Contents | Previous | Next
Date: 09 Nov 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Subject: Re: In response to an attack
Message-ID: <20001109145006.23201.00000493@ng-fv1.aol.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References:
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3DISO-8859-1
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: alt.religion.orisha
X-Admin: news@aol.com
>We don't disagree about the white washing of the Egyptian culture,
>although by the time it might have had any contact with the Yourban,
When would that be?
which
>I continue to maintain is as yet undemonstrated, not impossible, but
>undemonstrated,
That is as good as saying J. Olumide Lucas never wrote his book, "The rel=
igion
of the Yorubas". What is maintained, based on oral tradition, similarity =
of
language, similarity of religious beliefs, similarity of religious practi=
ces,
and survivals of various sorts (customs, names of persons, places, object=
s,
artifacts, etc.) is that the Yoruba *originate* in Egypt, as opposed mere=
ly to
having had contact with it.
I detect a double standard lurking here. A standard of "demonstration" is=
something that one can set at various levels. It is the same with courts =
of
law. In a criminal court in America, the standard of proof required is "p=
roof
beyond a reasonable doubt". In a civil court the standard is "by preponde=
rance
of the evidence". In the field of history, one often finds competing
hypotheses. In the absence of a "smoking gun", the document or artifact o=
r the
records that are conclusive, i.e. demonstrate a fact beyond *any* doubt, =
it is
always possible to maintain a position such as Eoghan now takes, namely t=
hat
something has not been demonstrated. That is not really reasonable. Still=
, if
the standard adopted is "beyond any doubt" ... smoking gun required ... t=
hen as
a matter of consistency the same standard should be maintained when the s=
hoe is
on the other foot. That is not what we see with Eoghan. In asserting an A=
rab
provenance for certain "mechanics" (he later qualified himself) of divina=
tion
in use by the Yoruba, the only evidence sufficient for him to reach that
conclusion was the similarity between the two. Well, no. That is not suff=
icient
for _any_ sort of demonstration, not even preponderance of the evidence. =
On the
basis of similarity, the direction of transmission could go either way, o=
r as I
have pointed out numerous times, it could be that there is a common paren=
t.
That is ALL that one may say based merely on similarity. But Eoghan jumps=
hastily to the conclusion -- it is "obvious" he says -- that the African=
must
have learnt from the Arab. Clearly he uses a double standard. It is what =
we
have come to expect from racists, who lean even to the less likely hypoth=
esis,
sometimes even to the completely illogical hypothesis, whenever Africans =
and
African accomplishment are involved.
it had already grown far from what is considered "African"
>in the rest of the continent by a process of self - motivated mixing
>mainly with middleeastern peoples of varying types. =
When would that be? =
As to "self-motivated", whatever is that supposed to mean? That Hyksos,
Hittites, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, etc, were invited to invade th=
e Nile
Valley? Clearly it is the case that many Caucasians and Semites came into=
the
Nile Valley either fleeing famine elsewhere (Cf. the story of Joseph in t=
he
Bible), or as prisoners of war (Cf. Narmer's tablet), or as slaves (Cf. t=
he
European Slavs, from whom the very word "slave" derives, that were enslav=
ed --
they were called Mamelukes -- by Arab Egypt) rather than as victorious
invaders, but the sort of displacement that led to outmigrations of the p=
eople
that became the Yoruba, the Akan, the Wolof, the Zulu, and others, were h=
ardly
"self-motivated".
Of course, this raises
>the question of what gets defined as African. =
The first pharaoh of the first dynasty, for one. The builders of the sphi=
nx and
the pyramids, for another. The creators of the religion and culture of th=
e
Kamau, for a third. All the mixing, self-motivated or otherwise, came muc=
h
later. By the time Abraham is born, the Sphinx and the pyramids are hundr=
eds of
years old, and the art of pyramid building has already been lost. By the =
time
we hear of Berbers, dynastic Egypt is into its 18th dynasty. The Persians=
come
much later than that, the Greeks after them, and so forth.
>There are Christian cultures in Africa that have been Christian since
>before the Roman empire took up that religion. There are many cultures,
>including the Yorubans, who have adopted Islam. Admittedly Evangelical
>Christianity is by far the most popular religion among the Yoruba in
>Nigeria today, but there are Yorubans who follow Islam.
>
>
>There are far too many countries in Africa for whom colonial languages
>remain the Lingua Franca and not only the defacto medium of communicatio=
n
>but often the Official language of the "realm". These countries include
>Nigeria (English), Gabon, Congo Brazzavile, Congo Kinshasha,(French),
>Angola, Cabo Verde, S=E3o Tomas, Mozambique (Portuguese), etc.
>
>At what point does a popular culture, however creolized it may appear
>become "African" or was it ever anything else? Culture doesn't
>conveniently fit the narrow definitions that some people wish to constra=
in
>it within. Neither does the human spirit.
You would seem to want to abstract altogether from timelines and chronolo=
gies.
To do so is a nonsense in the context of attempting to gain clarity on th=
e role
of the African in history, and Africa's contribution to world history. Th=
e
configuration of modern-day Africa has certainly been shaped by Europeans=
and
Arabs. That fact cannot however erase Africa's precolonial past. Nor can =
it
make causality and influence other than unidirectional in time. Africa re=
mains
at time 0, whether it is the creation of man or the creation of civilizat=
ion
and the civilized arts. European racists have expended an awful lot of en=
ergy
trying to undo these facts, to rewrite history, to cover up history, and =
have
even attempted to refashion the laws of logic in trying. All to no avail.=
Time
to give it up.
>As always Denise, we needn't agree, just be civil in our disagreement. ;=
-)
I prefer to be parliamentary. It's a tougher standard. One can say things=
in
parliament that one may not in the street or to friends over tea. It's th=
at way
because that is what Truth sometimes requires.
>Eoghan
>
Peace,
Grisso
"and Truth is most beautiful when absolutely naked."
--------------B70D90FE8720B155D09F8A3C--
Contents | Previous | Next
Tips for your pocket: