Atigba:


Have you carried out my assignment Awori girl.

TAO11:


The assignment I gave you, you meant?

Atigba:


The one I gave you

goodnessme1:
My question is where oduduwa from.

TAO11:


Are you on a lying spree?

Dasuks:
This is a very sad assertion. There's nothing new about African ppls from the Berbers in the north to us here in the sub saharan space trying to fit our genealogies into scripturally endorsed Semitic and other Eastern lines.

Problem is that we eliminate our self worth with this gibberish, because all of a sudden it becomes the indicator of value and the lens of legitimacy. We do not see value in our Niger Valley ancestry but rather will go the long mile to associate/famz ourselves with these more historically approved peoples. Nobody is claiming Nok and wearing it proudly!!!

Same for the other stories of different tribal ancestors coming from Mecca, Nubia, Israel, Egypt etc we keep putting ourselves down by insisting on these myths as a thing of pride. At the same time ppl from these lands dont rate us and do ot need to fit themselves into our own stories and myths. Man came from Africa. Oldest fossils are found in sub saharan Africa and yet the world never sees it fit to frame theit heritage from the base of Africa.... lol. Even with evidence.

Meanwhile the migration patterns that would be needed to prove all these flimsy stories isn't even strong enough to engender further engagement/study by scholars. Yet we still claim..

The Jews that some ppl claim to be descended from came from Mesopotamia ( both in the Abraham myth and fact) but would never use that as a basis of worth. Instead they are Jews and are so because they are themselves. No talk about thier ancestors being Chaldeans or Sumerians .

Not even during the Babylonian exile did they acquiesce to see themselves thru the Mesopotamian frame... let's learn from that.

meccuno:
[s]hell fire. He is actually a fallen demon.[/s]

Dasuks:
This is a very sad assertion. There's nothing new about African ppls from the Berbers in the north to us here in the sub saharan space trying to fit our genealogies into scripturally endorsed Semitic and other Eastern lines.

Problem is that we eliminate our self worth with this gibberish, because all of a sudden it becomes the indicator of value and the lens of legitimacy. We do not see value in our Niger Valley ancestry but rather will go the long mile to associate/famz ourselves with these more historically approved peoples. Nobody is claiming Nok and wearing it proudly!!!

Same for the other stories of different tribal ancestors coming from Mecca, Nubia, Israel, Egypt etc we keep putting ourselves down by insisting on these myths as a thing of pride. At the same time ppl from these lands dont rate us and do ot need to fit themselves into our own stories and myths. Man came from Africa. Oldest fossils are found in sub saharan Africa and yet the world never sees it fit to frame theit heritage from the base of Africa.... lol. Even with evidence.

Meanwhile the migration patterns that would be needed to prove all these flimsy stories isn't even strong enough to engender further engagement/study by scholars. Yet we still claim..

The Jews that some ppl claim to be descended from came from Mesopotamia ( both in the Abraham myth and fact) but would never use that as a basis of worth. Instead they are Jews and are so because they are themselves. No talk about thier ancestors being Chaldeans or Sumerians .

Not even during the Babylonian exile did they acquiesce to see themselves thru the Mesopotamian frame... let's learn from that.

TAO11:


You nailed it.


I like to add that although the persistent attempt by some to force the idea of "Eastern" origins (i.e. Egyptian Israeli, Meccan, Nubian, etc.) upon ourselves is degrading and embarrasing; it is however very important that the reject of such historical attempts should not be extended to mean an absolute disconnect and unrelatedness of these peoples and us.

It is undeniable that there is some very strong connection between certain sub-Saharan Africa civilization and the "Eastern" one.

(i) The writing on the Oranmiyan Obelisk (a stone monument of antiquity found in Ife) not only shows that writing is known among the Yoruba people, it also clearly and undebatably reminiscent of "Eastern" writing.

(ii) Another fact which came to mind is a piece of historical fact about a certain Ile-Ife born Shango.

This very early Shango from Ile-Ife (after whom the much later Shango Alaafin of Oyo was named) is noted in an, ancient Coptic text (first translated in Paris in the year 1666), to have ruled as King over the Kush kingdom.

In fact, some historians have argued that the great "Eastern" civilizations are products of certain ancient West-Afican civilizations and not the other way round. The foregoing piece of historical fact seems to strongly suggest that.


In sum, while it is very very correct that we must be proud of our "independent" Nok "origin", we are actually not unrelated to the "Eastern" civilizations. I strongly agree with the scholarly view that these "Eastern" civilizations are actually a product of some ancient Western.

In fact, to maintain and disconnectedness and unrelatedness would be very problematic.

TAO11:


Another information in your comment which caught my attention is your idea to the effect that Abraham is mythical.


Do you have any piece of evidence/proof whatsoever for this assertion?

Cheers!

Dasuks:


Sis I def see your point. We are connected. Tho I'd argue that it is in a primordial sorta way. The first settlers along the Nile would've looked like us. And ofc native ppls of Egypt and other parts of northeast Africa would most likely be kin to our ancestors.

However, those civilizations came to be more so Mediterranean and Red Sea focused that their subsequent devt over the millenia brings them more into the same bracket as southwest Asian civilizations. For example from like 4000 BC Near Eastern ppls were already part of the leadership in Lower Egypt and what not. After native dynasties which in themselves were also mediteeranean oriented there was Assyrian Babylonian Persian Greek then Roman and then Arab dominance of most of Egypt/ Northern Africa. Phoenicians dominated the northwest corner and although we probably share kin with early Berbers our imprint for the most part isn't there anymore.

Materially we cant connect our present day tribal agglomerations to any of these places in a significant way. Chances are theres a common Igbo-Yoruba-etc ancestor that shares kinship with earlier Nile/Nubia peoples and not a specific tribal link... and then if we are to acknowledge that then we might as well acknowledge the actual ancestral similarities between our groups here.

You see there's all these gymnastics to link with Mecca or Israel or Egypt and not with ourselves.

what pains me is the fact that ppl there dont regard us or our history ss much. And in fact would make demarcations for what history truly matters. For eg Greco-Roman Egypt is what is really studied and then the dynasties with a sprinkling of Persian and Mesopotamian gist here and there. Nothing of African roots. Very convenient telling of the narrative.

So in that vein I am just naturally predisposed to view these claims with a grain of salt and no seriousness at all. We are supposed to be approved by such relationships first. If not we r just Africans with no real value.

TAO11:


Thank you for replying.

I was trying to caution against an extreme point to which people are often driven by enthusiasm while they themselves try to caution against another extreme view. Lol.

Just as I agree that it is an extreme view to argue to such literal effect as "We Igbos are Israelites" or "We Yorubas are Meccans or Egyptinas"; I was also trying to caution against another extreme view such as "We are simply unrelated to these 'Eastern' civilzations".

I am glad to see your clarification show you to have a balanced view, rather than tilt to the latter extreme view in an attempt to flee the former extreme view. Lol

Cheers!

Dasuks:


I practice Abrahamic religions so I believe in the covenant and Abraham being a real person. I meant the aspect of an origin narrative built around a person for which we have no strong objective evidence.

So of course you wont find any real artefacts or proof of the actual man in his time. And his significance is beyond human at this point. Hence my use of the term mythical. But yeah.. I'm not particular about that point.

TAO11:


I like to recap the essential aspects of your comment here just to be double sure that you're not being misrepresented:

(i) You believe that Abraham is a real human beign.

(ii) You noted that there is NOT a single shred of archaeological find which supports Abraham as being a historical reality.

(iii) It is from this second point that you concluded that Abraham is a mythical figure.


If these foregoing three points do not misrepresent your comment, then I like to humbly ask how these points does not suggest cognitive dissonance ---- I ask this in the most respectful manner and in the spirit of curiosity, with absolutely no undertone of rudeness and disrespect.


Having said that, I like to quickly add that we should be very wary of falling for the argumentum ex silentio logical fallacy. Your conclusion of mythology in point (iii) on the basis of point (ii) seems to clearly express this fallacy. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, we should be aware of that.


However, the so-called "critical problem" which historians have long grappled with is no more than the agelong attempt to situate Abraham within an historical timeline.

This "critical problem" was since, after the World War 1, resolved by bringing archaeology to bear on the issue.

Archaeological research into the problem made enormous strides with the discovery of monuments and documents which date back to the period assigned to the patriarchs (Abraham included) in the traditional accounts.

The achaeological researches uncovered the royal palace at Mari, ancient city of the Eupherates where thousands of cuineform tablets containing official archives and correspondences, and religious judicial texts; which paved way for the situation of Abraham in a historical timeline; were found.

In other words, contrary to what many believe, it is not true that "you wont find any real artefacts or proof of the actual man in his time."

Refer for some more details to the entry "Abraham" in Encyclopaedia Britannica.

Cheers!

Dasuks:



Lol no dissonance here. My faith is inside. I believe in the symbolism, stories and in the words literally.

If Im not mistaken I think much of what is there points to the events and state of geopolitics in the Near east and Mesopotamia at that time. Eg Mari and all the other cities of the Chaldeans Akkadians etc.

I've seen that bit before and it's more about showing that the narratives in the Bible fit with real events. However in Mari or any other valley city you wouldn't see a anything specifically refering to our Abraham. It's more info about govt events wars and the hegemonic priest-kings.

Either way Abraham is a non royal from 5000 years ago, so I dont expect to find the ruins of his house or his memoirs and the like. Im just pointing out that a non Abrahamic adherent would have enough grounds to discount him as a myth. Sufficient ground. Tho I'd still disagree with such a person, I would be forced to acknowledge the basis of their view.

This is interesting. From ur profile I thought u were more of a Yoruba/Benin traditionalist. Funny to see u take me up on the Abraham part lol.

All good tho.

TAO11:


Isn't that precisely what cognitive dissonance actually is? --- holding on to "incosistent, thoughts, beleifs, or attitudes".

Yes, the archaeological discoveries I was particularly alluding to points to events in the Near East, but specifically in relation to the partriach Abraham, et al.

Some of the relevant statements under the subheading "The Critical Problem of A "Biography" of Abraham" reads:

"... Several theses were advanced to explain the narratives --- e.g., that the patriarchs were mythical beings or the personification of tribes or folkloric or ecological (explanatory) figures ... However, after World War I, archaeological research made enormous strides ... Thus, there are two main sources for reconstruction the figure of father Abraham: (the most recent of which is) recent archaeological discoveries ..."

Refer here for the details: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Abraham


Having said that: To the non-Abrahamic adherent who is tempted to discount Abraham as mythical because of an assumed absence of evidence (even though the reality says otherwise); I would say, like I have said before, that:

Such conclusion is invalid and fallacious (even if their "no-evidence" assumption were to be true).

Such conclusion expresses a logical fallacy know in argumentation as argumentum exsilentio.

Again, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

But even as has been shown, there is some piece of hard evidence.


Lastly on my profile: Yes I am a Yoruba, completely and unapologetically.

However, my Yorubaness does not have to conform to what someone else insists that Yorubaness should be.

For me, God is one and the same, and unchanging. He is absolute. How different people and religions have, over time, viewed and understood him, changes absolutely nothing about him.

Cheers!

Dasuks:


I see your angle but then you know you're more accepting to the evidence that favors your own stance of the patriarchs being literal figures.

Mind you Im of the same opinion. But we can't outrightly refute the other side.

Abraham I believe was a Mesopotamian wise man and tribal peader of what would become the Jews. But then we can say for sure.

I mentioned the profile part cos I almost thought u were more of a Yemoja or Orisha adherent.

All the same on this point let's agree to disagree.

Dasuks:
This is a very sad assertion. There's nothing new about African ppls from the Berbers in the north to us here in the sub saharan space trying to fit our genealogies into scripturally endorsed Semitic and other Eastern lines.

Problem is that we eliminate our self worth with this gibberish, because all of a sudden it becomes the indicator of value and the lens of legitimacy. We do not see value in our Niger Valley ancestry but rather will go the long mile to associate/famz ourselves with these more historically approved peoples. Nobody is claiming Nok and wearing it proudly!!!

Same for the other stories of different tribal ancestors coming from Mecca, Nubia, Israel, Egypt etc we keep putting ourselves down by insisting on these myths as a thing of pride. At the same time ppl from these lands dont rate us and do ot need to fit themselves into our own stories and myths. Man came from Africa. Oldest fossils are found in sub saharan Africa and yet the world never sees it fit to frame theit heritage from the base of Africa.... lol. Even with evidence.

Meanwhile the migration patterns that would be needed to prove all these flimsy stories isn't even strong enough to engender further engagement/study by scholars. Yet we still claim..

The Jews that some ppl claim to be descended from came from Mesopotamia ( both in the Abraham myth and fact) but would never use that as a basis of worth. Instead they are Jews and are so because they are themselves. No talk about thier ancestors being Chaldeans or Sumerians .

Not even during the Babylonian exile did they acquiesce to see themselves thru the Mesopotamian frame... let's learn from that.

igbodefender:

Lol. Kindly correct the errors in the 'sentence' below before we can start talking about intellectual grades.