here is a nice blog post. this was aimed at black Americans but it helps here to

There is this idea among many Afrocentric thinkers that the ancient Greeks "stole" the knowledge and wisdom of the ancient Egyptians and failed to pay homage to the original Master Teachers of Kemet. While it is true that the Greeks were heavily influenced by the philosophy of the ancient Egyptians, to claim that they "stole" this love of wisdom is ludicrous. One cannot steal that which one was taught.

We must remember that the Greeks are the mothers and fathers of western philosophy. Though they learned at the feet of the ancient Egyptian sages, the holistic philosophy of the Egyptians was interpreted through a Greek lens and subsequently became the foundation for modern western thought. The Egyptians (like the ancient Hindu and Taoist philosophical traditions) made no distinction between the so-called branches of philosophy -- to them, metaphysics, epistemology, logic, ethics, aesthetics, etc. were not separate from each other. All came together to form one comprehensive philosophy. The Greeks, on the other hand, can be credited with gravitating toward a different way of thinking, one that sought to break the whole down into separate parts so as to better understand the functions behind the whole.

Both modes of thought have their respective benefits and drawbacks. Indeed, both modes of thought reflect the dualistic nature of reality. On the one hand we have holism, and on the other hand we have reductionism. The former holds that reality is made up of unified wholes that are greater than the simple sum of their parts, while the latter holds that reality can be completely understood in terms of its simpler parts or components.

The fight over ancient Egypt is ultimately a waste of time, because we will never be able to say with 100% certainty what "race" the ancient Egyptians belonged to or anything else of the sort. Such trivial matters do not contribute to gaining a better understanding of the wisdom the Egyptian sages possessed. That being said, there has been a definite attempt by Eurocentric powers to eradicate the idea that Egypt was truly an African civilization. The cover-up should not be attributed to the Greeks, for the Greeks paid homage to their Teachers and their civilization pre-dated the rise of European racism. The cover-up should be attributed to the racist European historians, pseudoscientists, philosophers, and academics of later centuries. While we may never know the "race" of the ancient Egyptians, two things are certain: one, the original people of ancient Egypt (not the current-day "Arab" population) were an indigenous African people, and two, the wisdom of ancient Egypt was inherently African in its conception. One need only study other African philosophical traditions to see the striking similarities between them and the philosophy of the ancient Egyptians.

Now, while it is true that Egypt may have been the greatest African civilization in terms of its sheer power and influence, there were many African civilizations of similar awesomeness. As slaves, black people were made to believe that nothing of value came from Africa (other than Egypt, but they did not associate Egypt with Africa). Today, many black thinkers still possess this mentality, which is why they constantly talk about ancient Egypt forget about west Africa. The fact remains that ancient Egypt is not our immediate ancestral homeland on the African continent. Our immediate homeland on the African continent is the vast stretch of land from Senegambia down to Angola. Contained within this land were many tribes with different customs and traditions, all of which deserve to be studied by Afrocentrists as closely as Egypt is.

Why do we not hold the empires of Ghana, Mali, and Songhai in the same light as Egypt? Do we really believe these empires were not as important? At a time when Europe was wallowing in a dark age, Timbuktu was a center of learning in West Africa. Or how about the Yoruba, whose complex religious and philosophical traditions were carried across the Atlantic and are still practiced today in the Americas? We have a tendency to view anything African that is not Egyptian as somehow less awesome and powerful, and this kind of thinking is a remnant of the slave mentality that was implanted in us so long ago. Even among many Afrocentric thinkers today, Egypt is the only thing of worth to have come out of Africa.

As Afrocentric thinkers in the 21st century, [b]our job is not to cling to old romanticized notions about the origin of black people in the Americas, nor is it to react irrationally to the lies we have been told. Our job is to present our history in a truthful manner, as opposed to the untruthful manner in which our history has been presented to us. And the truth is, black American people come from west and central African peoples. We are the descendants of the kings and queens of the Mali Empire and of the humble Bantu tribes. Egypt was the center of greatness in Africa in all capacities, but we are not Egyptians, and there were many notable and equally great (in their own right) civilizations in our more recent African homelands. Instead of always focusing on Egypt, we should focus on the complex philosophy of tribes like the Yoruba. We should study the empires of Ghana, Mali, and Songhai, all of which thrived during a time when Europe was living in a dark age and Egypt had already fallen to waves of foreign invaders. We should attempt to uncover the knowledge and wisdom of those venerable sages who were our ancestors in West Africa. The philosophy is there, but we have yet to uncover it because of this obsession with Egypt.
[/b]
It is time to shift the focus from Kemet and uncover the rich philosophical and cultural history of other parts of Africa. It is time to stop blaming ancient Greek philosophers for "stealing" the wisdom they were given by the Egyptian sages. It is time for us to emerge into a new field of Africana studies, one that recognizes the impact of the robbery of black and brown people of their knowledge of self but that is able to regain that knowledge.

here is the link: http://www.thinkaboutit-knowaboutit.com/2014/07/greece-philosophy-and-afrocentric.html

Sounds like it was written by a European or a White guy, we already know that Ancient Egyptians were black even white PhD professors have said so, the interesting thing is that Yoruba people and Bini people in Ancient Times dressed like Ancient Egyptians, in Fulani folklore there is a story about some families (Ba, Ka, Diallo, Barry) originating from Egypt (Masri):


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0xOWebVYvw

Todays Egyptians are not completely Arab. They have Egyptian ancestry and traces o fEgyptian culture.

Escpecially, the Saidis.

Fulaman198: Sounds like it was written by a European or a White guy, we already know that Ancient Egyptians were black even white PhD professors have said so, the interesting thing is that Yoruba people and Bini people in Ancient Times dressed like Ancient Egyptians, in Fulani folklore there is a story about some families (Ba, Ka, Diallo, Barry) originating from Egypt (Masri):


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0xOWebVYvw

they both live in a oven of course they are gonna dress similar or lack thereof. there is a lot of similarities between Egypt and SSA. parts of Fulani genes come from north Africa but you guys are mostly west African decent

The ethnogenesis of the Fulani people, however, seems to have begun as a result of interactions between an ancient West African population and a North African population in the areas around the bend of the Niger river. They are people of combined West African as well as North African origin.

Africans and Egyptians dressed exactly the same way - short, intricately designed loin cloths, bare chest adorned with ornamentation.


Benin officials:


Ife kings:
[img]http://beastrabban.files./2014/06/ife-sculpture.jpeg[/img]





Egypt kings:





Pharaoh Tutunkhamun




Ancient Egyptian troops

Rossikk: Africans and Egyptians dressed exactly the same way - short, intricately designed loin cloths, bare chest adorned with ornamentation.

hot climate & not unique to Africa


as i said before Egypt is overrated like Greece.

TerryCarr:
hot climate & not unique to Africa


as i said before Egypt is overrated like Greece.

IMO, Ancient Greece is nit overrated. The philosophy and other scholarship from that civilization is the basis of what we call modern.

zabyx:

IMO, Ancient Greece is nit overrated. The philosophy and other scholarship from that civilization is the basis of what we call modern.

when it comes to democracy it is

TerryCarr:
hot climate & not unique to Africa

The suit is European in origin but not unique to Europe. So what's your point?

Rossikki:
The suit is European in origin but not unique to Europe. So what's your point?

what? wearing little or loose clothing is/was common in a lot of hot climate areas, it makes sense. suits are a product of westernization

@ poster.

The author of the articleis very much right but unfortunately AA have been severly brainwashed to believe that their immediate ancestors contributed nothing to modern or western civilization, therefore they are of no relevance.

This brainwash goes so deep that some groups of AA's that call themselved Black hebrew israelites claim to be non desecneded from Africans but of tribes that existed in and around egypt, despite the fact that a simple DNA test could determine their West.central African origins.

All I can say is SHame!

morpheus24: @ poster.

The author of the articleis very much right but unfortunately AA have been severly brainwashed to believe that their immediate ancestors contributed nothing to modern or western civilization, therefore they are of no relevance.

This brainwash goes so deep that some groups of AA's that call themselved Black hebrew israelites claim to be non desecneded from Africans but of tribes that existed in and around egypt, despite the fact that a simple DNA test could determine their West.central African origins.

All I can say is SHame!

The scope of this mentality goes beyond AAs unfortunately. It's sad that African civilization is now little more than stories in a history book.

PAGAN9JA: Todays Egyptians are not completely Arab. They have Egyptian ancestry and traces o fEgyptian culture.

Escpecially, the Saidis.

Exactly, many Egyptians still carry that "kemetian" element

some months ago, I read they are sick and tired of being identified as Arabs in their own land

macof:

Exactly, many Egyptians still carry that "kemetian" element

some months ago, I read they are sick and tired of being identified as Arabs in their own land

can't say the same for Sudan maybe when bashir falls they will stop killing the "African" blacks

BLOG ARTICLE SAYS:
There is this idea among many Afrocentric thinkers that the ancient Greeks "stole" the knowledge and wisdom of the ancient Egyptians and failed to pay homage to the original Master Teachers of Kemet. While it is true that the Greeks were heavily influenced by the philosophy of the ancient Egyptians, to claim that they "stole" this love of wisdom is ludicrous.

This is obsolete, old news. The "Stolen" argument is from George James circa 1950s, who had some things right like some Egyptian influence (cult of Isis etc for example) but also got some things wrong - when making EXTREME assertions such as ALL Greek philosophy being derived from Egypt. Few of today's main "Afrocentric" thinkers subscribe to any extreme "stolen legacy" argument, despite strawmen in many quarters as to what alleged "Afrocentrics believe." Even Diop back in the day made no much extreme argument for any "stolen legacy" and neither do more recent people like Van Sertima or Asante. They do note that Greece was influenced at various levels by Egypt but they are not going around pushing any extreme "stolen legacy" model.


We must remember that the Greeks are the mothers and fathers of western philosophy. Though they learned at the feet of the ancient Egyptian sages, the holistic philosophy of the Egyptians was interpreted through a Greek lens and subsequently became the foundation for modern western thought.

OK fair enough.


The Greeks, on the other hand, can be credited with gravitating toward a different way of thinking, one that sought to break the whole down into separate parts so as to better understand the functions behind the whole.

^Breaking a whole down into detailed parts for better study of the whole is not a Greek invention. Greeks LABELED their own LOCAL version of this universal analytical process with certain labels, and developed their own spin or take, but the process itself is not a Greek invention


On the one hand we have holism, and on the other hand we have reductionism. The former holds that reality is made up of unified wholes that are greater than the simple sum of their parts, while the latter holds that reality can be completely understood in terms of its simpler parts or components.

This is simplistic when applied to the complexity of human history and culture. Reductionism was elaborated in some Greek quarters but Greeks had plenty of "holistic" models. Hippocrates advocated treating the human body for example as one unity, one physis, and use the concept of the "Four Humors"- with bad health being an "imbalance" of the "humors." The physician's job was to restore holistic harmony. Greek medicine while also applying detailed observation an description and diagnosis as in other traditions, STILL hewed to notions such as "elements" controlling healing, or the efficacy of various gods and goddesses, who were invoked by allegedly "reductionist" physicians. Many Greek gods had healing functions: Apollo, the first deity invoked in the Hippocratic oath; Vulcan, worshipped in Lemnos, gave his healing powers to terra lemmnia, Juno, Jupiter's wife assisted women in childbirth.. In addition some of the gods could cause sudden death: for example, both Apollo and Diana could shoot lethal darts at humans.." [/i]
(--A history of medicine by Plinio Priorescho 2004)



The fight over ancient Egypt is ultimately a waste of time, because we will never be able to say with 100% certainty what "race" the ancient Egyptians belonged to or anything else of the sort.

Wrong. Actually we can say quite specific things, validated by hard modern scholarship.

1) HARD SCHOLARSHIP AND DATA: The ancient Egyptians were indigenous, tropically adapted Africans with features falling within the range of modern Africans. This is proved by numerous lines of evidence- DNA< dental, crania, limb proportion etc. Egypt would change as time went on- the tail end eras saw the coming of Asiatics, Greeks, Romans, Persians, Arabs etc but the notion that "we can't say anything" is dubious. QUOTE:

"There is now a sufficient body of evidence from modern studies of skeletal remains to indicate that the ancient Egyptians, especially southern Egyptians, exhibited physical characteristics that are within the range of variation for ancient and modern indigenous peoples of the Sahara and tropical Africa.. In general, the inhabitants of Upper Egypt and Nubia had the greatest biological affinity to people of the Sahara and more southerly areas.. the physical anthropological evidence indicates that early Nile Valley populations can be identified as part of an African lineage, but exhibiting local variation. This variation represents the short and long term effects of evolutionary forces, such as gene flow, genetic drift, and natural selection."
--Lovell 1999. Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, pp 328-332


2) SOCIAL CONSTRUCT "RACE"- EVEN LEADING EGYPTOLOGISTS SAY IT IS REASONABLE TO SEE EGYPT AS "BLACK"

" Consequently, any characterization of race of the ancient Egyptians depend on modern cultural definitions, not on scientific study. Thus, by modern American standards it is reasonable to characterize the Egyptians as `blacks' [i.e in a social sense] while acknowledging the scientific evidence for the physical diversity of Africans."
--Source: Donald Redford (2001) The Oxford encyclopedia of ancient Egypt, Volume 3. Oxford University Press. p. 27-28



That being said, there has been a definite attempt by Eurocentric powers to eradicate the idea that Egypt was truly an African civilization. The cover-up should not be attributed to the Greeks, for the Greeks paid homage to their Teachers and their civilization pre-dated the rise of European racism. The cover-up should be attributed to the racist European historians, pseudoscientists, philosophers, and academics of later centuries.

OK, agreed.


While we may never know the "race" of the ancient Egyptians,

Actually we do know quite a bit- whether "race" is seen as a social construct/label, or whether it is defined by things such as limb proportions. Either way, if race is being argued then they were "black." If "race" is not argued, then we can say they were indigenous Africans closely related to other tropical Africans, and latterly, to other later Middle Eastern and European groups- Persians, Hyksos, Arabs etc.


two things are certain: one, the original people of ancient Egypt (not the current-day "Arab" population) were an indigenous African people, and two, the wisdom of ancient Egypt was inherently African in its conception. One need only study other African philosophical traditions to see the striking similarities between them and the philosophy of the ancient Egyptians.

^^On some counts, true. Egyptian religion for example derives from nearby African religious traditions in the Sudan and other NE African and Saharan areas.




Today, many black thinkers still possess this mentality, which is why they constantly talk about ancient Egypt forget about west Africa. The fact remains that ancient Egypt is not our immediate ancestral homeland on the African continent. Our immediate homeland on the African continent is the vast stretch of land from Senegambia down to Angola. Contained within this land were many tribes with different customs and traditions, all of which deserve to be studied by Afrocentrists as closely as Egypt is.

There are few black thinkers who forget about West Africa. SOME have focused on the Nile Valley, but book shelves groan with black scholarship on West Africa. Furthermore why should the notion of "our homeland" be confined to Western and central Africa? What happened to East and North Africa, or Suth? Isn't that our heritage too? While SOME Egypto-centric enthusiasts have gone overboard, they are no worse than white Egypto- enthusiasts, who have plundered and appropriated Egyptian culture with abandon. Just check the US dollar bill or numerous European art and architectural styles. White people are the most greedy and grasping appropriators of Egypt of all time- just look at their museums, and the plunder accumulated over the decades. There was once even a thriving industry in the flesh of Egyptian mummies in white Europe for medicinal purposes as scholars of "medical cannibalism" document.

The notion that black folk should "confine themselves" to West Africa is not similarly applied to white people. Northern white Europeans for example typically claim the WHOLE continent of Europe as their heritage and are quite happy to embrace "the glory that was Greece." How come when a black man shows up then the conversation changes? Why the double standard?


Why do we not hold the empires of Ghana, Mali, and Songhai in the same light as Egypt? Do we really believe these empires were not as important?

Agreed as to SOME Egypto-enthusiasts, but it is by no means certain that black folk slight the empires of Ghana, Mali, and Songhai in favor of Egypt. Far from it. Indeed the OPPOSITE may be the case. In fact the "Afro" movement of the 1960s, complete with blacks adopting African names, specifically favored NON- Egyptian African areas. Stokeley Carmichal took a West African name- he wasn't going round taking bout "Tutankhamen." Malcolm X took a Muslim name, not an Egyptian one. Muhammed Ali didn't style hisself 'Ramses". Kwanza draws on East African languages and West African harvest traditions- not hymns to Osiris or Isis. In short, African people, including black Americans have not given Egypt any special cultural place over and above other parts of Africa.


We have a tendency to view anything African that is not Egyptian as somehow less awesome and powerful, and this kind of thinking is a remnant of the slave mentality that was implanted in us so long ago. Even among many Afrocentric thinkers today, Egypt is the only thing of worth to have come out of Africa.

^^This is so among SOME enthusiasts but can hardly be credible applied to most black scholars or most black people as detailed above.


Our job is to present our history in a truthful manner, as opposed to the untruthful manner in which our history has been presented to us.

Agreed.


And the truth is, black American people come from west and central African peoples. We are the descendants of the kings and queens of the Mali Empire and of the humble Bantu tribes. Egypt was the center of greatness in Africa in all capacities, but we are not Egyptians, and there were many notable and equally great (in their own right) civilizations in our more recent African homelands.

^^People should not forget 3 things:

(1) while West Africa is part of our background it is only ONE part. ALL of Africa is our heritage. Confining black folk to West Africa plays into Eurocentric hands and Eurocentric propaganda. ALL of it is ours, not just white "approved" parts.

(2) Most black Americans do not give Egypt any special place above West Africa. Kwanza for example ain't about divine kings and pharaohs. Radical "Afro" movements and leaders ain't rushing to Egypt for inspiration over and above Mali, Ghana etc..

(3) One of the most dynamic "black" cultures outside Egyptian culture, was NON West African- namely the kingdom of Kush which conquered Egypt. But even aside from this conquest, the people that are ethnically the closest to Ancient Egyptians are not Arabs, Europeans or assorted "Middle Easterners" but-- wait for it-- Nubians- based like Kush, in what is now the Sudan. Why should black people ignore THIS part of their heritage because it is not in the "approved" West African area? Kush was a "sub-Saharan" entity - a fact obscured by the southern spread of the desert over centuries and had with trade and admin links south of the Saharan line. So why should black folk not study Kush, but white Europeans get a free hand to study Greece, Rome and everywhere else? How come a black man has to stay behind some cultural or historical "apartheid" line? I address this latter point to the Eurocentric minded among us.

[img]http://3.bp..com/-Ccn2uRZkObw/VA-y44JMzLI/AAAAAAAABOI/ioOYfW-xtgA/s1600/kush_subsaharan_sm.jpg[/img]


Instead of always focusing on Egypt, we should focus on the complex philosophy of tribes like the Yoruba. We should study the empires of Ghana, Mali, and Songhai, all of which thrived during a time when Europe was living in a dark age and Egypt had already fallen to waves of foreign invaders.

Who says there is this giant focus on Egypt and who says we don't already study Ghana, Mali or Songhai? gets a lot of press because aside from any preference, Egypt is/was a BIG dog in antiquity and with its writing system, left massive amounts of documentation in place. Egypt cannot be ignored just for these simple facts. In fact failure to study it at some level would be neglect on the part of blacks.


We should attempt to uncover the knowledge and wisdom of those venerable sages who were our ancestors in West Africa. The philosophy is there, but we have yet to uncover it because of this obsession with Egypt.

Sure we need more on West Africa. But who says obsession with Egypt has prevented that? White people are obsessed with Egypt, even plundering the tombs of the dead, but they still pay attention to other European parts. Black folk likewise are not ignoring West Africa in favor of Egypt. Both tracks can be worked at the same time.


It is time to shift the focus from Kemet and uncover the rich philosophical and cultural history of other parts of Africa. It is time to stop blaming ancient Greek philosophers for "stealing" the wisdom they were given by the Egyptian sages. It is time for us to emerge into a new field of Africana studies, one that recognizes the impact of the robbery of black and brown people of their knowledge of self but that is able to regain that knowledge.

If we should focus on other parts of Africa outside Kemet, why should we neglect the Sudan, or Ethiopia, or the south, in favor of West Africa? Something contradictory there.. And Who says black folk are not doing this already? As shown above, there is no big obsession with Egypt among black people. If anything, white people show more obsession with Egypt, and their "Egytomania" spans millennia. As far back as Greek and Roman times, whites were removing artifacts from Egypt to display in Europe. In medieval times, whites were cannibalizing the dead flesh of Egyptian mummies. Who has a bigger obsession than whites on this score?

And there never was a big movement as regards any "stolen legacy" teachings. SOME articulate advocates made some noise, but even old line Afrocentric thinkers like Diop never put much emphasis on any extreme "stolen legacy" claim. We have to be careful not to buy into Eurocentric STRAWMEN on this score, and remember that ALL of Africa is our heritage, and we don't need "approval" or "clearance" from Eurocentrics, Arabists, Egyptianists, Islamists or anyone else to study and enjoy ALL of it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[img]http:///a/img545/3458/fnzk.jpg[/img]

FINALLY, keep in mind that Africa is the groundings, the genesis, the beginning. Egypt is a child of Africa, along with Mali, Songhai, etc. Egypt grows out of the Nile Basin which touches 10% of Africa- even parts of West-Central Africa, and the Sahara, which is a Pan African entity from west to east. The Sahara gave birth to Egypt just as it gave birth to the civilization of West Africa. Egypt cannot be separated from the REST of Africa.

Black folk studying West Africa cannot view it in isolation. It is part of a larger whole. Africa is the mother of all the indigenous civilizations hence we embrace ALL of it, not just West Africa. The flow is not from Egypt to the rest of Africa, but from Africa TO Egypt and all the others. ALL of it must be studies and appreciated, for Africa is the foundation. Just some examples of why Egypt cannot be separated out- per scholars:

".. but his [Frankfort's] frequent citations from African ethnography- over 60 are listed in the index- demonstrate that there is a powerful resonance between recent African concepts and practice on one hand, and ancient Egyptian kingship and religion on the other.."

Rowlands (Chapter 4) provides much additional evidence suggesting that 'sub-Saharan Africa and Ancient Egypt share certain commonalities in substantiative images and ideas, yet whose cultural forms display differences consistent with perhaps millennia of historical divergence and institutionalization'.

"First, kingship in Egypt was 'the channel through which the powers of nature flowed into the body politic to bring human endeavour to fruition' and thus was closely analogous to the widespread African belief that 'chieftains entertain closer relationship with the powers in nature than other men' (Frankfort 1948: 33, ch. 2). Second, the Egyptian king's metaphorical identification as an all powerful bull who tramples his enemies and inseminates his cow-mother to achieve regeneration was derived from Egyptian ideas and beliefs abut cattle for which best parallels can be found in some, but not all, recent African societies.."

"Like the chiefs discussed by Rowlands, the king combines 'life giving forces with the power to kill" (Rowlands, CHaptr 4:52). Overall, this Egyptian concept of kingship, so akin to African models, seems very different to that held in the ancient Near East (Frankfort 1948; Postgate 1995)"

"In conclusion, there is a relative abundance of ancient materials relevant to contact and influence, as well as striking correlations between ancient Egyptian civilization and the ethnography of recent and current sub-Saharan communities, chiefdoms and states... Perhaps the fact that commonalities do exist suggests that, because of great time depth and different organization, these commonalities may result from inherently African processes."

--David O'Connor, Andrew Reid (2007) ANCIENT EGYPT IN AFRICA. pp 15-22

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"These linguistic similarities place ancient
Egyptian in a close relationship with
languages spoken today as far west as
Chad, and as far south as Somalia.
Archaeological evidence also strongly
supports an African origin. A widespread
northeastern African cultural assemblage,
including distinctive multiple barbed
harpoons and pottery decorated with
dotted wavy line patterns, appears during
the early Neolithic (also known as the
Aqualithic, a reference to the mild
climate of the Sahara at this time).
Saharan and Sudanese rock art from this
time resembles early Egyptian
iconography. Strong connections
between Nubian (Sudanese) and
Egyptian material culture continue in
later Neolithic Badarian culture of Upper
Egypt. Similarities include black-topped
wares, vessels with characteristic
ripple-burnished surfaces, a special
tulip-shaped vessel with incised and
white-filled decoration, palettes, and
harpoons...

"Other ancient Egyptian practices show
strong similarities to modern African
cultures including divine kingship, the
use of headrests, body art, circumcision,
and male coming-of-age rituals, all
suggesting an African substratum or
foundation for Egyptian civilization.."

-- Source: Donald Redford (2001) The
Oxford encyclopedia of ancient Egypt,
Volume 3. Oxford University Press. p.28

kingston277:

The scope of this mentality goes beyond AAs unfortunately. It's sad that African civilization is now little more than stories in a history book.

This is not so. In fact, African civilization is a recognized and worthy field of study pursued by serious scholars, over and above the Egyptian piece that is part of Africa. As noted above, most AAs do not have much obsession with Egypt to the neglect of West Africa. Keep in mind also that Egypt is part of the Nile Basin which covers up to 11 African countries and up to 10% of the African continent, even slicing into the Congo region and a bit of West Africa. Then there is the Sahara, also a "pan African" entity that gave birth to not only Egypt but the Saharan/Sahelian kingdoms of West Africa like Mali. Black folk cannot credibly claim to be studying their history while ignoring such connections, and how they shaped Africa's peoples.

Serious scholarship is expanding our knowledge every day. Big Dogs get more press than smaller dogs. The EMpire of Mali gets more press than the forest kingdoms of West Africa because it was bigger, wealthier and left more documentation behind. Likewise other areas of Africa aren't being neglected just to neglect them or because of inferiority "complexes." There are real problems with documentation and money for research. If one million is available to study small scale coastal fishermen versus ancient Ghana's gold mines or army, most of the money is gonna go to the big dog- Ghana. Evidence and research has to be done, and as can be seen, this is a lot more than stories.

[img]http://1.bp..com/-QjhHlXsmKKY/U_LDXjnVLXI/AAAAAAAABJg/WGWWrP68RM4/s1600/data_nile_river_basin.jpg[/img]

This are all mistakes, egypt, israel, arabia oo, all this places we are talking, we own everything, the earth, mars, jupita, pluto, the universe, we own it all and created them all. The Black people on earth are The Ancient of Days. There is no beginning, no one can say this is the blackman's beginning and also there is no ending to the blackman. the only person or people that will see the end of the universe is the blackman. after that another light will spark! and from the darkness of all blackness of the universe, the blackman will emerge again. it is infinite, no ending to us. All praises are due to ALLAH alone.

Zarahanair:


This is not so. In fact, African civilization is a recognized and worthy field of study pursued by serious scholars, over and above the Egyptian piece that is part of Africa. As noted above, most AAs do not have much obsession with Egypt to the neglect of West Africa. Keep in mind also that Egypt is part of the Nile Basin which covers up to 11 African countries and up to 10% of the African continent, even slicing into the Congo region and a bit of West Africa. Then there is the Sahara, also a "pan African" entity that gave birth to not only Egypt but the Saharan/Sahelian kingdoms of West Africa like Mali. Black folk cannot credibly claim to be studying their history while ignoring such connections, and how they shaped Africa's peoples.

I was emphasizing that many still do. There is indeed alot of research going on across the continent, especially by Africans themselves. Ancient Egypt praise is always louder despite the discoveries.

Zarahanair:

Serious scholarship is expanding our knowledge every day. Big Dogs get more press than smaller dogs. The EMpire of Mali gets more press than the forest kingdoms of West Africa because it was bigger, wealthier and left more documentation behind. Likewise other areas of Africa aren't being neglected just to neglect them or because of inferiority "complexes." There are real problems with documentation and money for research. If one million is available to study small scale coastal fishermen versus ancient Ghana's gold mines or army, most of the money is gonna go to the big dog- Ghana. Evidence and research has to be done, and as can be seen, this is a lot more than stories.

[img]http://1.bp..com/-QjhHlXsmKKY/U_LDXjnVLXI/AAAAAAAABJg/WGWWrP68RM4/s1600/data_nile_river_basin.jpg[/img]

This in particular is another negative about modern archaeology that I've been complaining about:
https://www.nairaland.com/189030/african-script
Even the smaller kingdoms left documentation in several forms such as Aroko and Nsibidi, but many historians refuse to acknowledge these forms of documentation as a source of information.

KINGSTON said:
This in particular is another negative about modern archaeology that I've been complaining about:
https://www.nairaland.com/189030/african-script
Even the smaller kingdoms left documentation in several forms such as Aroko and Nsibidi, but many historians refuse to acknowledge these forms of documentation as a source of information.

I agree actually- but would only point out that it is inevitable that the big dogs will get more press. I would also agree that we need more research on the smaller areas. Do you have anything more on Nsibidi writing, especially on its origins? From your link, it seems that Nsibidi is an indigenous writing from that was around BEFORE the Arabs showed up. If youe link is combined with other data it seems some of the symbols used go back a long way, centuries before. If this is correct, and Nisibidi writing has been conveying meaning and ideas, then the old claim that sub-Saharan Africa had to wait for Arabs to show up to get writing is completely wrong. I see this wrong on 3 counts:

1) The kingdom of Kush is a "sub-Saharan" entity- the first great empire in SUB-SAHARAN Africa, a fact obscured by the southward movement of the desert, making people once "sub-Saharan", NON sub-Saharan as the decades passed. But Kush had trade and admin links well south into the Sudan, and the Kushites had their own writing system, an alphabetic one in place long before the Muslim era, and quite different from Egyptian hieroglyphics. But even before that elements of Egyptian-influenced script were in place going back to 700-500 BC, also long before any Arabs showed up. QUOTE:

"Kush conquered Egypt in the 8th century B.C., and ruled it for several decades. The Kushitic civilization flourished following the rise to ascendancy of Meroe as the capital city, starting in the 6th century B.C. The sophistication of Kush was reflected in its impressive stone architecture, irrigation systems, a large iron industry, its own script, and a well developed sense of nationhood. The first great empire of Africa south of the Sahara experienced its greatest development during the final three centuries B.C. Its collapse about A.D. 300 seems to have been precipitated by the decline of its agricultural base wing to soil exhaustion, and of its iron industry owing to the over-exploitation of forests for charcoal."
--Robert stock (2012). Africa South of the Sahara, Third Edition: A Geographical Interpretation. 171

2) Ethiopia is "sub Saharan" and also had its own writing system in the Auxumite era- again long before any Arabs showed up.

3) Add in the Nsibidi writing you mention and again, Arabs were not needed to bring writing to West Africa. Indigenous Nsibidi, if confirmed to go back to earlier centuries, (400AD is the date given by one scholar- Slogar 2005, 2007) would give West Africa also, alongside East and NE Africa an indigenous writing system before the Muslim era in West Africa. Early forms [of Nsibidi] apparently appeared on excavated pottery as well as what are most likely ceramic stools and headrests from the Calabar region, with a range of dates from between 400 and 1400 CE.

(Slogar, Christopher (Spring 2007). "Early ceramics from Calabar, Nigeria: Towards a history of Nsibidi.". African Arts (University of California) 40 (1): 18–29; Slogar, Christopher (2005). Eyo, Ekpo, ed. Iconography and Continuity in West Africa: Calabar Terracottas and the Arts of the Cross River Region of Nigeria/Cameroon (PDF). University of Maryland. pp. 58–62.)
=====================================================

Per one reference on Nsibidi it was not simply religious or secret society pictograms but a writing system conveying everyday meaning- from court cases to messages in wartime. QUOTE:

"However, such systems are also found in areas where Muslim influence has been less strong or is unlikely. Thus, among the Ashanti and other Akan-speaking peoples of Ghana and Cote D'Ivorie, where gold was of great political, economic and symbolic significance, many goldweights bore signs that indicated their precise ponderal value; other signs corresponded to proverbs, while others represented concepts (for example, certain aspects of the Supreme Being). The nsibidi system of the Ekoi, Igbo and Ibibio peoples of the Cross River area of present-day Nigeria used over a thousand signs to represent a considerable number of concepts as well as some sounds. Nsibidi was used to record court cases and convey complex messages, including warnings in wartime, and for summarizing folktales and personal narratives; its pictograms thus constituted a true writing system. As with the Malian systems of graphic signs, knowledge of nsibidi was often acquired within the initiation societies, but unlike the Malian ones, nsibidi signs were often tattooed on the body or dramatically enacted through gestures."
--Kevin Shllingford (2004) "Literacy and Indigenous Scripts: Pre-colonial West Africa" - Encyclopedia of African History


We need to study ALL of Africa and its developments I am sure you agree. NE Africa is just as 'African" as the Guinea Coast. And I agree that there are some people out there caught up in fantasy "Egyptomania" just like the Europeans, who have been the most massive appropriators and copiers of all time- as far as things Egyptian. Bottom line is that African Americans do not need "clearance" from these people anymore, and don't need approval from today's Arabized Egyptians either to study and comment on the Nile Valley. We don't need no badges like the Mexican guy said in the old movie.

We just need to keep building up our own base- our own thing. People should do their own research- Go to Google books and harvest info like that above. I see cats relying on Wikipedia but Wikipedia while sometimes having some useful info is crawling with embedded Eurocentric moles and Administrator collaborators editing out and blockading good, balanced scholarship on Africa. A network of blogs and sites like Nairaland and Egyptsearch is essential for end-running and defeating them- a process that is already well underway and is yielding success with good Google representation, These efforts need to be multiplied. While the moles "guard" obsolete, BS WIki pages, other sites are yielding much more accurate, balanced info. People should harvest as much as they can from multiple sources on Africa, and put it out there on the web like our Nsibidi info.

However we also need to have good evidence and scholarship operating. Too often cats are just relying on sheer speculation an assertion, or using mostly obsolete data from 40 years ago, or taking fragmentary theories and announcing them as the final word on everything, rather than recognizing them as theories that might change. I still run into cats taking bout magical levitation built the pyramids, or "incoming Caucasoids" or "Middle Easterners", as if Africans could not do the ordinary (and advanced) engineering or math necessary. We don't rely on any self-esteem fluff either - which is also a strawman Eurocentrics love to use to dismiss or downplay solid African data. "Self-esteem" is irrelevant- hard data is what counts. We have the hard data, scholarship and science on hand now, with more coming every day, to truly place Africa at the center- whether it be Egyptian Nile Valley, Kush, Nile Basin, Sahara or other parts and cultures.