Clear evidences in humanity backed up by solid scientific proof show clearly that

1. There has never been any such thing as a "black race" ever in all of humanity. It is not based on Genetics or shared history or culture or anything. It is the biggest fraud in the history of humankind and a figment of the imagination of prejudiced 17th and 18th century people

2. Just because a person has dark skin and kinky hair does not mean they are the same with people all over the African continent or that they are your brothers/sisters.

An Hausa man for example is as genetically different if not more different from a Zulu than he is from a French man

3. Two people who are genetically very distant and have nothing in common can look very similar while two people who are closer genetically could look different from each other

Summary of the article above

1 These people have kinky hair and dark skin

2 They have NOTHING in common with the average African genetically and are closer to Asians like Chinese, Japanese etc and even Europeans genetically


some direct quotes from the article above

"Other more recent studies have shown closer craniometric affinities to Egyptians and Europeans than to Sub Saharan populations such as that of African Pygmies. Walter Neves' study of the Lagoa Santa people had the incidental correlation of showing Andamanese as classifying closer to Egyptians and Europeans than any Sub Saharan population."

These features include short stature, very dark skin, woolly hair, scant body hair and occasional steatopygia. The claim that Andamanese pygmoids more closely resemble Africans than Asians in their cranial morphology in a 1973 study added some weight to this theory before genetic studies pointed to a closer relationship with Asians.

Later genetic and craniometric (mentioned earlier) studies have found more genetic affinities with Asians and Polynesians

more Negrito pictures

The Negrito people of Asia have dark skin and kinky hair but the greatest genetic distance in all of humanity exists between them and Africans



[img]http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d9/Ati_woman_2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://abaca8./2010/01/01/&usg=__-vTsowHV7FFFFZWsU2cnXevFRY4=&h=800&w=536&sz=118&hl=en&start=61&tbnid=ZRuIy0mchmYjKM:&tbnh=143&tbnw=96&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dpictures%2Bof%2Bnegritos%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26biw%3D1680%26bih%3D869%26tbs%3Disch:10%2C1152&um=1&itbs=1&ei=L9lpTJ2aE8TFnAfg7sDBBQ&biw=1680&bih=869[/img]

The term Negrito refers to several ethnic groups in isolated parts of Southeast Asia.[2]

Their current populations include 12 Andamanese tribes of the Andaman Islands, six Semang tribes of Malaysia, the Mani of Thailand, and the Aeta, Agta, Ayta, Pygmies, Ita, Baluga, Ati, Dumagat and at least 25 other tribes of the Philippines. Reports on the presence of British traders on Borneo (Sarawak), dating from the end of the 19th century, speak of negrito tribes on this island. There are reports that these traders presented "pygmies" to the emperor of China. Pygmies being another word for negrito. (Journal of the Malayan Branch Royal Asiatic Society, Vol. XXIX, part 1, 1956)

Negritos share some common physical features with African pygmy populations, including short stature, natural afro-hair texture, and dark skin; however, their origin and the route of their migration to Asia is still a matter of great speculation. They are the most genetically distant human population from Africans at most loci studied thus far (except for MC1R, which codes for dark skin).

They have also been shown to have separated early from Asians, suggesting that they are either surviving descendants of settlers from an early migration out of Africa, or that they are descendants of one of the founder populations of modern humans

The term "Negrito" is the Spanish diminutive of negro, i.e. "little black person", referring to their small stature, and was coined by early European explorers who assumed that the Negritos were recent arrivals from Africa.

Occasionally, some Negritos are referred to as pygmies, bundling them with peoples of similar physical stature in Central Africa, and likewise, the term Negrito was previously occasionally used to refer to African Pygmies.[4]

Sometimes the term "Negroid" will be used when referring to these groups, especially to their superficial physical features, such as their hair texture and skin color.

Being among the least-known of all living human groups, the origins of the Negrito people is a much debated topic. The Malay term for them is orang asli, or original people.

They are likely descendants of the indigenous populations of the Sunda landmass and New Guinea, predating the Mongoloid peoples who later entered Southeast Asia.[5]

Alternatively, some scientists claim they are merely a group of Australo-Melanesians who have undergone island dwarfing over thousands of years, reducing their food intake in order to cope with limited resources and adapt to a tropical rainforest environment. Anthropologist Jared Diamond in his bestselling book, Guns, Germs, and Steel suggests that the Negritos are possible ancestors of the Aboriginal Australians and Papuans of New Guinea. This assertion is echoed by Windshuttle and Gillin (2002).

A number of features would seem to suggest a common origin for the Negritos and African pygmies, especially in the Andamanese Islanders who have been isolated from incoming waves of Asiatic and Indo-Aryan peoples. No other living human population has experienced such long-lasting isolation from contact with other groups [6].

[b]These features include short stature, very dark skin, woolly hair, scant body hair and occasional steatopygia. The claim that Andamanese pygmoids more closely resemble Africans than Asians in their cranial morphology in a 1973 study added some weight to this theory before genetic studies pointed to a closer relationship with Asians.[6]

Other more recent studies have shown closer craniometric affinities to Egyptians and Europeans than to Sub Saharan populations such as that of African Pygmies. Walter Neves' study of the Lagoa Santa people had the incidental correlation of showing Andamanese as classifying closer to Egyptians and Europeans than any Sub Saharan population.[7][8]

Multiple studies also show that Negritos from Southeast Asia to New Guinea share a closer cranial affinity with Australo-Melanesians.[5][9] Further evidence for Asian ancestry is in craniometric markers such as sundadonty, shared by Asian and Negrito populations.

It has been suggested that the craniometric similarities to Asians could merely indicate a level of interbreeding between Negritos and later waves of people arriving from the Asian mainland. This hypothesis is not supported by genetic evidence that has shown the level of isolation populations such as the Andamanese have had.

However, some studies have suggested that each group should be considered separately, as the genetic evidence refutes the notion of a specific shared ancestry between the "Negrito" groups of the Andaman Islands, Malay Peninsula, and Philippines.[10]

While earlier studies, such as that of WW Howell, allied Andamanese craniometrically with Africans, they did not have recourse to genetic studies.[5] Later genetic and craniometric (mentioned earlier) studies have found more genetic affinities with Asians and Polynesians.[6]

A study on blood groups and proteins in the 1950s suggested that the Andamanese were more closely related to Oceanic peoples than Africans. Genetic studies on Philippine Negritos, based on polymorphic blood enzymes and antigens, showed they were similar to surrounding Asian populations[/b].[6]

Genetic testing places all the Onge and all but two of the Great Andamanese in the mtDNA Haplogroup M, found in East Africa, East Asia, and South Asia, suggesting that the Negritos are at least partly descended from a migration originating in eastern Africa as much as 60,000 years ago. This migration is hypothesized to have followed a coastal route through India and into Southeast Asia, which is sometimes referred to as the Great Coastal Migration.

Analysis of mtDNA coding sites indicated that these Andamanese fall into a subgroup of M not previously identified in human populations in Africa and Asia. These findings suggest an early split from the population of African migrants whose descendants would eventually populate the entire habitable world.[6] Haplogroup C and haplogroup D is believed to represent Y-DNA in the migration.[11]

Negritos have also possibly lived in Taiwan. The Saisiyat people performed the songs and rites of the festival called Ritual of the Little Black People (矮靈祭). In fact, the short, black men the festival celebrates are one of the most ancient types of modern humans on this planet and their kin still survive in Asia today. They are said to be diminutive Africoids and are variously called Pygmies, Negritos and Aeta. Chinese historians called them "black dwarfs" in the Three Kingdoms period (AD 220 to AD 280) and they were still to be found in China during the Qing dynasty (1644 to 1911). In Taiwan they were called the "Little Black People" and, apart from being diminutive, they were also said to be broad-nosed and dark-skinned with curly hair.[12]

After the Little Black People -- and well before waves of Han migrations after 1600 -- came the Aboriginal tribes, who are part of the Austronesian race. They are thought to have come from the Malay Archipelago 6,000 years ago at the earliest and around 1,000 years ago at the latest, though theories on Aborigine migration to Taiwan are still hotly debated. Gradually the Little Black People became scarcer, until a point about 100 years ago, when there was just a small group living near the Saisiyat tribe.[13]

The story goes that the Little Black People taught the Saisiyat to farm by providing seeds and they used to party together. But one day, the Little Black People sexually harassed some Aboriginal women. So, the Saisiyat took revenge and killed them off by cutting a bridge over which they were all crossing. Just two Little Black People survived. Before departing eastward, they taught the Saisiyat about their culture and passed down some of their songs, saying if they did not remember their people they would be cursed and their crops would fail.[14] There are other stories about them in other aboriginals.[15] Their sites still remains.[16]

the highlights in the article include

"And from their population level analysis, the researchers detected as many or more genetic differences between the Khoisan and West African populations than between West African and European populations."



"On average, there are more genetic differences between any two Bushmen in our study than between a European and an Asian,"



This is genetic sequencing that was done this year ie 2010 genetic proof as opposed to 17th century ignorance

This is genetic sequencing that was done this year. 2010 genetic proof as opposed to 17th century ignorance

Sequencing Study Highlights Genetic Diversity in Southern Africa


An international research team reported in Nature today that it has characterized five human genomes from southern Africa, identifying millions of SNPs never before found in the human population.

The American, African, and Australian researchers sequenced the full genomes of two African individuals: a member of a hunter-gatherer population in the Kalahari desert known as the Bushmen, San, or Khoisan, and a Bantu individual from South Africa — Nobel peace prize winner Archbishop Desmond Tutu. After sequencing the exomes of three other Khoisan men, the team compared all five genomes, identifying more than 1.3 million previously undetected SNPs.

During their subsequent analyses, they not only found genetic differences between southern African populations and populations from other parts of Africa and the world but also within the Khoisan population — findings that may eventually inform everything from studies of human population history and adaptations to agriculture to personalized medicine strategies in southern Africa.

"On average, there are more genetic differences between any two Bushmen in our study than between a European and an Asian," co-lead author Stephan Schuster, a biochemistry and molecular biology researcher with Pennsylvania State University's Center for Comparative Genomics and Bioinformatics, said in a statement.

Southern Africa is believed to be the source of modern humans and, subsequently, is home to a great deal of human genetic diversity. But despite the decades-long effort to characterize the human genome and human population genetics, most studies have lacked representatives from this region, Schuster explained during a telephone briefing with reporters this morning.

In an effort to get a better sense of the genetic variation within humans, he and his team set out to characterize the genomes of individuals from the Khoisan population — thought to be the oldest modern human population. Schuster described the project at the American Society for Human Genetics meeting last fall, though this paper marks the first publication from the sequencing effort.

Archbishop Tutu, who has ancestry from Sotho-Tswana and Nguni language groups, which represent roughly 90 percent of southern Africans, also participated in the study. Tutu was a good candidate not only because of his ancestry but also because he is known to have survived polio, tuberculosis, and prostate cancer and because he is a voice for southern Africa and indigenous populations, senior author Vanessa Hayes, a cancer genetics researcher at the University of New South Wales, told reporters.

The four Khoisan men who participated in the study all came from different communities in Namibia's Kalahari Desert. Each was the most elder member of his community.

The team sequenced the genome of a Khoisan man named named !Gubi to 10.2 times coverage using paired-end sequencing with the Roche 454 GS FLX Titanium platform. !Gubi is believed to be around 86 years old and lives in the southern Kalahari on the Namibia-Botswana border. They also used a similar approach to sequence the genome of a second Khoisan man named G/aq'o, from a community in the northern Kalahari, to about two times coverage.

Meanwhile, the researchers sequenced Tutu's genome using the Applied Biosystems SOLiD 3.0 platform, generating sequence covering the genome about 12.3 times.

For the exome sequencing portion of the study, the team captured protein-coding sequences for each of the five individuals with the NimbleGen 2.1 M array and sequenced them by Roche 454 Titanium sequencing.

The genomic and exomic sequences were verified using a range of approaches, including genotyping and whole-genome and exome sequencing with the Illumina platform, which was used to sequence !Gubi's genome to 23.2 times coverage and Tutu's genome to 7.2 times coverage.

When the team compared the genomes and exomes to version 18 of the human reference genome and eight personal genomes sequenced, they found 1.3 million previously undetected SNPs, including 13,146 new SNPs that alter the amino acid sequence of 7,720 genes.

!Gubi's genome contained more SNPs than Tutu's, though both contained more SNPs overall — and more novel SNPs — than any other individual genome sequenced so far.

And from their population level analyses, the researchers detected as many or more genetic differences between the Khoisan and West African populations than between West African and European populations.

The team's preliminary peek at the functional role of genes affected by new SNPs in the Khoisan population suggests that these variants tend to fall in genes involved in immune response, reproduction, and sensory perception.

"We believed that because of their extremely long lineage, their genome would be very different," co-lead author Webb Miller, a researcher at Penn State's Center for Comparative Genomics and Bioinformatics, told reporters. And, he said, the findings so far support that hypothesis.

This type of genetic diversity within the human genome is believed to have helped humans thrive over thousands of years, Schuster said, though he emphasized that modern human genomes from all around the world still share far more similarities than differences. "We are genetically one healthy species," he said.

The team believes understanding human genetic diversity in southern Africa will likely be medically important, both for developing personalized medicine in this region and for identifying and understanding the roles of rare variants in human health and disease in general.

"Adding the described variants to current databases will facilitate the inclusion of southern Africans in medical researchers' efforts, particularly when family and medical histories can be correlated with genome-wide data," the researchers wrote.

The researchers have already started developing microarrays incorporating the newly identified southern African SNPs. For the next phase of the study, they plan to use these microarrays to genotype hundreds of individuals from southern Africa.


http://www.genomeweb.com/sequencing/sequencing-study-highlights-genetic-diversity-southern-africa

My Fellow Nigerians


The time has come to demolish this nonsense 17th century concept of race or a "black race"

The whole concept is a total fraud based on attempts to demean different people collectively

Hang on for the ride

Guys I am going to come back and demolish this frauds  false 17th century theory later today.

A "Black race" is the biggest myth in the history of human kind. Such a thing has never existed.

EzeUche22:

Now I have nothing but regret. . .  

Slavery was a bad thing but even Europeans sold each other into slavery in North Africa.

Slavery is hardly unique to the African continent so lets stop this American rubbish of "Africans sold their brothers"

Africans did not sell their brothers. They sold strangers just like other people in the world did.

gadogado:

@sage Im not in anyway against the "black race" im at least 60% black. So that assertion is senseless. All im asking is what does the evidence suggest about the relative mental development of Africans.
Also, if you believe that theres no such thing as race, then you're living in lala land. Africans present a monolithic group if you compare to other groups. In other words, Africans have more in common with each other than they do with European or Asian groups. You're saying technically theres no such thing as race, but i think there is race but each race has a varying degree of intra racial variance and relative diversity. Saying race doesn't exist is wishful thinking. There are too many similarities in physical, cultural, linguistic aspects that Africans share with each other. So you can't outrightly ignore that. Africans are a monolithic group with a high degree of internal diversity, this diversity does not negate the fact that Africans are one race.

Dude you are talking rubbish of the highest order. Complete unrivalled nonsense. It is a mere wish to think that a "black race" exists. No wonder you came here with a phony 17th century argument

ChinenyeN:

On the issue of writing and scripts. . . I hope you all realize how amazing the invention of writing really is. Looking through all of human history, writing systems are thought to have been independently developed in only a handful of places. Everything else (for example, this Latin script) we are witnessing now, is simply as a result of cultural diffusion from select societies, and from that diffusion, those writing & pre-writing ideas 'evolved' (had other small ideas added on). Without that diffusion, English would not have a script, which it learned from the Romans, who in turned learned and 'evolved' their from the Greeks, who in turn learned and 'evolved' theirs from the Phoenicians, who in turn learned and 'evolved' their from their dealings with Egypt and Sumer. Had these early ideas not diffused, we would not be witnessing writing, as we are in this day. In fact, without the diffusion, much of the world would still be considered illiterate, and some societies would be on the verge of literacy, while only a select few isolated societies would have knowledge of actual writing.

Now, scripts were developed (or just to be safe, in development) in pre-colonial Africa. Nsibidi is one that I know of, and I've heard of others. The question now is why those scripts did not develop like writing systems found in Europe, Mesopotamia, and Asia, and the answer to that takes us back to the first thing I stated in this topic; diffusion. Don't get me wrong, those pre-colonial African scripts were actually developing. They were just developing rather slowly, due to the nature of sub-Saharan geography, which presented logistic problems for cultural diffusion (again, a great many societies lived in relative isolation). So, cultural diffusion occurred at a rather slow rate. This slow rate of cultural diffusion directly correlates with the slow rate of societal/technological advancement. So it isn't to say that sub-Sahara Africa would have never developed any of the societal/technological advancements we see coming from Europe or Asia. Sub-Sahara Africa certainly would have, but at a much slower pace.

As for Ethiopia, it has its relations with southern Arabia to thank for the development of its own script. In fact, I've noticed that societies at the upper edge of sub-Sahara (the Hausa, Ethiopia, Sudanese, etc.) all have their relations with southern Arabia to thank for the development of their scripts. Further south though, where more and more groups lived in relative isolation, writing is not as widespread, and even where there is evidence of writing, there is a clear lack of European or Arabic influence (as in, sub-Saharan societies actually invented writing, independently). Now, I don't know about anyone else, but if one actually want to use the development of writing as a means to justify intelligence (or lack there of), then I would say that sub-Saharan societies truly did exhibit marked evidence of intelligence, by independently inventing their own scripts, as opposed to many other societies in Europe and Mesopotamia, who only did nothing more than copy and 'evolved' theirs from a select few societies.

Again, sub-Sahara Africans do not have a problem of 'lack of intelligence capacity', or 'sub-par intelligence levels'.

\
+1000000000000000000

The thing with it is that even the White Berber North African societies also struggled with the concept of written language despite being very close to the medditerenian while "sub-saharan parts like Ethiopia had a fully developed system

Your diffusion theory I reckon is 100% correct

You cannot make a phony genetic argument about a "black race" when no such thing exists at all genetically.

Any such arguments that tries to create a FALSE commonality has no credibility at all



Where does a "black race" start and stop

Anybody making a genetic argument about intelligence and a "black race" is a crappy liar at best and is not worth anybody's time

gadogado:

WRONG, having a sense of organization is a form of intelligence because organization suggests rationality, i suspect you're looking at organization or the way i used it with a simplistic lens. organized behavior includes being able to plan ahead among many other things

Looking back at it now, I should not have agreed with you at all

The premise of your whole argument is falsehood. Your intent was always to say "black race" ,  which is complete falsehood in its entirety because your attempt to bring up genetics as a reason was a joke of the highest order. People in Africa are very different genetically from each other so it is impossible for them to have one genetic fault at all. Many African groups have closer genetics to non-Africans than they do to other Africans

Skin colour or looks have nothing to do with intelligence at all

Your whole argument now totally sounds empty to me

ikenwan:

Forgive me if I disagree with you. Mr Drommerl here openly declarede himself as a Shuwa Arab then proceeded to denigrate the entire African race in the face of their European "superiors." His goal was not to incite any meaningful discussion. Had it been, he would not have dodged questions. His goal was to troll and while at it, give himself a pat on the back.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

I am begining to agree with you.

I mean I agreed with some of the points the guy made earlier on but as soon as a phony genetic argument started, I became weary. He seems to think that the reasons some East Africans developed a written language is because of admixture


White Northern Africans(Berbers) didnt even have a written language while darker skinned Africans in East Africa did but he is somehow making a phony genetic/skin colour argument

If you go back you would see where I even agreed with some of his points

His arguments however started to resemble more and more of a "Supremacist" argument

The dude might actually have 2 or 3 Nairaland user names to support his arguments


I get weary whenever people start to ask what did the "black" race bla bla bla

There is no "black race" from a genetic viewpoint and only ignorant people make arguments about a "black race" since such a thing does not exist from a genetic standpoint

When people start insisting on it, it shows ulterior motives and very sinister ones as that

gadogado:

Simple! Europeans fell from glory so in comparison to their initial attainment of enlightenment, they became ignorant, thats comparing the two stages in their history. Africa never had the attainment of enlightenment at no point in time, so nothing to lean a comparison against. Its one thing to rise and fall and in their case rise again unlike the Mongols who only had a rise and fall. But to never ever rise in the history of humanity is something quite different. What has subsaharan Africa ever contributed to the advancement of humanity??

As much as South East Asia, Eastern Europe and parts of the Americas

The problem with this discussion is that people try to link Africas issues with skin colour

It has nothing whatsoever to do with skin colour and any skin colour related argument is retarded from the start because like i noted, NOTHING in humanity supports the phony idea of race

There is actually no group of people known as "sub-saharan" people. Its a phony western classification for a commonality that does not exist

Ethiopians are a "sub-Saharan" people but they had a complete set of written language with alphabeths to boot.

I had nothing to do with hem beign mixed at all. They are not the only mixed people in Africa

There is no "Black race" based on genetics so a genetic argument is a big fail

Where did people get this idea of a "black race" from?

There is no such a thing from a genetic standpoint so it is ignorance of the highest order to suggest a common trait of a "race"/ "black race"

bgees:

There was never a time like that.  I also want to believe that all across Europe to Asia, these people learnt from each other through repeated contacts they might gave had. Sub-Saharan Africa must have been isolated .

yes it could be due to some psychological factors. Some people argue that all races have different philosophies.

Except that the so-called sub-sahahran Africans are very different from each other geneically so it cant be genetics.

Some are more different from each other than they are from other groups actually

@ Ola Olabiy

There is no such thing as a "black" race. That is a myth of the highest order.

Whoever came up with the idea of a "black" race needs to be shot at immediately

ola olabiy:

the question is:
when was the time sub-saharan africans were ahead of any other race?
good you knw that north africans were better at a stage. and asians too.
but, what about blacks? when? or is this due to some inherent factors?

Europeans were also behind for thousands of years. Was it an inherent factor?


Just because a place is backwards and behind other places at a point in time does not mean that the people are less intelligent or that with a change in circumstances that they would not do well


Europeans are living proof of that

ola olabiy:

do you now accept the fact that we are backward and behind europeans?
if yes, then this, really, has been the bone of contention on this thread.
issue resolved!

You didnt answer the question

When Europeans were backwards and behind Asia, the Middle East and North Africa, where they inherently less intelligent than people from those places?

ezeagu:

One word for this thread now: FAIL!

The thread was bound to be a fail from the start

@gadogado and Ola

Im waiting for an answer

When Europe was backwards and behind everyother place including Asia, Middle East and North Africa

Where Europeans less intelligent than all those people?

gadogado:

So what you're actually saying is environment is what makes africans less intelligent not some sort of natural inclination to being dumb right?

well as much as it made Europeans less inteligent during their own time.

Societies evolve. The European one did over time due to various factors. There was a time that Asia and the middle East were more advanced and Europe was a backward place.

It didnt mean Europeans were less intelligent then

Katsumoto:

You are so wrong about this. We know for a fact that Africans are just as intelligent and equally as dumb as other races. The only conclusion I can come to with regards to lagging behind over the years is down to environment. Let me ask you a question, ' why is it that while the Europeans were still colonising parts of Africa, liberated slaves and other African sons who had early contact Europeans were already getting degrees in European and American universities? These were individuals who only 20 years previously were walking around unclothed in the African sun.

I agree

environment was probably the biggest factor. Even Europeans used to be like savages before

gadogado:

Why is it so hard for Africans to accept that they simple arent as intelligent as other races? You have continuously proven that to be the case both in what you're able to do, build and produce and also IQ tests clearly suggest that the sub saharan African is the least intelligent being on earth.
I say accept the bitter truth and begin looking for ways to make yourself more intelligent and hence more competitive rather that being emotional and defensive!

I have to disagree with you though on this

I dont think Africans are less intelligent at all. There are many reasons why Africans lag behind which are self-inflicted but it has nothing to do with intelligence

If you put a Nigerian student with Japanese and British students he would do just as well

Aigbofa:


Really? If ancient Egypt influenced the Roman Empire and Roman Empire influenced Britain, and Britain influenced Nigeria, I would think there is a connection.
But, the question is why is Egypt's influence over Britain less important than Britain's influence over Nigeria?

Britain pioneered the steam engine, trains, telegraph, centrifuge, television, flush toilet etc. They took civilization to a level the Greeks and Romans and all of humanity had not imagined.

What exactly did we copy from the British and take to the next level?


Its not about claiming an old civilization. The British actually developed whatever they learnt from Greeks and Romans and took it to levels that changed the whole world and impacted all humanity

@Ezeag

Who took those pictures?

EzeUche22:

Do the British and French not claim Ancient Rome and Greece as their classical civilizations? Even the Russians claim they are an extension of the Old Roman Empire through their contact with the Byzantine Empire.

Indians have their own ancient civilization and China is ancient as well.

So why can't African societies claim Ancient Egypt as our classical civilization. Since it is now providing inspiration for Africans around the continent.

Britain and France were parts of the Roman empire and have Roman influences including language and religion so there is a connection

And those societies have actually invented recent stuff and dont really talk about Rome

When you hear about British invention they are not talking about Rome at all

French comes from latin

Nigeria was not a part of Ancient Egypt

tpiah:

for reasons best known to them, africans chose not to record their indigenous writings systems on paper.

your guess as to their motives, is as good as mine. [s]Barring religious influences which i mentioned before[/s], why black africans, who by the way mostly migrated to their current locations, chose to dump the recording media of where they were coming from, leaves much to the imagination.

in doing that they opened themselves up for riddicule and carricature from outsiders because all that you have left is tales from your grand father

Onlytruth:

Africa in ONE, just like Europe is ONE, with different peoples of course. You can't tell me that a Chechen is not a European, can you?
Meanwhile the Chechen can claim European civilization; why can't a Nigerian claim Ethiopian civilization as an African.

People should stop dissecting Africa in ways that suit their dubious missions.

Have you ever seen people in Chechnya claim Britain or Italy before? Have you seen Indians claiming China's civilization before even though they are all Asians?

Onlytruth:

Are you even following normal logic?

Why not dissect Europe as you do Africa? How come you are ready to accept English achievement as a European achievement, but reject Ethoipian or Egyptian or Berbers as African achievement?

Frankly, there is a gap in your thought process.

As long as Africa is ONE continues land space (not islands in the ocean), no part of Africa can be divorced from the achievement of the other.

The problem starts from people buying the idea of a "black Africa" when no such thing actually exists

Tuaregs and Zulus are as different as Zulus are from Arabs but people put the first two groups together as a single society while infact they are not and would never be

What we should be dis-assembling is the erronous idea of a similar "black Africa"

Fulanis and Igbos in one country are not even similar to each other at all not to talk of the whole continent

gadogado:


Modern day English is based on Sanskrit alphabets not ancient egyptian hieroglyphics, plus why are all the civilizations in "Africa" that created writing systems all in the the extreme east, Egypt and Ethiopia both of whom have heavy semitic/caucasian admixture. Even the berbers who are indigenous to North Africa but are caucasian have their own self developed writing system. The only set of people in Africa that didn't create a writing system are the ones that are in the heart of africa and unmixed with whites etc. I want someone to give me an answer, west africa, central africa and southern africa have no writing sytems of their own, only extreme north (Mediterranean admixture) and East Africans (semitic admixture) look at a map and conclude the proximity of these groups with our reading and writing African brothers.  The obasanjo looking African has always been starkly illiterate

Correct me if I am wrong but I was of the impression that even the white Berbers had the same problem with written language as the rest of the continent.

The only African societies that actually wrote I thought were the North East and the ones  in Ethiopia who always had contact with the Middle East

I might be wrong though