easily see and go, "ha, here is a civilization" like we can in India, or the Americas, or Asia, or Europe. Doesn't mean that the civilizations were any less interesting, just far less easy to study as they havn't tended to leave anything behind to study. As to comparing the success of civilizational types, this is simple, you don't use modern political morality to judge how sucessful they were, you look at whether they have survivied or not.
Is it revisionism? Yes and no. In the middle ages europeans used to trade with the black african kingdoms along the western coast the gulf of benin etc, (benin bronzes were a highly prized item for instance and still collectors items) and they viewed them as every bit our equal. What changes it was black slavery and when christians began to justify keeping blacks as slaves. It went from no christian should be held as a slave to no christian unless they are black and inferior. In the early american colonies a black man could win his freedom and own property-icnluding other slaves. How it all changed makes fascinating stuff.
If you look at the impact of the european demand for slaves on africa and the constant internicine warfare it caused as black enslaved black to get slaves to trade for european goods it has many similarituies to what happened to the celtic tribes as a resut of the roman demand for slaves and the celtic desire for roman wine and other goods. What makes it so different is the different skin colour.
Same in India, we started out trading with them as supplicants to indian kingdoms learning a great deal from them and gradually took over and ended up convinced of our own racial superiority before finally taking over after the Indian mutiny.
The revisionism was in making our culture somehow morally superior. Manifest destiny is a load of cobblers.
European military, economic and scientific superiority is as much an accident of geography as anything else. Can you imagine what the aztecs or incias would have become if coal and iron had been available as it was in europe and resulted in us experimenting with metals, and the constant warfare and development of better and better ways of killing each other that sparked off much of our approach to research-constant testing and experimenting. or the north american indians had had a comparable draught animal to the horse? The romans developed concrete because the necessary ingredient was all over the place, someone was probably trying to make a mud brick and discivered it by accident.
We learned our mathematics from the mohamedans-why do you think we use 1,2,3,4, arabic numerals, and much of our medicine and approach to it as well. The chinese gave us paper and ink and paper money.
If anything it's luck and eclecticism that lead to the european nations coming to the fore not racial superiority. Most of all perhaps it was eclecticism not elitism and racial snobbery that was responsible. Something it would be a mistake to forget.
Africa did not come under the imperial boot until the 19th century when it was cannon and machine guns against iron age tribesmen. Even then it was close, the Zulus gave us a run for our money. By the time we got to Rhodesia we had machine guns
In 1881 the American inventor, Hiram Maxim, visited the Paris Electrical Exhibition. While he was at the exhibition he met a man who told him: "If you wanted to make a lot of money, invent something that will enable these Europeans to cut each other's throats with greater facility."
Maxim moved to London and over the next few years worked on producing an effective machine-gun. In 1885 he demonstrated the world's first automatic portable machine-gun to the British Army. Maxim used the energy of each bullet's recoil force to eject the spent cartridge and insert the next bullet. The Maxim Machine-Gun would therefore fire until the entire belt of bullets was used up. Trials showed that the machine-gun could fire 500 rounds per minute and therefore had the firepower of about 100 rifles.
The Maxim Machine-Gun was adopted by the British Army in 1889. The following year the Austrian, German, Italian, Swiss and Russian armies also purchased Maxim's gun. The gun was first used by Britain`s colonial forces in the Matabele war in 1893-94. In one engagement, fifty soldiers fought off 5,000 Matabele warriors with just four Maxim guns.
http://www.kwazulu.co.uk/morris.html
Washing of the spears by donald morris is a good read, take out the colour and put it two thousand years earlier and it reads like the rise of the greek states.
The nigerians wiped out two french armies before we got involved by which point our technological advantage was so great it was no contest. The bible mentions several powerful black empires the queen of Sheba was hardly likely to be a blue eyed blond, the empire of kush was possibly destroyed by environmemtal catastrophe as any inherent weakness in the people.
China accounts for two thirds of the worlds population, throughout most of it's history europe has been so backward as to be of little interest. Ghengis Khan created the largest land empire the world has ever seen, arguably they didn't bother with europe because there was nothing there worth bothering about to make it worth the hassle.
We may have won out in the civilsation race for the moment but our doing so was by no means certain and is as much by chance as anything.
On the other hand I reckon the way our political system developed and love of individual freedom owes a great deal to an egalitarian streak running through our culture. Right back to the ancient celts tattooing their bodies, spiking their hair and saying "who says you can be king ya bass"
or to use the more eloquent words of rabbie burns
Ye see yon birkie ca'd a lord,
Wha struts, an' stares, an' a' that;
Tho' hundreds worship at his word,
He's but a coof for a' that.
For a' that, an' a' that,
His ribband, star, an' a' that,
The man o' independent mind
He looks an' laughs at a' that
(Still laughing)
The Destruction Of Black Civilization:
gmc wrote: posted by galbally
Is it revisionism? Yes and no. In the middle ages europeans used to trade with the black african kingdoms along the western coast the gulf of benin etc, (benin bronzes were a highly prized item for instance and still collectors items) and they viewed them as every bit our equal. What changes it was black slavery and when christians began to justify keeping blacks as slaves. It went from no christian should be held as a slave to no christian unless they are black and inferior. In the early american colonies a black man could win his freedom and own property-icnluding other slaves. How it all changed makes fascinating stuff.
If you look at the impact of the european demand for slaves on africa and the constant internicine warfare it caused as black enslaved black to get slaves to trade for european goods it has many similarituies to what happened to the celtic tribes as a resut of the roman demand for slaves and the celtic desire for roman wine and other goods. What makes it so different is the different skin colour.
Same in India, we started out trading with them as supplicants to indian kingdoms learning a great deal from them and gradually took over and ended up convinced of our own racial superiority before finally taking over after the Indian mutiny.
The revisionism was in making our culture somehow morally superior. Manifest destiny is a load of cobblers.
European military, economic and scientific superiority is as much an accident of geography as anything else. Can you imagine what the aztecs or incias would have become if coal and iron had been available as it was in europe and resulted in us experimenting with metals, and the constant warfare and development of better and better ways of killing each other that sparked off much of our approach to research-constant testing and experimenting. or the north american indians had had a comparable draught animal to the horse? The romans developed concrete because the necessary ingredient was all over the place, someone was probably trying to make a mud brick and discivered it by accident.
We learned our mathematics from the mohamedans-why do you think we use 1,2,3,4, arabic numerals, and much of our medicine and approach to it as well. The chinese gave us paper and ink and paper money.
If anything it's luck and eclecticism that lead to the european nations coming to the fore not racial superiority. Most of all perhaps it was eclecticism not elitism and racial snobbery that was responsible. Something it would be a mistake to forget.
Africa did not come under the imperial boot until the 19th century when it was cannon and machine guns against iron age tribesmen. Even then it was close, the Zulus gave us a run for our money. By the time we got to Rhodesia we had machine guns
http://www.kwazulu.co.uk/morris.html
Washing of the spears by donald morris is a good read, take out the colour and put it two thousand years earlier and it reads like the rise of the greek states.
The nigerians wiped out two french armies before we got involved by which point our technological advantage was so great it was no contest. The bible mentions several powerful black empires the queen of Sheba was hardly likely to be a blue eyed blond, the empire of kush was possibly destroyed by environmemtal catastrophe as any inherent weakness in the people.
China accounts for two thirds of the worlds population, throughout most of it's history europe has been so backward as to be of little interest. Ghengis Khan created the largest land empire the world has ever seen, arguably they didn't bother with europe because there was nothing there worth bothering about to make it worth the hassle.
We may have won out in the civilsation race for the moment but our doing so was by no means certain and is as much by chance as anything.
On the other hand I reckon the way our political system developed and love of individual freedom owes a great deal to an egalitarian streak running through our culture. Right back to the ancient celts tattooing their bodies, spiking their hair and saying "who says you can be king ya bass"
or to use the more eloquent words of rabbie burns
(Still laughing)
I like your posts GMC, they are intelligent and tought out. What I would say is that in current political thinking, there is a lot about our history that disturbs us because of the conquests and evils that were committed by Europeans, of course these things happened, and racism and xenophobia were a mainstream of European intellectual thinking in the 19th century, and we find that distasteful now, being as we live in a more "enlightened" time, though whether other civilizational groupings around the world share in our enlightment and compassion is an arguable point. But that doesn't take away from the fact that whatever the merits of other civilizations and the factors that made European civilization "happen", it was in Europe where the modern world as we know it was invented and where it took off from, that doesn't mean that our particular civilization will always be in the ascendency, that would be hubris, but if we look at the world as it is right now, thats the position we take. Ans, whatever its faults the fact that it did happen in Europe is a testament to European achievement, values, and culture. For instance you mentioned the Aztecs, who were of course a highly advanced culture, though not tecnically advanced, and utterly barbaric in some of their religious practices (makes even the Romans seem tame), but they did have quite large iron and copper deposits in the Mexican subcontinent, as well as everything needed to make gunpowder, yet they did not invent weapons such as the Spanish had, they had not even invented the wheel, so when the Conquistadors arrived they had no answer to Castillian steel or grapeshot, it was unfortunate for them, but of course a big opportunuity for the Christian Spanish who went at their work with a will. The point is that they did not have the type of society that would have probably ever developed advanced weapons, or at least not for many centuries after the Spanish arrived, and thats why they are no longer around.
Is it revisionism? Yes and no. In the middle ages europeans used to trade with the black african kingdoms along the western coast the gulf of benin etc, (benin bronzes were a highly prized item for instance and still collectors items) and they viewed them as every bit our equal. What changes it was black slavery and when christians began to justify keeping blacks as slaves. It went from no christian should be held as a slave to no christian unless they are black and inferior. In the early american colonies a black man could win his freedom and own property-icnluding other slaves. How it all changed makes fascinating stuff.
If you look at the impact of the european demand for slaves on africa and the constant internicine warfare it caused as black enslaved black to get slaves to trade for european goods it has many similarituies to what happened to the celtic tribes as a resut of the roman demand for slaves and the celtic desire for roman wine and other goods. What makes it so different is the different skin colour.
Same in India, we started out trading with them as supplicants to indian kingdoms learning a great deal from them and gradually took over and ended up convinced of our own racial superiority before finally taking over after the Indian mutiny.
The revisionism was in making our culture somehow morally superior. Manifest destiny is a load of cobblers.
European military, economic and scientific superiority is as much an accident of geography as anything else. Can you imagine what the aztecs or incias would have become if coal and iron had been available as it was in europe and resulted in us experimenting with metals, and the constant warfare and development of better and better ways of killing each other that sparked off much of our approach to research-constant testing and experimenting. or the north american indians had had a comparable draught animal to the horse? The romans developed concrete because the necessary ingredient was all over the place, someone was probably trying to make a mud brick and discivered it by accident.
We learned our mathematics from the mohamedans-why do you think we use 1,2,3,4, arabic numerals, and much of our medicine and approach to it as well. The chinese gave us paper and ink and paper money.
If anything it's luck and eclecticism that lead to the european nations coming to the fore not racial superiority. Most of all perhaps it was eclecticism not elitism and racial snobbery that was responsible. Something it would be a mistake to forget.
Africa did not come under the imperial boot until the 19th century when it was cannon and machine guns against iron age tribesmen. Even then it was close, the Zulus gave us a run for our money. By the time we got to Rhodesia we had machine guns
http://www.kwazulu.co.uk/morris.html
Washing of the spears by donald morris is a good read, take out the colour and put it two thousand years earlier and it reads like the rise of the greek states.
The nigerians wiped out two french armies before we got involved by which point our technological advantage was so great it was no contest. The bible mentions several powerful black empires the queen of Sheba was hardly likely to be a blue eyed blond, the empire of kush was possibly destroyed by environmemtal catastrophe as any inherent weakness in the people.
China accounts for two thirds of the worlds population, throughout most of it's history europe has been so backward as to be of little interest. Ghengis Khan created the largest land empire the world has ever seen, arguably they didn't bother with europe because there was nothing there worth bothering about to make it worth the hassle.
We may have won out in the civilsation race for the moment but our doing so was by no means certain and is as much by chance as anything.
On the other hand I reckon the way our political system developed and love of individual freedom owes a great deal to an egalitarian streak running through our culture. Right back to the ancient celts tattooing their bodies, spiking their hair and saying "who says you can be king ya bass"
or to use the more eloquent words of rabbie burns
(Still laughing)
I like your posts GMC, they are intelligent and tought out. What I would say is that in current political thinking, there is a lot about our history that disturbs us because of the conquests and evils that were committed by Europeans, of course these things happened, and racism and xenophobia were a mainstream of European intellectual thinking in the 19th century, and we find that distasteful now, being as we live in a more "enlightened" time, though whether other civilizational groupings around the world share in our enlightment and compassion is an arguable point. But that doesn't take away from the fact that whatever the merits of other civilizations and the factors that made European civilization "happen", it was in Europe where the modern world as we know it was invented and where it took off from, that doesn't mean that our particular civilization will always be in the ascendency, that would be hubris, but if we look at the world as it is right now, thats the position we take. Ans, whatever its faults the fact that it did happen in Europe is a testament to European achievement, values, and culture. For instance you mentioned the Aztecs, who were of course a highly advanced culture, though not tecnically advanced, and utterly barbaric in some of their religious practices (makes even the Romans seem tame), but they did have quite large iron and copper deposits in the Mexican subcontinent, as well as everything needed to make gunpowder, yet they did not invent weapons such as the Spanish had, they had not even invented the wheel, so when the Conquistadors arrived they had no answer to Castillian steel or grapeshot, it was unfortunate for them, but of course a big opportunuity for the Christian Spanish who went at their work with a will. The point is that they did not have the type of society that would have probably ever developed advanced weapons, or at least not for many centuries after the Spanish arrived, and thats why they are no longer around.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
The Destruction Of Black Civilization:
I like your posts GMC, they are intelligent and tought out. What I would say is that in current political thinking, there is a lot about our history that disturbs us because of the conquests and evils that were committed by Europeans, of course these things happened, and racism and xenophobia were a mainstream of European intellectual thinking in the 19th century, and we find that distasteful now, being as we live in a more "enlightened" time, though whether other civilizational groupings around the world share in our enlightment and compassion is an arguable point. But that doesn't take away from the fact that whatever the merits of other civilizations and the factors that made European civilization "happen", it was in Europe where the modern world as we know it was invented and where it took off from, that doesn't mean that our particular civilization will always be in the ascendency, that would be hubris, but if we look at the world as it is right now, thats the position we take. Ans, whatever its faults the fact that it did happen in Europe is a testament to European achievement, values, and culture. For instance you mentioned the Aztecs, who were of course a highly advanced culture, though not tecnically advanced, and utterly barbaric in some of their religious practices (makes even the Romans seem tame), but they did have quite large iron and copper deposits in the Mexican subcontinent, as well as everything needed to make gunpowder, yet they did not invent weapons such as the Spanish had, they had not even invented the wheel, so when the Conquistadors arrived they had no answer to Castillian steel or grapeshot, it was unfortunate for them, but of course a big opportunuity for the Christian Spanish who went at their work with a will. The point is that they did not have the type of society that would have probably ever developed advanced weapons, or at least not for many centuries after the Spanish arrived, and thats why they are no longer around.
I like your posts GMC, they are intelligent and tought out.
That's what i like to see, quality B*******:yh_rotfl
I think the electicism was one of the most important factors, in the UK people seem to forget forget just how much we owe to immigrants from all parts of europe who brought their knowledge with them and just how much we pinched from elsewhere like gunpowder for instance from china, and how much being open to new ideas and ways of doing things have played a part.
As to xenophobia and racsim there were many throughout the ages who objected at the time and said so vociferously even at the height of empire it mattered less than you might think
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_f ... mary.shtml
Written out of history as if she didn't exist but at the time ordinary people didn't seem to care about her race only what she did for them. Egalitarianism is not an elitist trait.
(as a sidenote ever read what engels, that doyen of marxism and champion of the working man, had to say about the Irish? why is it only racism if the colour of skin is different)
As to aztecs and incas, maybe a religious society is by it's nature one that's stultified, if you can't question the order of society then you are not allow to question the world around you. Many of what were to become liberal ideas come from protestant societies. If you question the right of someone to tell you what to believe then the next step is to question the right of any man to rule. On a more practical note-no draught animals no need for wheels, especially with plenty of slaves around. My geology is almost non existent did they have iron lying around near the surface like they did in europe?
You may have a point about the type of society though, it was a wee scots guy that discovered how to crack crude oil and started off the oil industry despite there being no crude oil onshore in scotland. Therein lies the start of the hundred year oil wars.
http://www.geo.ed.ac.uk/scotgaz/people/ ... rst41.html
I pass this regularly, believe me it is not pretty at all.
Bit rambling perhaps but I have been imbibing a little.
I like your posts GMC, they are intelligent and tought out.
That's what i like to see, quality B*******:yh_rotfl
I think the electicism was one of the most important factors, in the UK people seem to forget forget just how much we owe to immigrants from all parts of europe who brought their knowledge with them and just how much we pinched from elsewhere like gunpowder for instance from china, and how much being open to new ideas and ways of doing things have played a part.
As to xenophobia and racsim there were many throughout the ages who objected at the time and said so vociferously even at the height of empire it mattered less than you might think
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_f ... mary.shtml
Written out of history as if she didn't exist but at the time ordinary people didn't seem to care about her race only what she did for them. Egalitarianism is not an elitist trait.
(as a sidenote ever read what engels, that doyen of marxism and champion of the working man, had to say about the Irish? why is it only racism if the colour of skin is different)
As to aztecs and incas, maybe a religious society is by it's nature one that's stultified, if you can't question the order of society then you are not allow to question the world around you. Many of what were to become liberal ideas come from protestant societies. If you question the right of someone to tell you what to believe then the next step is to question the right of any man to rule. On a more practical note-no draught animals no need for wheels, especially with plenty of slaves around. My geology is almost non existent did they have iron lying around near the surface like they did in europe?
You may have a point about the type of society though, it was a wee scots guy that discovered how to crack crude oil and started off the oil industry despite there being no crude oil onshore in scotland. Therein lies the start of the hundred year oil wars.
http://www.geo.ed.ac.uk/scotgaz/people/ ... rst41.html
I pass this regularly, believe me it is not pretty at all.
Bit rambling perhaps but I have been imbibing a little.
The Destruction Of Black Civilization:
i like GMC too!!
The Destruction Of Black Civilization:
That's what i like to see, quality B*******:yh_rotfl
I will take that as a compliment for the laugh. :p
I think the electicism was one of the most important factors, in the UK people seem to forget forget just how much we owe to immigrants from all parts of europe who brought their knowledge with them and just how much we pinched from elsewhere like gunpowder for instance from china, and how much being open to new ideas and ways of doing things have played a part.
That may be true, but is also true of everyone else, the people of the U.K. are inherently no different from anyone else as individuals as any other human beings are from anyone else on this planet. The style of their particular predjudices may be different, and the lattitude of action that their state has had over the years had been huge due to its massive political and economic success, (for which there are many many reasons, some indigenous to Britain, some not), however the ethics of power are a different matter, and there is no true power that is completely ethical, that is the nature of species and has nothing to do with politics of this or any other century.
As to xenophobia and racsim there were many throughout the ages who objected at the time and said so vociferously even at the height of empire it mattered less than you might think
The ideas of tolerance and harmony are like the ideas of hate and aggression intrinsic to the species and as old as mankind itself, we would not strive for such ideas unless it was in our nature to do so, as is the ability and occasional desire to commit violence and (on a mass scale) war. What was your point?, these things are self evident.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_f ... mary.shtml
Written out of history as if she didn't exist but at the time ordinary people didn't seem to care about her race only what she did for them. Egalitarianism is not an elitist trait.
Cest La Vie, she would not be the first victim of history, which is ultimately always a subjective science.
(as a sidenote ever read what engels, that doyen of marxism and champion of the working man, had to say about the Irish? why is it only racism if the colour of skin is different)
The whole idea of racism is basic nonsense, all humans are the same, thats a fact, not a supposition. Anti-Irishness is as nonsensical as any other generalized predjudice that people get involved in. As for Engels, he was an intelligent man, but his dogmatic utopianism and reductionism were proven in the 20th century to be intellectual dead ends, nuff said.
As to aztecs and incas, maybe a religious society is by it's nature one that's stultified, if you can't question the order of society then you are not allow to question the world around you. Many of what were to become liberal ideas come from protestant societies. If you question the right of someone to tell you what to believe then the next step is to question the right of any man to rule. On a more practical note-no draught animals no need for wheels, especially with plenty of slaves around. My geology is almost non existent did they have iron lying around near the surface like they did in europe?
The development of specific technologies in specific regions and the advances of various civilizations because of these technologies is a very, very involved and complex subject dealing with issues like geology, sociology, land use, socital control, population densities, climate, power structures, commerce, etc etc. The main point is that Europe is not the most resource-rich region in the world, neither is its cimate the best, or its land, or anything else, but of all the temperature regions it was in Europe that the industrial-technical-scientific idea of a society was born and this absolutely did not happen in mesoamerica, that is a simple fact, it does not imply that Europeans are superior in any way to anyone else, just that their society has been very very successful in gross material terms (which are the only ones we can really measure anyway).
You may have a point about the type of society though, it was a wee scots guy that discovered how to crack crude oil and started off the oil industry despite there being no crude oil onshore in scotland. Therein lies the start of the hundred year oil wars.
Yes the cost of the fossil-fuel economy has been high, but it has also produced a civilization with the lowest infant mortality rates, the best social systems, the most liberal governments, the most amount of individual freedom at any time in human history, along with the greatest amout of material wealth ever created. These again are not opinions they are facts, what we as individual societies have done with our bounty is a different matter, but that is a problem born of success not of failure.
http://www.geo.ed.ac.uk/scotgaz/people/ ... rst41.html
I pass this regularly, believe me it is not pretty at all.
Bit rambling perhaps but I have been imbibing a little.
You should keep a clear head when debating, the good stuff can make you a bit lairy if you don't watch out.
I will take that as a compliment for the laugh. :p
I think the electicism was one of the most important factors, in the UK people seem to forget forget just how much we owe to immigrants from all parts of europe who brought their knowledge with them and just how much we pinched from elsewhere like gunpowder for instance from china, and how much being open to new ideas and ways of doing things have played a part.
That may be true, but is also true of everyone else, the people of the U.K. are inherently no different from anyone else as individuals as any other human beings are from anyone else on this planet. The style of their particular predjudices may be different, and the lattitude of action that their state has had over the years had been huge due to its massive political and economic success, (for which there are many many reasons, some indigenous to Britain, some not), however the ethics of power are a different matter, and there is no true power that is completely ethical, that is the nature of species and has nothing to do with politics of this or any other century.
As to xenophobia and racsim there were many throughout the ages who objected at the time and said so vociferously even at the height of empire it mattered less than you might think
The ideas of tolerance and harmony are like the ideas of hate and aggression intrinsic to the species and as old as mankind itself, we would not strive for such ideas unless it was in our nature to do so, as is the ability and occasional desire to commit violence and (on a mass scale) war. What was your point?, these things are self evident.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_f ... mary.shtml
Written out of history as if she didn't exist but at the time ordinary people didn't seem to care about her race only what she did for them. Egalitarianism is not an elitist trait.
Cest La Vie, she would not be the first victim of history, which is ultimately always a subjective science.
(as a sidenote ever read what engels, that doyen of marxism and champion of the working man, had to say about the Irish? why is it only racism if the colour of skin is different)
The whole idea of racism is basic nonsense, all humans are the same, thats a fact, not a supposition. Anti-Irishness is as nonsensical as any other generalized predjudice that people get involved in. As for Engels, he was an intelligent man, but his dogmatic utopianism and reductionism were proven in the 20th century to be intellectual dead ends, nuff said.
As to aztecs and incas, maybe a religious society is by it's nature one that's stultified, if you can't question the order of society then you are not allow to question the world around you. Many of what were to become liberal ideas come from protestant societies. If you question the right of someone to tell you what to believe then the next step is to question the right of any man to rule. On a more practical note-no draught animals no need for wheels, especially with plenty of slaves around. My geology is almost non existent did they have iron lying around near the surface like they did in europe?
The development of specific technologies in specific regions and the advances of various civilizations because of these technologies is a very, very involved and complex subject dealing with issues like geology, sociology, land use, socital control, population densities, climate, power structures, commerce, etc etc. The main point is that Europe is not the most resource-rich region in the world, neither is its cimate the best, or its land, or anything else, but of all the temperature regions it was in Europe that the industrial-technical-scientific idea of a society was born and this absolutely did not happen in mesoamerica, that is a simple fact, it does not imply that Europeans are superior in any way to anyone else, just that their society has been very very successful in gross material terms (which are the only ones we can really measure anyway).
You may have a point about the type of society though, it was a wee scots guy that discovered how to crack crude oil and started off the oil industry despite there being no crude oil onshore in scotland. Therein lies the start of the hundred year oil wars.
Yes the cost of the fossil-fuel economy has been high, but it has also produced a civilization with the lowest infant mortality rates, the best social systems, the most liberal governments, the most amount of individual freedom at any time in human history, along with the greatest amout of material wealth ever created. These again are not opinions they are facts, what we as individual societies have done with our bounty is a different matter, but that is a problem born of success not of failure.
http://www.geo.ed.ac.uk/scotgaz/people/ ... rst41.html
I pass this regularly, believe me it is not pretty at all.
Bit rambling perhaps but I have been imbibing a little.
You should keep a clear head when debating, the good stuff can make you a bit lairy if you don't watch out.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
The Destruction Of Black Civilization:
posted by scrat
gmc. Very good posts all. I wonder why in the article they never mentioned Chakas Empire and his Impies. It is a fact that his empire was defeated by technology and disease, not one races physical/intellectual superiority over another. Had Chaka had time, the face of Africa would be nothing like it is today.
That's what the washing of the spears were about, the matabele are descendants of one of the impis on the losing side of the zulu civil wars that went in to what is now Zimbabwe, the shona were the original inhabitants-hence one of th reasons for the internecine conflict you see.
posted by galbally
The development of specific technologies in specific regions and the advances of various civilizations because of these technologies is a very, very involved and complex subject dealing with issues like geology, sociology, land use, socital control, population densities, climate, power structures, commerce, etc etc. The main point is that Europe is not the most resource-rich region in the world, neither is its cimate the best, or its land, or anything else, but of all the temperature regions it was in Europe that the industrial-technical-scientific idea of a society was born and this absolutely did not happen in mesoamerica, that is a simple fact, it does not imply that Europeans are superior in any way to anyone else, just that their society has been very very successful in gross material terms (which are the only ones we can really measure anyway).
I think essentially we agree with each other. That is what i meant by being eclectic, we took on board ideas from many regions and cultures and made them our own. It's the claim to racial superiority some propound I find irritating. Cultures don't grow in isolation but by contact with others and a willingness to change and adapt to new circumstances.
gmc. Very good posts all. I wonder why in the article they never mentioned Chakas Empire and his Impies. It is a fact that his empire was defeated by technology and disease, not one races physical/intellectual superiority over another. Had Chaka had time, the face of Africa would be nothing like it is today.
That's what the washing of the spears were about, the matabele are descendants of one of the impis on the losing side of the zulu civil wars that went in to what is now Zimbabwe, the shona were the original inhabitants-hence one of th reasons for the internecine conflict you see.
posted by galbally
The development of specific technologies in specific regions and the advances of various civilizations because of these technologies is a very, very involved and complex subject dealing with issues like geology, sociology, land use, socital control, population densities, climate, power structures, commerce, etc etc. The main point is that Europe is not the most resource-rich region in the world, neither is its cimate the best, or its land, or anything else, but of all the temperature regions it was in Europe that the industrial-technical-scientific idea of a society was born and this absolutely did not happen in mesoamerica, that is a simple fact, it does not imply that Europeans are superior in any way to anyone else, just that their society has been very very successful in gross material terms (which are the only ones we can really measure anyway).
I think essentially we agree with each other. That is what i meant by being eclectic, we took on board ideas from many regions and cultures and made them our own. It's the claim to racial superiority some propound I find irritating. Cultures don't grow in isolation but by contact with others and a willingness to change and adapt to new circumstances.
The Destruction Of Black Civilization:
Very good posts all. I wonder why in the article they never mentioned Chakas Empire and his Impies. It is a fact that his empire was defeated by technology and disease, not one races physical/intellectual superiority over another. Had Chaka had time, the face of Africa would be nothing like it is today.
Actually unless Shaka Zulu had developed an industrial mercantile economy in his native land, he would never have had a chance to defeat the British, whose pasty-faced infantrymen from industrial towns in England were far more lethal than any Zulu warrior could ever have been, given their weapons, training, and miltary ethos.
Where in the hell did you get this?
The countries of Iraq, Turkey and central Eurasia have some of the oldest settlements known to man, I believe Evaptoria in the Crimea is about the oldest next to Iraqs. Evaptoria has solid evidence that it has been continously settled for at least 5000 years and very possibly up to 7000.
If you notice I used the term "Islamic World" and not Iraqi or mesopotamian or persian empires which were eventually destroyed by both Macedonian, Roman, Byzantine, and ultimately Islamic power, and Islam being started in the middle of the seventh century AD is by far the youngest of all the worlds major civilizations. America may be a relatively young nation, but its basic civilizational values are those of the West, which go back to around 800 B.C., and the rise of the Greek city states. China is the oldest extant civilization with Europe and India vying for second, Islam is far younger than any of these. [You should not confuse concepts as I am reffering only to civilizations that have survived and remained a powerful influence on the world, Islam is one obviously, so is China, so is Europe, Mesopotamia is not, neither is the Sassanid Empire, or Ancient Eygpt, or the Hittities or any of those ancient empires and cultures/B]
If any civilization on earth has a "New Kid On The Block" syndrome it is the US. More appropriately you may want to call it the "gangsta" on the block. Show me a 500 year old building in America that was made by the Europeans
Again, the U.S. may be a young country, but the principals that it was founded on are very very old.
Actually unless Shaka Zulu had developed an industrial mercantile economy in his native land, he would never have had a chance to defeat the British, whose pasty-faced infantrymen from industrial towns in England were far more lethal than any Zulu warrior could ever have been, given their weapons, training, and miltary ethos.
Where in the hell did you get this?
The countries of Iraq, Turkey and central Eurasia have some of the oldest settlements known to man, I believe Evaptoria in the Crimea is about the oldest next to Iraqs. Evaptoria has solid evidence that it has been continously settled for at least 5000 years and very possibly up to 7000.
If you notice I used the term "Islamic World" and not Iraqi or mesopotamian or persian empires which were eventually destroyed by both Macedonian, Roman, Byzantine, and ultimately Islamic power, and Islam being started in the middle of the seventh century AD is by far the youngest of all the worlds major civilizations. America may be a relatively young nation, but its basic civilizational values are those of the West, which go back to around 800 B.C., and the rise of the Greek city states. China is the oldest extant civilization with Europe and India vying for second, Islam is far younger than any of these. [You should not confuse concepts as I am reffering only to civilizations that have survived and remained a powerful influence on the world, Islam is one obviously, so is China, so is Europe, Mesopotamia is not, neither is the Sassanid Empire, or Ancient Eygpt, or the Hittities or any of those ancient empires and cultures/B]
If any civilization on earth has a "New Kid On The Block" syndrome it is the US. More appropriately you may want to call it the "gangsta" on the block. Show me a 500 year old building in America that was made by the Europeans
Again, the U.S. may be a young country, but the principals that it was founded on are very very old.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.