If images don't appear, just click their links.

I've noticed a lot of people use the word "Africa" and "African" to describe the continent and it's inhabitants respectively (a lot of people also just say "black people" for obvious reasons), but the vast majority of people do not know the origins of the word "Africa" itself.

To understand in context, here is a map of the Roman Empire at it's greatest extent in 116 AD, 1901 years ago.



Note the names of the Roman provinces on the North African Mediterranean coastline:

[img]https://pasteboard.co/7nZrxjruG.gif[/img]

"Africa" is the name of one of the provinces, covering what is now Tunisia and most of Libya. Isn't that curious?

"Libya" was the original name for a large section of the modern meaning of "Africa", used to denote the regions to the East and South of Egypt/Aegyptos.

If we look a little more at this map, another familiar name arises.

[img]https://pasteboard.co/7o0BTXctg.gif[/img]

"Asia" and "Africa" were the names of Roman provinces, specifically the region directly East of the Agaean Sea in what is now Turkey, and the region comprising of modern day Tunisia/Libya, respectively. So how did they come to be the names of entire continents?

During the collapse of the Roman and subsequent Persian empires, and the constant upset and violence bought by steppe warlords such as Attila the Hun, Tamerlane and Genghis Khan, and the rise of Islam and the Islamic caliphates, cultural communication and transmission between East and West in Eurasia was strangled. So much so that the once well connected lands of China, India, the Steppes, the Tengri, Altai and Himalayan mountains and the Nile kingdoms had become myths and fables in the late Middle Ages of Europe. Before and during the rise of the Renaissance in Italy and France, Africa and Asia had mutated from terms for Roman Provinces to, essentially, meaning "everything South of Europe" and "Everything East of Europe" respectively. The famous explorer, and also infamous genocidal madman Columbus who's Mesoamerican regimes lead to the deaths of tens of millions of American Indian natives, dreamed of discovering Asia because of the stories he had heard about it's colossal gold and mineral reserves.

After technological advances brought on by the renaissance such as steam power, the first industrial factories, highly developed seafaring, cartography, electricity and - perhaps most important of all - the military development of cannons and firearms, European nations went on to invade, pillage and create their own colony upon essentially every nation, every homeland and every empire on the entire planet - newfound technology accelerating the rate at which they could win conflicts and the capability to manage huge intercontinental empires. Sometimes the Europeans would straight up invade, but this was rare. Usually they would appear as friends to the locals, or benign traders, secretly attepting to turn them against one another - to "divide and conquer", or to have them lower their guards as European troops and military ensembles would continuously encroach upon sovereign land. By the time many kingdoms knew what was up, it was already too late. Japan just barely escaped falling to the British and the Dutch Empires because the country had noticed the warning signs and the vast difference between their technologies, and even then it took a highly militarised, fascistic Japan to be able to remain independent of the European menace.

With in 300 years, up to 100 years ago, Europe had, quite literally, taken over the planet
[img]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/World_1914_empires_colonies_territory.PNG[/img]

After European nations, namely the French, Spanish, Dutch, German, Belgian and British Empires (the last of which Nigeria is a former colony) had consolidated control over their colonies, their word and law became law. Among these laws included terminologies for the names of certain world regions. The names "Africa" and "Asia" were used to describe the modern continents we now know.

It is mildly ironic that the very name "Africa" itself, that a lot of "Africans" look to as a form of solidarity and belonging, is in the end just another imported biproduct of the European imperialist regimes and conquerors.

Africa was named after the Roman official Scipio Africanus.

igbodefender:
Africa was named after the Roman official Scipio Africanus.

Incorrect. It was exactly the other way around, i.e, the Roman officer was named after Africa. It was customary among the Romans for victorious generals to be given names or assume honorifics after the countries they defeated in war.

Scipio defeated Carthage (in Africa) and was granted the honorific 'Africanus'.

Other Roman generals had honorifics like Germanicus (from Germany), Britannicus (from Britain), etc, indicating the nations they conquered.

Africa was a province where the "Afri" tribe settled.
The Afri tribe was in Hannibal's army.
Afri were mercenaries, travelers and related to Falasha, Fulani, Afer, Afar, Berber, Eber. Nomads.

Afri-ka. Building/Handiwork/Place of the Afri.

So ... We're Libyans,

But let's not forget there were kingdoms South and in West Africa, like the Bornu, Congo, Swahili

Muafrika2:
So ... We're Libyans,

But let's not forget there were kingdoms South and in West Africa, like the Bornu, Congo, Swahili

This topic points to the fact "Africans" never came together and settled on a common name or common laws or common goals. Usually when a group has a name its from settling all those issues beforehand. This is why "Africans" are behind, just adopting the same name is not enough to bring power. And a colonizer gave the word to people, the indigenous tribes and kingdoms and villages and clans never came together to settle old grievances and move forward. African/Black as political labels are a propaganda that can never empower the people. Imagine if North Korea was trying to organize itself based on being Asian and yellow instead of the ideology and identity system they created where they even had to separate from south Korea. That's what a powerful identity looks like

I know that Africa is White men term, but I never thought that it was originally used to refer some parts of Northern Africa.

So from now on I'm Amhara and Agew first and Black second.

Ethiopia is also a White men words. It's a Greek word and means "Burnt face". It's equivalent to the degrading term "Negro".

Hati13:
I know that Africa is White men term, but I never thought that it was originally used to refer some parts of Northern Africa.

So from now on I'm Amhara and Agew first and Black second.

Ethiopia is also a White men words. It's a Greek word and means "Burnt face". It's equivalent to the degrading term "Negro".

You still have "Black" in your language. And you should acknowledge that first. Don't be like an Arab.

Ozouno1:


You still have "Black" in your language. And you should acknowledge that first. Don't be like an Arab.

Did I said I'm not Black? No, I didn't!

Please read first and comment second.

Ozouno1:


This topic points to the fact "Africans" never came together and settled on a common name or common laws or common goals. Usually when a group has a name its from settling all those issues beforehand. This is why "Africans" are behind, just adopting the same name is not enough to bring power. And a colonizer gave the word to people, the indigenous tribes and kingdoms and villages and clans never came together to settle old grievances and move forward. African/Black as political labels are a propaganda that can never empower the people. Imagine if North Korea was trying to organize itself based on being Asian and yellow instead of the ideology and identity system they created where they even had to separate from south Korea. That's what a powerful identity looks like

Incorrect. If you scroll up you can see a comment where it states Scipio was given the honorary title Africanus after defeating Carthage. The name originally sits with the Afri people. You can use google to confirm it. This is not the reason why Africans are behind. It's due to poor leadership, ignorance, lack of organization, and a willingness of European nations to stifle it's growth. Not just European nations, but Arab ass-licking nations in the North as well.

Ozouno1:


You still have "Black" in your language. And you should acknowledge that first. Don't be like an Arab.

I think he's referring to the fact that he identifies with his tribal identity before a 'color' which doesn't necessarily denote who his ancestors are and what his culture is specifically. If you say a black man, that could be anyone with dark skin that has ancestors from Africa. If you say a an Amhara man or an Agew man, you know for sure who is being referred to. It's a better classification in my opinion. However, we all know that colloquially we are all black and proud!

Hati13:

Did I said I'm not Black? No, I didn't!

Please read first and comment second.

You're not Black? To be honest, I don't value your opinion as much then.

AfriRenaissance:


Incorrect. If you scroll up you can see a comment where it states Scipio was given the honorary title Africanus after defeating Carthage. The name originally sits with the Afri people. You can use google to confirm it. This is not the reason why Africans are behind. It's due to poor leadership, ignorance, lack of organization, and a willingness of European nations to stifle it's growth. Not just European nations, but Arab ass-licking nations in the North as well.



I think he's referring to the fact that he identifies with his tribal identity before a 'color' which doesn't necessarily denote who his ancestors are and what his culture is specifically. If you say a black man, that could be anyone with dark skin that has ancestors from Africa. If you say a an Amhara man or an Agew man, you know for sure who is being referred to. It's a better classification in my opinion. However, we all know that colloquially we are all black and proud!

I appreciate your response but the North is Arabs. And the "leadership" you are referring to is the indigenous culture leadership or the colonial government leaderships... I think indigenous leadership system is generally open to anybody including you and me. Can't blame colonial leadership system set up by whites, for whites. It is dying slowly with knowledge of human rights and rebuilding with classical African/Black culture and governance as a base.

Ozouno1:


You're not Black? To be honest, I don't value your opinion as much then.

And you think I care if you value my opinion or not?

I know I'm black and you can't remind me of this.

Hati13:

And you think I care if you value my opinion or not?

I know I'm black and you can't remind me of this.

Why respond if you don't care?
You had nothing to add to the conversation. This whole thread became very annoying very quickly.

I have no idea why people came to post rubbish when all I asked was a simple question.

Ozouno1:


Why respond if you don't care?
You had nothing to add to the conversation. This whole thread became very annoying very quickly.

I have no idea why people came to post rubbish when all I asked was a simple question.

You are the one who is making this topic annoying. You started quoting me to say nonsense things. You didn't asked me no question, don lie. You only write nonsense compliments.

Don't try to act as if you are the positive one. I'm done with your negativeness.