Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was actually going to post responses, then I ran into some of your statements...
You stated that the pyramids in Egypt were built "more than a million years back". The oldest pyramid in Egypt, which is nothing like the pyramids we are talking about dates to roughly 10,500 years old. The pyramids built at the height of the pyramid building age in Egypt are 4,200 - 4,600 years old.
You state that "humanity spans back to a million + years". Homo sapiens, the branch of the genus Homo that is identified as "modern human" did not appear on the face of the Earth until roughly 200,000 years ago in it's current form. It was not until roughly 50,000 years ago that humans began to exhibit full behavioral modernity. It was not until 12,000 years ago that humans began to practice sedentary agriculture, domesticate animals and begin forming the roots of what became civilization.
One million years ago, the roughly 20,000 individuals that made up our non-Homo sapien ancestors were living in caves and just discovering the benefits of fire. They certainly weren't building pyramids...
If you choose to cling to such ridiculous and unsupported statements as the pyramids are "over a million years old" then it simply calls into question the credibility of anything you have to say.
What, are we now suppose to believe that you are into Hindu mysticism which of course will go on to explain is an African religion.
... just when you thought it was safe to back outside.
SMH I was saying that not all systems of history fall under the pretense of western history or the span of history that the west indoctrinated us with. The fact that you call it mysticism is showing that you don't respect that system or culture,
Is your statement meant to imply that Sub-Saharan Africans never achieved "civilization" (which they most certainly did) or is your statement simply limited to addressing a specifc list of things that they created that were disseminated globally?
The latter. And yeah, using the most liberal definition of civilization, they had a few.
Hey, look this is a huge improvement. In the past his statement would have included the entire continent.
Oh really? Care to point out where I ever made such a statement? Im fully aware when speaking about African history that you have to separate north from south, as they are populated by 2 very different peoples and cultures.
SMH I was saying that not all systems of history fall under the pretense of western history or the span of history that the west indoctrinated us with. The fact that you call it mysticism is showing that you don't respect that system or culture,
Dude, you are talking to the wrong person if you think that I adhere to some western construct of history.
As for your canard about mysticism as some evidence of western bias let me say this, mysticism is the basis of all religions or any system which adheres to some otherworldly spiritual belief.
Amazing how on one thread I can be in the presence of the two opinions diametrically opposed position that have created on one hand and sustains on the other this need to impose some sense of ethnocentric superiority.
the definition of black has changed significantly in the last twenty years. the 1 drop rule is disappearing. many north africans and one point couldve been considered black but the history does have a strong mix. race, nationality, ethnicity terms are used so interchangeably and incorrectly its becoming a senseless debate
the definition of black has changed significantly in the last twenty years. the 1 drop rule is disappearing. many north africans and one point couldve been considered black but the history does have a strong mix. race, nationality, ethnicity terms are used so interchangeably and incorrectly its becoming a senseless debate
If it hasn't been since the 19th century and the emergence of pseudo-scientific racism.
Dude, you are talking to the wrong person if you think that I adhere to some western construct of history.
As for your canard about mysticism as some evidence of western bias let me say this, mysticism is the basis of all religions or any system which adheres to some otherworldly spiritual belief.
Amazing how on one thread I can be in the presence of the two opinions diametrically opposed position that have created on one hand and sustains on the other this need to impose some sense of ethnocentric superiority.
I have. I fail to see what Hindu mysticism has to do with the age of the pyramids though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoodsofATL
SMH I was saying that not all systems of history fall under the pretense of western history or the span of history that the west indoctrinated us with. The fact that you call it mysticism is showing that you don't respect that system or culture,
Indoctrinated in terms of a timeline? I can be pretty open minded, but when we start discussing mystical and spiritual beliefs as being some sort of proof, I can't maintain my open mind. Science has gotten pretty good at providing dates and timelines. The problem with mysticism is that one must select which mysticism they want to believe in. Some Evangelical Christians believe that the world is only around 6,000-7,000 years old, I'm going to assume that you wouldn't accept that as a basis. Likewise I can't accept Yugas as a basis for the timeline of the world. Last I checked radiocarbon dating was pretty accurate and I'd prefer to stick with fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NHborn
The latter. And yeah, using the most liberal definition of civilization, they had a few.
You hardly need a "liberal definition" when it comes to some sub-Saharan civilizations. I suppose it all comes down to the definition one wants to use. They had relatively large city-states that rivaled the size of many European countries, had organized governments/societies, conducted trade, produced art and had highly developed languages, albeit none written that I am aware of.
In terms of what they provided to humanity, that again comes down to what definition you would like to use. I suppose their art and culture won't count in your book. They certainly had some technology that was highly developed. Many of those civilizations had highly developed iron working and to levels that Europe didn't reach in terms of quality until the 1700's. However, I think you would dismiss things that were contemporaneously developed in multiple places. So, we will be left needing you to provide an example and definition of what you mean; as depending on the definition, many civilizations and peoples could be considered as having "not contributed" to mankind.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Gotta make these things known then. Just saying
