10 Facts That Clear Up Confusion Around What Exactly Is an Arab

[Swagnificent]

Actually there are some VERY early text describing the Arabs as "black" and with dark skin. But are they related to Africans? I don't know.

based simply on language, they are related to africans. arabic is a semitic langauge that is part of the larger afro-asiatic family. and other than semetic, all the other languages in the afro-asiatic family are indigenous to africa. so the question of whether they are related to africans is null and void. the arabic language is part of the AFRICAN family of languages.

 

[J-Nice]

I'll just drop this here for people to read
http://www.academia.edu/2326496/The...f_its_Reflection_in_the_Archaeological_Record

 

[MaLi]

If posters can get passed their disdain for all things Islam or NOI, there are important references and proofs from NON Islamic scholars from all backgrounds in this debate .




A debate between 2 BLACK scholars representing Ma'at and Islam. I dont expect the full debate to be watched as it concentrates on religion, but the points and proofs can be applied to this thread.
Ill mark the parts that pertain to this thread. Both scholars give references so we can look it up ourselves and come to our own conclusions.


18:00-19:00
Who were the first Muslims? This is from the perspective of the Chinese Tang dynasty.

19:20-23:00
Who were the first Muslims? Sadeq Hedayat. an Iranian/Persian historian and nationalist speaks on it. He hated Islam, and hated Arabs. He blamed Islam and Arabs for "destroying pure Iranian identity" during the invasion in 640 ad

24:00-26:25
Who are the Black Arabs?
Grafton Elliot Smith, an early Egyptologist speaks on who the original Arabs are. His views on east Africans are probably rooted in scientific racism, but that doesnt take away from him grouping the Arabs together with east Africans. Today, we know that east Africans are not "dark skinned caucasians" , but simply part of the diverse phenotype of the original man/Africans. This is where AFROASIATICS come from.

26:15-27:00
And if he's too "white" or "racist" of a source, we can take it to the great one, Dr. Chek Anta Diop to clarify:
" I have demonstrated in my earlier books, the biological and cultural kinship between Arabs and Black Africans, a kinship so old that it goes back to the 5th millennium BC, and the beginning of the 4th with the birth of the Semetic world".

27:05-29:05
Lets give the sisters some shine. Anthropologist, Dana Reynolds Marniche gives her take. "A people who once occupied Egypt, who affiliated with the east African stock, and who now speak the Hametic or Semetic languages...In the days of Muhammad, in the Roman colonization of Palestine, North Arabia and Africa, the term 'Arab' was much more than a nationality, it specifically referred to peoples whos appearance, customs, and languages, were the same as the nomadic peoples on the African side of the Red Sea. The evidence of linguistics, archaeology, physical remains, and ethno-history support the observations and descriptions we find in the histories of Greeks, Romans, and later Iranian documents about the nomadic Arabians of the early era..."

29:30-29:50
Quote from the Great Dr. Henry Clarke links North East Africa and West Asia.

I cant support Dr. Wesley using the rift from 5-6 millions years ago as evidence for modern support of Black Arabians. BUT if you want to talk evolution, adaptation, and its affects on the original people of these areas, its obvious that the original people would not have such phenotypical differences due to the similarities in climate (Yemen, Ethiopia, Somalia) and vegetation (which results in animals and foods consumed by humans).

32:45-33:25
Heres a book by sister Drusilla Houston 'Wonderful Ethiopians of the Ancient Cushyte Empire', and quote supporting the Ancient Cushytes in Arabia.

33:30-34:25
Brother Dr. Charles Finch gives some insight: "It has been customary to separate the Near East from Africa. Ethno-culturally though, in the light of increasing Neolithic evidence, it is perhaps more nearly correct to consider the lands between Khartoun in the south, and Tigris-Euphrates in the north, as constituting one broad horizon in the period between 10,000 and 5000 BC. This broad horizon was composed substantially of 'Saharo-Nilotic ethno-cultural elements.."







This is getting tiring and theres a lot more to go but I'm done for the day.
This isnt from my brain, this isnt even from Wesley's.. These are our scholars AND even outsiders (white ice is colder right?) giving evidence to who the original Arabs are. The books are available. There are plenty of pdfs if money is an issue.



Bbbut theyre Afrocentric scholars! Yes, when its us providing evidence that puts Africans in a superior or positive light, and goes against their illogical and half ass evidence, its "afrocentric"...
When its presented in a way to downplay the influence of Africans and depict Africans as stereotypically lazy(we didnt explore or leave Africa), dumb, and unproductive, and fits the their narrative, its considered Gospel and mainstream.



Again if this evidence was in favor of non Africans, Europeans, Persian Arabs, and their narrative..How would it go?


Divide, Confuse, Conquer.
Wash, rinse, repeat.

 

[Supper]

NO one is ELIMINATING the middle, when it was just said that Egypt is just the ANCESTOR. And the fact is many Egyptologist and Historians even agree that the Hieroglyphics are the base/roots of most these writing systems. Phoenician were the ones who DIRECTLY influenced them.

Again, you have to recognize the difference between the concepts of stimulus diffusion, where an element of one culture leading to an invention or propagation in another; and direct borrowing, which on the other hand tends to refer to technological or tangible diffusion from one culture to another. The revelation of the phonemic alphabet used in writing is one considered the key component of modern language development from which writing systems like Greek arise from is for the most part a direct borrowing with little stimulation of new technology from the Phoenician script. This did not start with the Egyptian Hieroglyphs, but a long line of stimulus diffusion from one culture to another drastically evolving along the way with Egyptian Hieroglyphs as a forefather somewhere on the line of lineage. Being able to trace the line of evolution to the Greek script up a taxonomic tree to Egyptian Hieroglyphs doesn't mean the Greeks took this from the Egyptians. On top of that Egyptian Hieroglyphs have their origin in Neolithic era pre-logographic pictographic writing systems. Couldn't we just as easily point them out as being the "root" or "base" of the Greek script? So, stating that the Greeks took their script from the Egyptians, is farcical, by way of eliminating the middle at best and deceptive at worst. Let alone claiming that they "got everything from the Egyptians" as the guy I was responding to stated.

 

[Bawon Samedi]

Again, you have to recognize the difference between the concepts of stimulus diffusion, where an element of one culture leading to an invention or propagation in another; and direct borrowing, which on the other hand tends to refer to technological or tangible diffusion from one culture to another. The revelation of the phonemic alphabet used in writing is one considered the key component of modern language development from which writing systems like Greek arise from is for the most part a direct borrowing with little stimulation of new technology from the Phoenician script. This did not start with the Egyptian Hieroglyphs, but a long line of stimulus diffusion from one culture to another drastically evolving along the way with Egyptian Hieroglyphs as a forefather on the line of lineage. Being able to trace the line of evolution to the Greek script up a taxonomic tree to Egyptian Hieroglyphs doesn't mean the Greeks took this from the Egyptians. On top of that Egyptian Hieroglyphs have their origin in Neolithic era pre-logographic pictographic writing systems. So, why not point them out as being the "root" or "base" of the Greek script. So, stating that the Greeks took their script from the Egyptians, is farcical, by way of eliminating the middle, and deceptive at worse. Let alone claiming that they "got everything from the Egyptians" as the guy I was responding to stated.

The bolded is basically what I have been saying. And either way the origins of Egyptian Hieroglyths during the Neolithic happened in Africa when there was a Saharan culture and it was acting as the incubator of African culture/civilization. But anyways those proto-Hieroglyphs weren't even fully developed yet, until the early dynastic period.

Again no one is saying the Egyptians directly gave the Greeks their script. Or that the Greek script comes from Egypt

 

[Supper]

Again no one is saying the Egyptians directly gave the Greeks their script. Or that the Greek script comes from Egypt

Don't know about you, but the guy I was initially responding to made the claim that the Greeks "got everything from the Egyptians".

interestingly thats not what the ancient greeks said. they attributed everything to the egyptians.

^^^^This is simply not true.

Edit: When you think about it, Greeks linguistically had more of a direct influence on Egyptians, than the other way around, as we can see that Greek script is the parent script of the Egyptian Coptic script.

 

[Bawon Samedi]

Don't know about you, but the guy I was initially responding to made the claim that the Greeks "got everything from the Egyptians".

Then he is simply incorrect. If anything the Greeks were more influenced by people from the Asian minors/Turks and Persians. There's even a period in Greece called the orientalization of Greece. Though we have to admit that Egypt DID influence Greece to an extent. But again only an extent. Most of Greece influence came from Asia/Near East.

And to reiterate all I was saying was that Egyptian hieroglyphics were the ancestor of Greek alphabet through the Phoenician script. Since the Phoenicians were heavily influenced by the Egyptians themselves. It was only an indirect influence. With Egypt being the grandmother and Phoenicia being the mother. This I am not making up as some of the sources I posted correlates with it.

 

[Swagnificent]

I'll just drop this here for people to read
http://www.academia.edu/2326496/The...f_its_Reflection_in_the_Archaeological_Record

great post. thats a very good article. its obvious that the people who lived in arabia in the distant past were closesly related to the people in east africa.

 

[Supper]

Then he is simply incorrect. If anything the Greeks were more influenced by people from the Asian minors/Turks and Persians. There's even a period in Greece called the orientalization of Greece. Though we have to admit that Egypt DID influence Greece to an extent. But again only an extent. Most of Greece influence came from Asia/Near East.

Ehh, I don't think there were many Turkic people in Anatolia during the ancient greek era. The first major Turkic migration into Anatolia happened in the 11th century by the Seljuk Turks. But, we can be almost certain of a pretty long history Armenian & Greek cultural diffusions taking place.

With Egypt being the grandmother

*Great grandmother

Proto-Canaanite would be the grandmother.

 

[Bawon Samedi]

Ehh, I don't think there were many Turkic people in Anatolia during the ancient greek era. The first major Turkic migration into Anatolia happened in the 11th century by the Seljuk Turks. But, we can be almost certain of a pretty long history Armenian & Greek cultural diffusions taking place.

Aye... I meant to say Anatolia. Thanks for the correction. Anyways we have evidence from archaeology, linguistics, anthropology, and more recently genetics, that in prehistoric times there were waves of migration into Greece from Asia Minor (modern day Turkey). If anything Greek was more Asian influenced than Egypt was in the early dynastic period! Its ironic, because the west use to(and sometimes still do) try to hold Egypt as a Middle Eastern origin civilization, while Greece as wholly European. When Greece just like Egypt also had influence and maybe more.

And you are correct that Turkish migration most came during the 11th century when Turkic nomads began expanding westward into the western steppes in Central Asia and from there into southwest Asia, the caucasus, and Asia Minor which became 'Turkey'.

But anyways...

These very early works of Greek literature and products of Greek thought are full of motifs and ideas that are clearly derived from Mesopotamian myth and, indeed, are central to it. Take, for example, the Hymn to Apollo (for a translation of the Hymns see here). The second, Pythian, section of the Hymn contains a number of themes with strong parallels from the Mesopotamian Ninurta and Marduk myths.

...

These complex, detailed parallels are central to the hymn and central to the Mesopotamian myths, attestations of which are found that are considerably earlier than the Homeric Hymns. The reasonable conjecture is that the Hymn has adopted these themes from Mesopotamian antecedents.

http://theglitteringeye.com/greece-and-mesopotamia-origins-of-greek-thought/

*Great grandmother

Proto-Canaanite would be the grandmother.

Correct.

 

[GetInTheTruck]

Thanks for bringing some substance to this thread, very good info in the last few posts.

 

[emoney]

Stupid article

 

[Swagnificent]

Thanks for bringing some substance to this thread, very good info in the last few posts.

saw this in another thread and thought it was relevant. here is a picture of muhammad ali's grandson. yes that muhamad ali.



just goes to show how quickly blackness can dissapate. in one generation, the ali bloodlines can go from black to white. same thing happened in north africa and arabia. influx of white foreigners from persia and turkey turned the original black inhabitants into the mixture we see today. southern egypt being one of the few places to resist the whitewash.

 

[Supper]

Smh.....At how reliant on the of concept of ones perceived "blackness or whiteness" you are when determining the indigeneity of a people as if in Africa "darker always = more indigenous". The vast majority of these ethnic groups in Africa today have existed LOOOONNNGG before the concept of phenotype based "black and white" races came about. Forgive the assumption, but it's almost like you're groping at the idea that we as African-Americans some how have more in common with Ancient Egyptians and the ancient people of the Maghreb than modern day Egyptians & Maghrebis, simply because of our dark skin phenotype(and according to most Afro/black centrist "darker always = more indigenous) - A simple genetics test would show that to be complete BS, whether the people of the past were darker or not. I don't think you realize just how "American" this train of thought really is. Yes, human migrations happening are a fact of life and has affected all areas of the inhabitable earth from all vantage points(N, S, E, W). In fact, the Songhai empire, which was ruled by VERY black-skinned sub-saharan West African Songhai people, ruled & colonized(in the form of military garrisons) parts of the Maghreb, such as the North African city of Taghaza, inhabited by Berbers who were described as being "light brown" by both Songhai and European sources: Who's to say the Songhais didn't mix with the local berbers, affect their gene pool, and thus their phenotype making the next generations darker? Songhais weren't indigenous to Taghaza just as the Arabs or Spanish/French weren't, but they did conquer the region.

And to add further delegitimation to the notion that "darker always = more indigenous" in Africa: I'll just bring the Khoisan into the discussion, who carry some of the most divergent (oldest) Y-chromosome haplogroups, of any human population groups.

 

[Oceanicpuppy]

saw this in another thread and thought it was relevant. here is a picture of muhammad ali's grandson. yes that muhamad ali.



just goes to show how quickly blackness can dissapate. in one generation, the ali bloodlines can go from black to white. same thing happened in north africa and arabia. influx of white foreigners from persia and turkey turned the original black inhabitants into the mixture we see today. southern egypt being one of the few places to resist the whitewash.

Many North African's are still black to this day. Just because the major cites in the extreme north are run by non blacks doesn't mean that black people are a small minority.


All black.....