| By Indian on Friday, February 18, 2000 - 12:27 am: |
Dexter if you read with a clear mind wont you agree that ABM is making snide comments at Indians.All he mentions is some vague references .He links worshipping Durga to worshipping the devil,talks about ravens.....
Just because he is black dosent mean everybody has to humour him all the time.
| By Dexter on Friday, February 18, 2000 - 12:59 am: |
Indian, you do have a point. It's true that ABM has been hurt by an Indian person, but that doesn't give anyone to talk about an entire race because nobody has met everybody of every single race. We don't know all six billion people in the world. I mean if someone met me and said that s/he can't be friends with me because. . ."I was raised not to hang around with your people" or "I was mugged by someone who looked just like you", I wouldn't be happy either. I can see both sides to this, and because of prejudice and stereotypes from both parties is the reason why this cycle still continues.
ABM, I wish you and Shireen both could give your views on this board, but she's not even thinking about nobody else except her newlywed husband. I think it's time to kick the past to the curb. The only thing else I can say is the next time that you're meeting a girl and trying to start a relationship, just be up front and be real with that female right at the beginning so there won't be any rude awakenings and surprises in the future.
BTW, Indian you were right. Remember I was talking to you about the Siddi population in India? You were saying if they were similar to the Sayyads. I was reading this book and they also used Sayyads to refer to Siddis, so yes they're the one and the same.
| By Indian on Friday, February 18, 2000 - 11:04 am: |
Dexter Iam not the same Indian.
| By Indian on Friday, February 18, 2000 - 11:26 am: |
Iam sorry if the above sounded rude but I just wanted to clear the confusion.
| By james on Wednesday, July 05, 2000 - 10:54 pm: |
Dexter...
I must commend you for taking the time to share your thoughts and feelings as you have. Maybe someone can catch me up on the hapennings here in recent months (or, I could just scroll back and read for myself~_~).
Anyway, I am still married to my Indian wife, and I do understand the influence that family tradition places on mate selection, even to the point of taking precedence above the spiritual principles that their respective religions teach. This generation of young people seems to have a broader understanding of race relations in general, and are not as quick to blindly accept the fear-based prejudices of their parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc.. So, in short, I still have hope.. I guess time will tell..... Will the real Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Jains, please stand up ?? ... and put an end to ignoranc once and for all :).
| By yasmeen on Monday, July 10, 2000 - 02:19 pm: |
James,
Yes youre right that in traditional indian culture race plays a part in selecting a "potential mate" and youre right again in saying that younger generations are more tolerant in regard to interracial relationships however that doesnt mean that the younger generation would marry a foreigner just for the sake of it either. Since you and your wife are both from diverse cultural backgrounds i have to ask you how both of you feel about the others culture and especially the opinion and the reaction of your wifes family and friends about her marrying a non indian ?
| By Indian on Monday, July 17, 2000 - 08:19 am: |
Dexter and the rest,
I feel some sympathy for ABM, but not too much. He took a bad hit, and he reacted by blasting the whole Indian tradition (even said some good things about Hindu Gods, too, as taught by some missionaries, I guess). And never forget, we heard the story from one angle only. That too from an unbalanced person. Dexter, I know you're black, and it's natural for this to strike a chord with you. But it's really not fair to accept all he has to say, unconditionally. And you can't blast Shireen for not logging onto this site and giving her views. That's like prosecuting somebody for not being a geek.
The contention is whether Indians are racists. No. Indians do have respect to respectable people. Now who really treat somebody in dishevelled clothes well? Not even the well-off blacks. However, when it comes to Indian family, Indians have something like inner circle. A kind of collective privacy. They are extremely cautious whom to let in. Even being Indian is no good. This is discrimination, but not really racism. This western concept where other races are considered sub-human and destined to be subjugated... well, that's not what Indians think.
However, a black (or non-Indian) when faced with an Indian family may feel uncomfortable. Indian family is a close knit unit, and unknown persons do cause uneasiness. It's easy to misunderstand it as hatred, but it's actually protectiveness and misgivings.
This collective privacy has better parallels than racism (though blacks tend to use that word because of experience with slavery). Don't get emotional. The basic fact is not being able to marry one's lover. This happened among aristocrats in Europe/Asia/(and I'm sure also in Africa) so many times. For so many reasons like mismatch in social standing, wealth, power. I tell you what, ex-miss universe Sush Sen had a bf while winning the title... then the bf had to vanish. Is this racism? Sush Sen didn't hate her ex-bf, but they just no longer remain compatible. Indians, for outdated traditional reasons, belive two are compatible only if they fall in same religion/caste/subcaste or some such thing. This practice is not justified, but has nothing to do with hating people who are not considered compatible in marriage.
Now what is the Indian stereotype of blacks? No different from the white stereotype of blacks. As the media portrays it. As the newspaper talks about it. Why blame Indians? All information they get is from Western media... They have no issues with blacks historically, so past doesn't bias them.
| By Dexter on Monday, July 17, 2000 - 07:10 pm: |
Indian,
Thanks for explaining it. It's very true that blacks and other non-Indians have felt that Indians are racists, or at least discriminating as far as tastes are concerned. Some will say that it's more elitist than racist.
And you did say that Indians don't have any "issues with blacks historically, so [the] past doesn't bias them." That's true. So why are there issues now? To be honest, I want to know where did you get a stereotype about blacks being dishelveled looking or not wearing neat clothes and where did it come from? On the contrary, there's a stereotype of blacks being very well-dressed or being better dressed than whites due to not being considered attractive to the European standards of beauty: pale skin, fair straight hair, narrow noses and hips and thin lips. The only way for blacks to outshine them in appearance was to dress better, no matter how rich or poor you were. Now I don't how it is in New York or in the West Coast, but in the South, many black families (no matter how poor they were) historically have always managed to look their "Sunday best" in public, particularly after from coming home from church. How else do you explain why designer clothing to this day is overly advertised in minority communities in America? If wearing neat clothes was the primary barrier between these our groups, then that could be easily solved.
Did this collective privacy of family and community started because of the many conquerors that looted India and their families and cities (i.e. Persians, Muslims, Portuguese and the British)? I was just curious and I wondered if this privacy or inner circle could've developed historically of distrust of non-Indians (whether they're missionaries, merchants, terrorists or conquerors) and maybe lack of trust between Indians of different castes, complexions, religions or geographical locations within India or in the Indian diaspora from other places of the world (e.g. UK, South Africa and the Caribbean).
I didn't say that I agree with ABM unconditionally. But I must say that I can relate very well with ABM's anger about being thought of as not good enough. Blacks being thought of as overly sexual creatures, was started during slavery. Unfortunately, many blacks, whites and even other non-black minorities still believe in these myths. Which is why many people believe that having interracial relationships, particularly with black people, always fail because (stereotypically speaking) are usually focused and founded primarily on sex only.
Many white male slaveowners raped female slaves and lied to their wives that the female slave had "seduced him" into taking her by force. Now how can a woman in chains "seduce" a man? Many white slave owners made these sexual myths about black men's overly large "hung like a horse" penises to scare their wives from actually sleeping with black males, especially to prevent them from having sexual relations with these enslaved black men the same way these white men had unconsented sexual relations with enslaved black women. Obviously through time, this sexual fear of the phallus has backfired; instead of making these women being afraid, it made them more and more curious.
I'm not justifying the myth(s), but I'm saying that if a person is stripped of his/her citizenship, human rights, expression of one's native culture, language and everything that makes him/her a human being except for some exaggerated superhuman sexual prowess, then that person will hold onto that single thread of that single human quality forever if s/he isn't exposed to anyone or anything, whether by choice or by force, to expand his or her qualities (emotions, feelings, etc.) that aren't primarily based on procreation. No group nor individual should be praised or condemned solely by some mythical sexual talent, or lack thereof. And it shouldn't be neither an asset nor a liability when picking a mate.
| By liviti on Saturday, July 22, 2000 - 09:58 pm: |
dexter you're always on point.....
peace.
| By liviti on Saturday, July 22, 2000 - 10:05 pm: |
nad just to add on to what Dexter touched on very briefly.....
Just based on the histories of countries like Fiji, Trinidad, Surniam, Guyana, Kenya, I think it is reasonably fair to say East Indians seem to have problems assimilating in a foreign environment and this causes them a great deal of conflict with the "natives" than would otherwise be the case, which is quite peculiar because India is a land that has historically been very welcoming of different groups of people.
I've read about relatively recent african, persians, and jewish immigrants in India who've really had no problems and now our scene has full fledged Indians.
This lack of accepting the local culture coupled with the knack of taking advantage of business opportunities and "keeping everything in the family" causes animosity towards the Indians living outside of India....
Does anybody else care to comment?
| By James on Wednesday, July 26, 2000 - 11:50 pm: |
Perhaps the prevailing "keep it in the family" mentality contributes to the climate of fear that allows prejudiced beliefs to go largely unchallenged within the Indian community. The brave soul who stands up to racism, sexism, and classism not only
risks alienating his or her family, he/she is calling into question centuries of mental conditioning that condones, even encourages attitudes of superiority, especially when it comes to racial prejudice and discrimination. As i've said here in the past,any lasting solution must be rooted in the practical application of spiritual principles, particularly the
recognition that mankind is one, and the demonstration of universal love, which all of our Faiths teach. The oneness of humanity is an irrefutable scientific and spiritual reality. Blinding
ourselves to the facts only prolongs the agony..
| By Dexter on Thursday, July 27, 2000 - 11:11 pm: |
Thank you James for your priceless analysis.
Dexter
| By Anita on Tuesday, August 01, 2000 - 03:37 am: |
Not all indian people are racists, and the same thing goes for all races. There are good and bad in all races, and we can't judge an entire race by the actions of a few within that race. I am indian, and i don't base my opinions of a person by the color of their skin or national origin.
| By Indian on Thursday, August 03, 2000 - 02:27 am: |
This inner circle of Indian family is a fact... and I don't know how it came about. I'll try to share what I know. Historically, there used to be family professions and trade-secrets (skills) that everybody guarded with caution. Maybe, outsiders contributed to its closedness too.
liviti's observations are all valid. Indians resist change in a new place... even in India. Bengalees in Venaras (UP), or Madhupur (Bihar), remain Bengalees for four or more generations. This keeping to the family is also a nice observation. Indians do try to gain business advantage, but they don't jump rules. It's not like Italian mafia families (like Corleone?). The bad part is, Indians don't care two hoots about how their neighbors view them... they're only bothered about their position in their close-knit circle.
Coming back to Dexter's point, every people have some stereotypes of others. Now Indians, not having a direct experience with blacks, subscribe to the prevalent stereotype. It's just lack of information. Tell me frankly, does a common black person has a high opinion about an Indian? I don't feel so. He/she also got it from Europeans -- maybe, the stereotype of snake charmers and elephant riders. Now, more direct interaction should give us better knowledge about each other. I don't believe debating why some particular thing happens in some particular way gets us anywhere.
However, nobody's talking about younger generation. They are the corrective force. And there is a good amount of appreciation there. Many are crazy about hip-hop, blues. Many worship sports idols. We were four and discussed what kind of girls (choose from black/white) turn us on more. It was 2-2. I personally feel, blacks are more transparent with emotions, and whites try to be more politically correct (on the average). See, everybody calculates average. I don't apply those while meeting a close friend. But those averages are useful while dealing with strangers.
Lastly, in my last post, I said.
****Indians do have respect to respectable people. Now who really treat somebody in dishevelled clothes well? Not even the well-off blacks.****
I just meant that Indians are generally normal people, treating respectable people well and others not so well. There's no black/white issue here. It's valid even in India. I just didn't get one point: how can a well-dressed man (happens to be black, say) can be stereotyped as one in dishevelled clothes? It makes no sense to me.
But I agree, there are issues, or rather perceived issues. Switch on your TV. If there's a crime, there's a big chance that they'd show a black guy... everybody is not a reasoning machine... they conclude unconsciously. They publish statistics about school kids in a school district... very often, black kids are lagging behind. There is no explanation about economic hardship in the report... and most people don't reason deeply. They make their ideas. I tell you what, academic excellence is, perhaps, the single most important criterion by which an Indian parent would judge a youngster. These are not my views. I'm just trying to tell you how people get biased. Please take no offence, otherwise it'll be difficult for me to be honest in future. I'll reiterate, there will always be some average opinion (call it stereotype) about other peoples. Nobody deals with strangers on a personal level. And nobody applies stereotypes on a friend. You may deny, but you too have those.
| By Dexter on Friday, August 04, 2000 - 12:55 am: |
"I just didn't get one point: how can a well-dressed man (happens to be black, say) can be stereotyped as one in dishevelled clothes? It makes no sense to me."
Indian, it doesn't make any sense to me either. The reason is if a black person is well-dressed, many of the majority population will think that this black person must be a drug-dealer or a well-dressed criminal with ill-gotten gains. And if this black person's appearance and his/her revenue is legitimate, then some of the majority population will resent that black person because in their minds, blacks aren't "true" Americans and aren't entitled or worthy enough to pursue and receive the American Dream---especially if that black person is earning the same amount of money or more than they are. You see what I mean?
Their neater appearance alone makes some bigots antsy because they interpret it as a sign that they may be better off financially than they are, which may or may not be the case. The black person's household income may be the same amount as that white person's family, but in some white bigot's mind, he's thinking "if I'm no better than a [black person expletive], who am I better than?"
I'm not saying that Indians and whites monolithically believe the same stereotypes of blacks or other ethnic groups. I'm saying that a minority person that is neat in appearance (who is supposed to be not better off than others) turns a person's mindset about them upside-down. Then the person either must question that stereotype, now proven false, or try their best to reinstate that stereotype as much as possible, especially if that stereotype makes the well-dressed person beneath him or her. Unfortunately, many people pick the latter to make themselves feel more superior.
There was a program on Cinemax if you happen to have it. It's called "The Tulsa Lynching of 1921: A Hidden Story."
It was about the race riots of 1921 of Tulsa, Oklahoma. I don't want to give the story away, but a KKK lench mob systematically destroys a prosperous black community in Tulsa. The pictures of the destruction looks like something out of "Schindler's List" or some WWII archive. This lench mob literally 'bombs' that town with planes because it was prosperous. If you do know someone who has Cinemax, then I suggest to watch it. It airs again on 16th August, at 10:40pm ET. Tape it if you can.
| By Anonymous on Saturday, August 05, 2000 - 07:58 am: |
God bless this Dexter person. He really represents an intelligent black person with whom we desperately need to hear from.
| By yasmeen on Sunday, August 06, 2000 - 06:23 pm: |
anonymous - i agree with you in that Dexter's a breath of fresh air :)
Indian coming back to what you said before :
"Coming back to Dexter's point, every people have some stereotypes of others. Now Indians, not having a direct experience with blacks, subscribe to the prevalent stereotype. It's just lack of information"
youre absolutely right and sometimes you are just confused as to what to believe about who you deal with in some cases more so than others. Nobody deals with strangers on a personal level and nobody applies stereotypes on a friend. Well Indian if you think about it the people you call friends now would have been strangers initially but you got to know them to the extent where you could share a part of yourself with them and so it gets personal.
Dexter - i had a question for you what do you feel about the term "collective privacy" prevalent in indian families ? i was just curious as to a non desi's point of view.
| By Indian on Wednesday, August 09, 2000 - 06:52 am: |
Thanks Dexter,
For your post. Now I see why you picked on this issue of dressing well. I was totally confused reading your earlier posting.
I have interacted with Indians in US very extensively, but haven't seen this kind convolved reasoning (as you mentioned about whites). In fact, I agree with your observation than blacks tend to dress well. Here we've a grad student (black)... kinda friend of mine. He comes in a tie and pressed clothes even in summer. We tease him like --- look, girls have only one tenth of what you have on, and don't give a damn for your tie, but he wouldn't give up.
Well, when I said Indians share the stereotypes of whites about the blacks... well, that's not fully true. See, Indians don't interact with whites too much either... so it's difficult for them to inherit weird complexes. They make stereotypes from what they watch on television, see in daily life and from word of mouth from other Indians (that's not cool). I'm sure they'll not treat a black beggar well, but at the same time wouldn't think of slighting a respectable looking black man. If there is a prosperous black in the neighborhood, well that's it. In the worst case, an Indian neighbor may keep aloof (which perhaps is not likely), but it's inconceivable that he'd go into soul searching, how did it happen? It was not supposed to be!
I'll try to get Tulsa lynching taped. But spotting somebody who has cinemax is tough for me.
You see, it needs centuries of interaction to form deep-seated stereotypes. Most Indians have an experience of black people only when they come to US. They have only vague notions and misgivings about blacks... they keep away more out of doubts and fear of unknown than hatred. More interaction and open minds are all that's needed for a better relation between black/Indian communities.
| By Dexter on Saturday, August 12, 2000 - 07:50 am: |
To Yasmeen:
I wish I could have answered your question earlier this week but I had email/internet problems. To answer the question about how do I feel about "collective privacy" that's prevalent among Indian families, IMO I really don't know what to say.
I mean that families from each ethnicity has a form of privacy or kind of collective alignment that in some way or another makes sense within that ethnic community. My own ethnicity has its own as other groups do as well. I don't think that it makes these individuals, who happen to share the same racial/ethnic/cultural background all think monolithically or act the same. That's how stereotypes start. However, as a "non-desi", I guess it would assume that many Indian families would have a "collective privacy" within themselves as a community, whether residing in India or even outside of India.
Why is it called a "collective privacy"? Maybe because the fear of being 'corrupted' by the dominant culture in America or culture of the West. Maybe it's being overly cautious of keeping one's culture/religion/language intact or being cautious of those who are different than them who may or may not treat them well due to past events: Greek occupation by Alexander, Islamic-Hindu conflicts, caste conflicts, British colonialism, etc.
I'm just grasping at straws to be honest. Am I point or am I just wrong completely? I hope I was concise enough.
| By Dexter on Saturday, August 12, 2000 - 06:01 pm: |
To Yasmeen: You asked me about what do I feel about the term "collective privacy" that's prevalent among Indian families.
That's a good question. I'm sorry that I didn't answer it promptly due to internet problems from my ISP.
To be honest, I don't know what to say. I mean families in each ethnic community do have a collective stand on certain issues that only that ethnicity or that community understand and in sync with. Even my own ethnic community has its own issues that they tend to collectively agree on. But that doesn't mean that individuals or families in these ethnic communities are monolithically in agreement; they don't all think or act the same way. Doing that would be creating a stereotype.
However, being a 'non-desi', I guess it would look like from a non-desi's POV that Indian families or communities outside of the Indian subcontinent, tend to "circle in the wagons" (i.e. exclude themselves from the dominant culture) whether it's either due to cultural reasons, or being overly cautious with those who don't look like them due to past events: caste differences, religious differences between Hindus and Muslims, British colonialism, etc. or just being more comfortable with the familiarity with those who look like themselves.
I hope I explained it well enough.
| By Dexter on Sunday, August 13, 2000 - 01:36 am: |
Yasmeen, that's a very good question you've asked me. To tell you the truth, I don't know what to say. I mean it's true that many families of certain ethnicities tend to agree on certain issues due to past experiences that they have shared culturally, racially and historically. However, it doesn't mean that the individuals or their families in these communities are monolithic. They may share certain ethnic qualities with one another, but that doesn't mean that they all think and act alike.
I guess since I'm a 'non-desi', I guess it would look like in my POV that families of Indian descent, who live out of India, may tend to "circle in the wagons" among themselves when they're living in a country that is different in history and culture. Maybe it's because of the desire to retain one's culture intact. Maybe it's fear from being victimized or mistreated by others who aren't from the same caste, religion or policies similar to [British] colonialism.
But not all Indian families and communities aren't all alike as to what Yasmeen has stated. If a person of any ethnicity doesn't know that much about an individual of another group, one will hang with their own group until he or she will come in contact with many different persons, hopefully they meet each other under positive circumstances, and therefore the stereotypes will dissolve away from that individual.
I hope I explained it well enough.
| By Dexter on Monday, August 14, 2000 - 06:16 am: |
Indian, Yasmeen, anonymous,
Thanks for reading. The Tulsa program is airing this week on Cinemax. I'm trying to find a blank tape to record it. Indian, I'm going to try to find it at Blockbuster or other video stores and see if it's available on video.
| By Dexter on Monday, August 14, 2000 - 11:50 pm: |
To the Editor:
Could you delete one or two of the recent messages that I posted? I had some internet problems for the past two weeks and I had written it more than once because I thought it didn't post the message(s) in the forums.
I apologize for the multiple responses.
Dexter
| By Yasmeen on Wednesday, August 16, 2000 - 04:18 pm: |
thanks Dexter - i had another question this one is for anyone who is non indian so at the moment Dexter's the only one i can think of but its open to all. Ok so lets say hypothetically a non indian guy wants to marry an indian girl who has a conservative family with a strong indian culture/heritage. Now in this sort of situation the guy doesnt really have a choice of becoming "indianised" to the extent where the girl's family would accept him. So what other choices would he have ?
| By Indian on Thursday, August 31, 2000 - 06:37 am: |
Hello Dexter,
Watch Mississipi Masala, Bhaji on the Beach for Indian/black experiences. Might get in blockbuster. Both deal with Indian girl/Black boy situation (In Africa/US and UK)... The other way round is very uncommon even in real life.
| By Arvind Kumaran on Thursday, October 05, 2000 - 06:08 pm: |
Someone made an interesting point about Indians resisting intermarriage amongst locals in a foreign country. Indians in the US, UK, Fiji, Africa and Mauritius have resisted intermarriage with locals and are successful, culturally and financially rich and are growing in political clout. In the one place Indians have largely not resisted intermarriage with locals is the West Indies and look at the situation of Indians there. They live below the poverty line, have no financial muscle and are a weak community. Surely that says something.
I am not racist, but I am proud of my rich Indian culture, heritage and accomplishments in science, medicine, arts, astronomy and the list goes on. A true Indian will never mix his/her blood with another race for its compromising our culture and the 5000 year old civilisation we have.
The blacks are supposed to be the oldest race, can someone please tell me what their achievements are in intellectual persuits? Don't give me a few silly examples like Nelson Mandela and Luther King etc. I want solid examples of inventions, discoveries and contribution to making the world a better place.
There is nothing wrong in accepting there is a difference in the mental and physical make up of races. Its obvious and widely accepted the black race is dominant in physical stength and stamina as evidenced by their performance in sports. So why do we shy away from accepting the reality that they are intellectually and culturally at a lower plane than us? Why be sensitive and hypocritical about a fact?
Dexter, I know there are exceptions to every rule and in all probability you are an exception to what I said, but largely the intellectual achievements of your race are miniscule compared to other races like the Caucasians (which is the race an Indian is classified under) and Mongoloid races.
Sensible Indians dont discriminate on the basis of skin, they judge a race by their achievements and cultural developments. This talk about "We are all the same inside" is nonsense as well. If you talk about vital organs, yes we are the same. However, there is a different in hormonal makeup, muscular makeup and intellectual makeup in the races due to cultural, climatic, dietary and lifestyle differences and these characteristics are genetic. So please stop the "ideal world" melodrama that we are all the same inside. We are not, its a simple scientic fact. The world is suddenly coming close due to communication, so people feel its their duty to mix with other races to prove they are not racist. Racial education is a sensitive topic so people are not being educated on it unfortunately.
I have reservations about my opinions getting through the moderator because of its potentially controversial connotations, but this is the truth so I have said it. In know I'll be attacked by you guys and called racist, ignorant, narrowminded whatever! Bear in mind, I'm anything but that.
| By Anonymous on Saturday, October 07, 2000 - 07:17 am: |
Whoooaaaa!!! Arvind
What planet have you been living on for all of your life?
Since I am a very busy person, i'm not going to have time today to respond to your nonsense in the previous post. But in the meantime, when I write back a few more days from now to answer your questions a/b "...solid examples of inventions, discoveries and contributions to making the world a better place." From the Blalck race.
Please check out the lastest posting at The African Diaspora of the Indian Sub Continent.
This should answer your question a/b "...Accepting the reality that they are intellectually and culturally at a lower plane than us."
If that is true, could you please explain how was it possible for Black Africans to have the know-how to be able to rule over parts of India as Sultans, Kings, Rulers, etc.
By the way, this is only discussing Black African accomplishments in India alone. I have not even begun discuss the Black African contributions in other countries yet.
"He who acts without knowledge, causes more harm than good; and he who does not consider speech to be a part of his actions, sins repeatedly."
- Famous Islamic Scholar
| By Anonymous on Saturday, October 07, 2000 - 08:14 am: |
"...The blacks are supposed to be the oldest race, can someone please tell me what their achievements are in intellectual persuits? Don't give me a few silly examples like Nelson Mandela and Luther King etc. I want solid examples of inventions, discoveries and contribution to making the world a better place. "
- Arvind
To Arvind and to other people who would actually believes the nonsense that spews forth from his mouth:
------------------------------------------------------
New African
APRIL 2000
BLACK INVENTORS AND SCIENTISTS
COVER STORY
So black people can't invent?
Has a black person ever invented anything? Well, the answer must be no - that is, if you believe conventional wisdom. But the facts tell a different story. A black man, in fact, invented the very traffic lights that the world cannot do without. And more... Baffour Ankomah reports.
http://ds.dial.pipex.com/town/terrace/lf41/na/apr00/nacs0401.htm
excerpt:
A Ghanaian secondary school teacher visiting London recently would not believe that a black man invented the traffic lights. "What?," he asked in utter incredulity. "How can a black man invent the traffic lights?"
Well, you can imagine the sort of education this secondary school teacher has imparted, or is imparting, to his students, not out of malice but sheer ignorance. Which speaks volumes about the kind of education Africans receive. All said, this Ghanaian secondary school teacher genuinely believes that black people "cannot or do not" (his words) invent things, they buy other people's inventions. Well, there is something here for him.
A new textbook, Black Scientists and Inventors Book One, published in London recently by BIS Publications dismantles the notion that black people are not inventors.
Co-authored by Ava Henry and Michael Williams (both directors of the London-based BIS Enterprises Ltd), the book is designed for use by children aged 7-16. "It is our hope that parents and teachers will help the children on this journey of knowledge and discovery," say the authors.
The issue of black inventions, like slavery and reparations, is now top of the topics in the Black Diaspora. Black people are finding it increasingly difficult to understand why, even in the Internet era of openness and liberalism, black inventors and scientists are still denied their due recognition. And this is despite the fact that there are records showing that right from ancient times, a number of key inventions that the world now takes for granted were made by black people.
The old era
Writing about African inventions and discoveries, Count C. Volney, the renowned French historical researcher, wrote: "A people now forgotten, discovered, while others were yet barbarians, the elements of the arts and science. A race of men, now rejected from society for their sable skin and frizzled hair, founded on the study of the laws of nature those civil and religious systems which still govern the universe."
To which Dr John Henrik Clarke, the African-American historical researcher adds: "First, the distortions must be admitted. The hard fact is that most of what we now call world history is only the history of the first and second rise of Europe. The Europeans are not yet willing to acknowledge that the world did not wait in darkness for them to bring the light. The history of Africa was already old when Europe was born."
Dr Clarke is supported by the German scholar and explorer, Leo Frobenius, who wrote in his principal work, Und Afrika Sprach, published in 1910: "In that portion of the globe, the stalwart Anglo-Saxon [Henry Morton] Stanley gave the name of 'dark' and 'darkest'... [But] before the foreign invasion, Africans did not dwell in small clusters but in towns with 20,000 or 30,000 inhabitants, whose highways were shaded by avenues of splendid palms, planted at regular intervals and laid out in an orderly manner..."
------------------------------------------------------
"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance."
-Confucious
| By JB on Saturday, October 07, 2000 - 09:51 am: |
Arvind,
When you discuss where Indians have done well, you mention the US, UK, Fiji, Africa and Mauritus, but not India. Why? It obviously does not help your argument that a large percentage of the Indian population is unimaginably impoverished. Your examples say more about the benefits of leaving India than they do about being Indian. You're right that it's not an ideal world. That's true also in your homeland.
It's specious to assume the blacks have done well in sports because of dominance in physical strength and stamina. The opposite was commonly held to be true by people who thought like you in the early twentieth century. Did we evolve in that period of time? Of course not. Measurement of performance in sports is purely objective, so it was an genuine opportunity waiting to be exploited. It's the breakthroughs made by people like Jesse Owens back then to people like Colin Powell and Tiger Woods recently that make it illogical to assume that blacks won't dominate tomorrow in an area where we don't have a presence today. Once one of us makes it, it makes the possibility real for the rest of us. That's the same for any group.
Why do you feel that it's the responsiblity of African-Americans to sell our culture to you? If you want to present an opinion about blacks and you don't want to be called racist, narrow-minded, ignorant, etc., then do your homework. Search the library, internet or whatever to answer your own questions. You might start with the history of jazz.
Also, spare us the false objectivity. It's been done.
| By Anonymous on Sunday, October 08, 2000 - 07:17 am: |
Arvind,
I'd suggest that you seek counseling to understand and eliminate your deep-seated prejudice and bigotry.
Your point about West Indians mixed with East Indians being "inferior" in social achievements fails to note that East Indian immigrants to West Indies were people who were mostly in blue-collar jobs to begin with. This is happening today, in Dubai and other mid-eastern countries. Whereas the Indian community in US is better educated, so their children are likely to be higher performers as well. In fact, even the Indian+Caucasian has produced "intellectual" performance simply because both parents are "intellectuals". It has nothing to do with race, but mostly on parent's dispositions. I see my daughter growing up in schools here, and am pleased to her progress well despite mixed-race roots; I'm an Indian physician married to white woman, in a suburb or Boston.
| By International Punjabi on Sunday, October 08, 2000 - 11:14 am: |
JB it is hardly debatable that most of India's governments in the past and it's upper economic classes have not attempted to achieve a greater prosperity for the country as a whole but instead only for a few. Most nation's classically described as being part of the third or developing world do not support massive movie industries, indigenously grown multinational corporations (albiet few), internationally recognized Universities (IIT), the largest basin for outsourced high-tech work, and a middle class with disposable income enough to attract the marketing efforts of corporations ranging from NewCorp to Ford or Fiat. It's a lot more ardous process for a country to become prosperous then it is for a group of individuals, India no doubt has its share of significant problems however this is not neccessarily due to decades of failed efforts but instead decades of neglect to those particular aspects of the country. Nevertheless it is making sustained economic progress now and, hopefully in due course, will emerge with a significantly strengthned economic and social structure. China for example over the last decades has gone from a relatively poor state to a level where they have a significant importance on the international scene both economically and politically. Arvind's opening remarks showcase values evident among Indian culture such as hard work and academic excellence, to name two, which have allowed them to become prosperous in environments where the rewards for such efforts are dramatically higher then in India.
| By Arvind Kumaran on Sunday, October 08, 2000 - 11:42 am: |
Just what I expected. Defensive people belonging to the particular community making vague statements that Africans were Sultans, kings and rulers in India. How about a few names then? What are their contributions to India in architecture, music, science, arts and literature? A few Africans migrating to India and establishing local colonies with a village chieftan cannot be classified as Sultans!!(at least not in India)
I can point out Muslim, Paris and European influences to the above fields in India, but Indian history mentions nothing about Africans. Don't start the African theory about South Indians being African, there's no evidence to support such wishful thinking.
Why should you "sell" your culture to us? Don't sell anything, but its the African community that complains that Indians don't mix with them and are racist, not the other way around. Preserving our own culture and identity that we believe is superior and worth preserving is not racist.
Indians' in India are successful too as can be evidenced by the return of many NRI's to India to pursue careers. India is slowly making a resurgence in global power and standing. After an advanced civilisation, we were constantly invaded which weakened us. Every advanced civilisation has a peak and a velley and so forth.If you can be objective, understand that the Indian culture and way of thinking is what makes us a dominant community wherever we go. By the way, when was Africa's peak? Why is the only cilivisation in the African region so close to Europe and not in the interiors? (if you're afrocentric you're going to harp on Egypt, once again a very doubtful arguement)
It's amusing how JB dismisses anything factual under the pretext of "false objectivity". It's obvious s/he has encountered those arguements before and didn't have an answer then either.
| By DesiandProud on Sunday, October 08, 2000 - 07:13 pm: |
Anonymous you may have had good grades at medical school but obviously dont know your history too well. Indians transported to Fiji, Africa and Mauritius were also blue collar workers, but today are a dominant power financially and politically. Incidentially these Indians have also given a fine example of being proud of their culture and heritage and largely abstained from marrying outside the Indian community.
I congratulate you on your successful marriage to a foreign woman. So how strong are the Indian values in your daughter? Pretty strong? Strong enough for her to marry an Indian? I doubt it. How strong do you think the Indian values will be in your grandchildren? Not very strong at all, for them India will be just a land very far away with a lot of temples and "strange" customs. So you see, doctor, thats another Indian lost to the community. Your greatchildren (assuming everyone marries non Indians) will have no Indianess in them whatsoever.
Just because you've married a foreigner, you don't have to take my post personally, you may disagree or hate to agree with these facts, but Indian culture is superior and a true and proud Indian will feel the same way. Aakhir, what's wrong in being proud of your culture? We dont have to justify to anyone that we are not racist!!!
| By Anonymous on Monday, October 09, 2000 - 01:21 am: |
"Defensive people belonging to the particular community making vague statements that Africans were Sultans, kings and rulers in India. How about a few names then? What are their contributions to India in architecture, music, science, arts and literature? A few Africans migrating to India and establishing local colonies with a village chieftan cannot be classified as Sultans!!(at least not in India)":
Arvind...this book was authored by an Indian women herself discussing the african presence in india:
The African Dispersal in the Deccan : From Medieval to Modern Times/Shanti Sadiq Ali. 1996
"One of the few studies of its kind, this book provides a historical overview of the African heritage in India from medieval to modern times. It focusses on the African dispersal in the Deccan region covering modern Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, the Coromandel Coast and western coastal India.
"Beginning with their inception into the Deccan as slaves or mercenaries in local armies, we see how the Habshis integrated and were assimilated into Indian society. Some rose to the ranks of nobility and held high office in the Bahmani Kingdom, under the Nizam Shahis (1498-1634), the Adil Shahis (1500-1650), the Qutb Shahis of Golkonda (1512-1687) and the Asif Jahis (1724-1948) the most notable being Malik Ambar. Unlike most immigrant minorities, the Africans made a significant contribution to the social, political and cultural history of the Deccan." (jacket)
[Shanti Sadiq Ali was the Founder of President, African Studies of India. Her books include India and Africa through the Ages and India and the East African Littoral, Hinterland and Indian Ocean Island States.]
------------------------------------------------------
Another source:
http://students.ou.edu/M/Muhammad.A.Mehedi-1/m_ruler.html
Look at the periods between 1486 to 1493
ABYSSINIANS = ETHIOPIANS (BLACK AFRICANS)
INDEPENDENT MUSLIM RULERS OF BENGAL
-------------------------------------------------------
ILYAS SHAHI DYNASTY ( 1342 - 1415 )
1342 - 1357 Shamsuddin Ilyas Shah
1357 - 1389 Sikander Shah
1389 - 1410 Ghiyasuddin Azam Shah
1410 - 1411 Saif Hamza Shah
1411 - 1414 Shihabuddin Bayazid Shah
1414 Alauddin Firoz Shah
RAJA GANESH DYNASTY ( 1415 - 1433 )
1415 - 1432 Jalaluddin Muhammad Shah
1432 - 1433 Shamsuddin Ahmad Shah
ILYAS SHAHI DYNASTY RESORED ( 1433 - 1486 )
1433 - 1459 Nasiruddin Mahmud
1459 - 1474 Ruknuddin Barbak Shah
1474 - 1481 Shamsuddin Yusuf Shah
1481 Sikander
1481 - 1486 Jalaluddin Fateh Shah
ABYSSINIANS (1486 - 1493 )
1486 Barbak Shahzadz
1486 - 1490 Saifuddin Firoz Shah
1490 - 1493 Shamsuddin Muzaffar Shah
HUSSAIN SHAHI DYNASTY ( 1493 - 1538 )
1493 - 1519 Alauddin Hussain Shah
1519 - 1532 Nasiruddin Firoz Shah
1532 Alauddin Firoz Shah
1532 - 1538 Ghiyasuddin Mahmud Shah
SURI DYNASTY ( 1538 - 1564 )
1538 - 1545 Sher Shah suri
1545 - 1553 Islam Shah
1553 - 1555 Shamsuddin Muhammad Shah
1555 - 1560 Ghiyasuddin Bahadur Shah
1560 - 1563 Ghiyasuddin II
1563 - 1564 Ghiyasuddin III
KARRANI DYNASTY ( 1564 - 1575 )
1564 - 1565 Taj Khan Karrani
1565 - 1572 Sulaiman Karrani
1572 Bayazid Karrani
1572 - 1575 Daud Karrani
------------------------------------------------------
And another by Dr. Richard Pankhurst:
http://www.addistribune.com/Archives/2000/03/31-03-00/Hist.htm
Ethiopians in India in Ancient and
Early Medieval Times
by Dr. Richard Pankhurst
Today, and for the next few weeks, we are going to look at the Ethiopian diaspora. We are, however, restricting ourselves, for the moment, to the historic diaspora in India.
Trade Winds
We should note at the outset that commercial contacts between Ethiopia and India were much facilitated over the centuries by the Trade Winds which blew the scope and extent of such relations are indicated in the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, a Graeco-Egyptian commercial manual written around the first century AD. This work shows that the Aksumite port of Adulis, on the Red Sea coast of Africa, traded extensively with various parts of Western India, which supplied Ethiopia with both textiles and spices. Aksumite exports consisted mainly of ivory and rhinoceros horn, but according to the Roman writer Pliny, also included slaves. The latter were also shipped, according to the Periplus, from Opone, later known as Ras Hafun, a promontory on the Indian Ocean coast of Africa, ninety miles south of Cape Guardafui.
An On-going Affair...
Aksumite trade with the East was an on-going affair in ancient times, as evident from an early sixth century Graeco-Egyptian text, the Christian Topography of Kosmas Indikopleustes. It states that the Aksumites were at that time trading with India and Taprobane, i.e Ceylon, as well as Arabia and Persia.
Definitions: Habshis, Sidis, and Kaffirs
The coming of Ethiopian, and other East African, slaves to India a millennium or so later is abundantly documented in Indian, and in particular Gujarat, records. These refer to such slaves mainly by three more or less alternative names: Habshis, Sidis, and Kaffirs.
The term Habshi was a corruption of Habash, the Arabic name for Abyssinia. This name is believed to have derived from Habashat, the name of a Semitic people located in northern Tegray in present-day Ethiopia, and a neighboring stretch of Eritrea. They are believed by many to have migrated in ancient times from Yaman..
The word Habshi, as its derivation implies, doubtless at first applied primarily to Abyssinians (or, in modern parlance, Ethiopians), but was later used more widely for any Africans. However, most slaves taken from Africa to India would, for geographical reasons, have originated on the eastern side of continent. For much of the time covered in this paper they would probably have included a substantial, if not a predominant, proportion of Abyssinians.
The term Sidi by contrast was a corruption of the Arabic Saiyid, or "master". The word, as Edwardes notes, had "an honourable import" when first assumed, but, in common parlance, had become "rather an appellation of reproach than distinction" This is confirmed by the Frenchman François Pyrard of Laval, who, reporting on a visit to the Maldives in 1607, observed that "the greatest insult that can be passed upon a man is to call him a cisdy", i.e. Sidi.
The term Kaffir was derived from the Arabic Kafir, originally an Infidel, or Unbeliever in Islam. The word tended to be used in India for any non-Muslim, and was in many, though not all, cases applied to African immigrants and their descendants.
Converts to Islam
Ethiopian and other African slaves taken to India (or indeed Arabia, their first port of call) were for the most part converted to Islam. This change of religion sometimes occurred even on the boats transporting the captives across the sea. After conversion they almost invariably abandoned their pre-Muslim names, in favour of Islamic ones. This was unfortunate from the historical point of view, for it destroyed the possibility of identifying the slaves’ places of origin from their personal or family names.
Slaves in Islamic India, on the other hand, benefited from their conversion, in that it facilitated their integration into Indian Muslim society. Unlike Negro slaves in the New World, slaves in Muslim India were largely free from racial discrimination. They differed from slaves in America and the West Indies, moreover, in that they were not subjected to plantation labour. Many slaves in India entered the personal service of rulers and other politically important personalities, in not a few instances as palace guards. This enabled them, like such functionaries in many lands, to exercise immense power, not only as king-makers, but, after successful coups d’etat, as kings themselves.
From the Early 13th. to the Late 15th. Century
The first Ethiopian slaves arriving in the Indian sub-continent may have come early in the Christian era. This would appear probable, in view of the antiquity of the Horn of Africa’s slave exports, and the extensive trade between the Ethiopia and India indicated in the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea.
Documentation on African slaves in India is, however, scarcely available for over a millennium, until the early thirteenth century.
The North and West: Delhi, Gujarat, the Gulf of Cambay, and Malabar
The first Habshi of whom there is historical record was probably Jamal al-Din Yaqut, a royal courtier in the kingdom of Delhi, in the north of the sub-continent. A handsome and most likable individual, he won the favour of the then reigning sovereign Queen Radiyya (1236-1240). This incurred him much jealousy at court, on which account he was eventually murdered by his rivals.
Habshis, it is evident from fourteenth century reports, were soon also prominent in several other parts of India. The largest concentrations of slaves was apparently found in the north-west, facing Africa: in Gujarat, and, immediately to the east, around the Gulf of Cambay. Both areas had long been in close commercial contact, across the Arabian and Red Seas, with Ethiopia and the Horn of Africa.
The Evidence of Ibn Battuta
Early evidence of an Ethiopian slave presence in the sub-continent is provided by the famous Moroccan traveller Ibn Battuta. Describing the situation between 1333 and 1342, he recalls that on embarking on a ship at Qandahar, or Gandhar on the west coast of India, he found on board "fifty Abyssinian men-at-arms", and adds, with admiration: "these latter are the guarantors of safety on the Indian Ocean; let there be but one of them on a ship and it will be avoided by the Indian pirates and idolaters". Half a century later, in 1375-6, Gujarat was reported as paying a tribute of 400 slaves, described as "children of Hindu chiefs and Abyssinians".
A sizable number of Habshis were also found much further south, at Calicut, which also faced the African continent, and traded with Ethiopia. Ibn Battuta tells of a shipowner’s agent at the port, who, when going ashore, was "preceded by archers and Abyssinians with javelins, swords, drums, trumpets and bugles".
Habshis were likewise in evidence further south again, at Colombo, in Ceylon, where Ibn Battuta reports that Jalasti, "the wazir and ruler of the sea", had "about five hundred Abyssinians".
The North: Alapur and Jaunpur
Habshis were also reported in the interior of northern India. Ibn Battuta recalls that at Alapur, north of Delhi, the governor was "the Abyssinian Badr..., a man whose bravery passed into a proverb". He was "continually making raids on the infidels alone and single-handed, killing and taking captive, so that his fame spread far and wide and the infidels went in fear of them". Gossip had it that he had retained some non-Indian ways: according to Ibn Battuta he used to eat "a whole sheep at a meal", and, "following the custom of the Abyssinians", would, after consuming it, drink a pound and a half of ghee, or clarified butter.
Later in the century a slave called Malik Sarwar, described as a Habshi, was appointed further north as governor of Jaunpur. He was succeeded by his son Mubarak Shah, who struck coins in his own name, and was succeeded in turn by his brother Ibrahim Shah. The latter reigned for almost forty years, and is remembered as a patron of literature and the arts.
The North-East: Bengal
Numerous Habshis and other foreign slaves were likewise politically very prominent in fifteenth century Bengal, a region in north-east India which also enjoyed extensive trade with Ethiopia and other parts of Africa. The then Bengali ruler, Sultan Rukn al-Din (1450-1474), reportedly had no less than 8,000 African slaves, some of whom rose to positions of considerable importance. Such slaves were particularly influential during the ensuing reign of Jalal al-Din Fath Shah (1481-1487). This caused the modern Indian historian Sir Jadu-Nath Sarkar, a stern critic of the Habshis, to remark:
"The Abyssinians... presented a serious problem... they had captured most of the high positions and now swarmed in the palace and in the city. Power made them arrogant and like the Turks in the employ of the later Abbaside Caliphs, they behaved with the citizens with increasing violence. The more defiant of them, according to Firishta, were consequently punished ‘with the scourge of justice’".
The Habshis were in fact so powerful in Bengal that a group of them, including the chief eunuch, conspired to overthrow the then ruler Jalal al-Din Fath. Taking advantage of the absence on campaign of the loyal Habshi commander-in-chief, Amir al-Umara Malik Andil, the Habshi commander of the palace guards, Sultan Shahzada, assassinated Jalal al-Din. "From protectors of the dynasty", one historian wrote, "the Abyssinians became masters of the kingdom".
Shahzada duly assumed the throne, in 1486, and adopted the name of Barbak Shah. He was, however, soon afterwards killed by the Habshi Amir al-Umara who in his turn made himself king, with the name Sayf al-Din Firuz (1487-1490). A kind man, he is said to have confounded his treasury officials by the largesse of his gifts to the poor. His reign was, however, short, for he was replaced only three years later by an infant king. Real power, however, fell into the hands of another Habshi, Habash Khan, who was later killed by yet another Habshi, Sidi Badr "the madman", who had the young king put to death. Badr then seized the throne, under the name of Shams al-Din Muzaffar Shah, and instituted a reign of terror. His cruelty, however, provoked strong opposition against him, and by extension against Habshi domination. His army, which included no less than 5,000 well-armed Habshis, was besieged for three months, at the end of which he died.
------------------------------------------------------
More Dr. Pankhurst:
ETHIOPIANS IN INDIA: THEIR POWER INCREASES
Part II
by Dr. Richard Pankhurst
The Habshis, who, as we saw last week had shown themselves so formidable in the bloody Indian struggles of the time, were duly banished from Bengal. Many sought refuge further north, in Delhi and Jaunpur, after which they drifted to the Deccan and Gujarat, where many of their number had earlier lived.The memory of their immense power in Bengal was nevertheless so strong that the early sixteenth century Portuguese traveller Tomé Pires observed, with truth, that for three-quarters of a century it had "always been Abyssinians - those who are very near the king" - who had reigned.
The South: The Deccan
The Deccan, in south-western India, was another area in which the Habshis gained prominence, and, as elsewhere, became involved in many conflicts of the day. At the beginning of the fifteenth century the local Bahmani ruler, Sultan Firuz (1397-1422), had many Habshi slaves as his personal attendants, as well as in his bodyguard, and harem. He incurred the enmity, however, of his brother Ahmad, who subverted the Habshi bodyguard, by one of whom Firuz was assassinated. Ahmad, though brought to power by the Habshis, feared their growing strength, and placed his trust instead in Persians, Turks and other foreigners of the Shiah faith. The Habshis and local Deccanis, both of whom were Sunni, thus both lost favour.
Ahmad, unlike the rulers of Bengal, did not, however, banish the Habshis, who therefore continued to be both prominent. and powerful. During the subsequent reign of Ala-ud-Din Ahmad (1436-1458) they stood for example on the left of the throne, though the other foreigners were assigned the more prestigious position on the right. This did not, however, prevent Habshis from continuing to play a major role in political affairs, as when Ala-ud-Din’s son and successor, Humayan "the tyrant", was stabbed to death by a Habshi maid-servant, in 1461.
Several other notable Habshis feature in the Deccan annals of the time. One, named Khudavand Khan, served as governor of Mahur, while another, a eunuch called Dastur Dinar, ruled Gulbarga. Habshis thus governed two out of the four Bahmani provinces. A third Habshi, Mahmud, was keeper of seals, while a fourth, Jauhur, is on record as executing one of the principal nobles, who had been accused, perhaps falsely, of disloyalty to the ruler.
Considerable Numbers
Ethiopian and other African slaves were at this time probably arriving in India in considerable numbers. The Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency, a generally reliable compilation, states that around "the middle of the fifteenth century... the fashion arose of bringing to western India large numbers of Abyssinian and other East Africans", i.e. Habshis or Sidis. Turning to the political role of these immigrants, the Gazetteer concludes: "Though most Habshis came to India as slaves, their faithfulness, courage, and energy often raised them to positions of high trust in the Bahmani court".
The influence of Habshis in the Deccan at this time was also emphasised by a British historian of the Mogul Empire, Robert Orme. He observes that the slaves "gained ascendance" over a king of Bijapur, and were "exalted by him to highest employments in the state... they gathered all of their own country they could procure either by purchase or invitation, and even the Coffrees [kafirs, or blacks] of other parts of Africa". On the skill with which they involved themselves decisively in the political life of their country of adoption, he adds: "The natural courage of these people, not unmixed with ferocity, and always foremost in battle, awed the envy of their rivals, however indignant from the pride of their ancient descent, although the Siddees had likewise taken their religion".
The first marriages, of the Habshis, Orme continues, "were with natives of India", but later ones were largely "among their own families, which preserving their nationality, in time formed a numerous community, distinct in figure, colour, and character from all the other races of Mahomedans; which nevertheless could not have subsisted, if the body of the people amongst whom they had intruded, had not been, as themselves, Mahomedans. Later, during the reigns of Nizam (1461-1463) and Mahomed III (1463-1482) the Habshis regained influence, and in the latter reign in particular they shared in the offices of state".
Dilaver Khan
During the subsequent reign of Mahmud Shah (1482-1518), another Habshi, Dilavar Khan, became finance minister, but was later ousted by Malik Hassan, a Muslimised Hindoo, who then made himself dictator. Dilaver Khan tried to assist Mahmud against the latter, but, failing, was obliged to flee the country. The unfortunate king later appealed for help to the Habshi Dastur Dinar to free him of the usurper, but Dastur, despite strenuous efforts, proved unable to do so.
The kingdom of Deccan, torn apart by continuous strife, was by then beginning to decline. In 1490 Ahmadnagar, Bijapur and Berar declared their independence of Bihar, where a Turkish minister, Qasim Barid ul-Mamilik, usurped power. Almost immediately afterwards the Habshi Dilavar Khan returned from exile to assist Mahmud, but was defeated and killed. Qasim Barid-ul-Mamalik then consolidated his position, and in 1495 demoted Dastur Dinar, who was then governor of western Telingana, and appointed him governor of Gulbarga. The Habshi leader resisted this demotion, but was defeated. He was, however, subsequently reinstated in Gulbarga, but as a result of further strife was later driven from the city, and eventually killed, in 1504.
The conflict in Bijapur between the factions nevertheless continued. A stern decree was issued in 1510 prohibiting Deccanis, Habshis, or even their children, from holding office. This law was, however, later reversed by Ibrahim Adil Shah (1534-1558), who restored the Sunnis to power, in 1537. He then divided offices of state between the Habshis and Deccanis, and thus brought an end to Shiah paramountcy.
Several other Habshis were nevertheless prominent during the ensuing period of strife. They included Khudavand Khan's two sons, Shaza Khan and Ghalib Khan, and Dastur Dinar's son Jahangir Khan.
The importance of the Habshis of this time is further evident from the fact that a hill outside the capital city of Bidar, where once they had their stronghold - and where many of them were buried - is to this day known as Habshi Kot.
The West Coast
Habshis at this time were also prominent at several points along India’s western coast. They were particularly powerful at the island fort of Janjira, and in the nearby creek of Danda-Rajpuri, where they were almost invariably referred to as Sidis.
There are different accounts as to how the Sidis established themselves at Janjira. According to a history of Ahmadnagar, one of the kings of that state, Malik Ahmad (1490-1508), entrusted the island to his Abyssinian slave Yaqut, and established the Sidis as the latter’s captains.
Another story holds that the Habshis made their appearance when one of their number, Perira Khan, and a group of other "Abyssinians" in the service of Malik Ahmad disguised themselves in 1489, as merchants. They obtained permission from Ram Patil, the chief of the island, to land 300 large boxes supposedly containing wine and silk. Ram Patil gave them leave, after which they regaled the garrison with wine. When the men had drunk to excess, the Hahshis opened their boxes, in which armed soldiers were hidden. Taking advantage of their opponents’ surprise, they then easily captured the fort.
Other versions of the story suggest that the Habshis gained control of Janjira somewhat later, possibly in the early sixteenth century. There is, however, no denying that they remained in effective charge of the island, as we shall see, for the next two hundred years.
Further north, at Daman, on the coast of Ahmadnagar facing Africa, the governor at the time of the Portuguese occupation in 1530 was a Habshi chief called Sayf al-Mulk Miftah, who had a force of 4,000 fellow Habshis.To the south meanwhile, at Goa, Habshis were also prominent. In 1493, the Bahmani admiral Sidi Yaqut is said to have been sent with a fleet of 20 vessels against the Gujarat fort of Mahim near Bombay, and succeeded in capturing it. Habshis were likewise to the fore at Calicut, the population of which, according to the modern Indian historian K.M. Panikkar, continued to include many people from Abyssinia.
Cambay
Cambay, to the north-west of the sub-continent, at this time still also had a considerable Habshi population. Some made their way into the interior, including Mandu, whose sultan, Shah Khalji (1469-1500) reportedly had "five hundred Abyssinian slave girls dressed in male attire". Known as the Habiwash band, they were armed with swords and shields. A decade or so later, the Portuguese traveller Tomé Pires recalled that the Cambay rulers had "many" warriors, among them Abyssinians, with whose assistance they were "constantly fighting with the neighbouring kingdoms". The importance of such Habshis as fighters is likewise recognised by the Bombay Gazetteer: it claims that they were "among the most skillful and daring soldiers and sailors in Western India".
The Habshis of Cambay were, however, not only soldiers, but also included many people engaged in the agate trade. One of their traditions, cited in the Bombay Gazetteer, holds that early in the sixteenth century "an Abyssinian merchant came to Gujarat, and established an agate factory at Nandod in Rajpila". The merchant reportedly died at Nandod, and was buried near the tomb of Baba or Bawa Ghor by the river Narboda.
Another tradition asserts that the shrine was actually raised in honour of the merchant. It is said that "while wandering from place to place as a religious beggar, he did business in precious stones, and, becoming skilled in agate, set up a factory at Nimodra", where he "prospered and died rich". The British ethnographer R.E. Enthoven, who refers to him as "an Abyssinian saint and great merchant", states that he came to be venerated by the Sidis, "many" of whom were "imported to work in these mines". According to the modern Indian scholar D.K. Bhattacharya, the supposed Abyssinian trader was the only such holy man "revered generally by all the Sidi".
------------------------------------------------------
| By Anonymous on Monday, October 09, 2000 - 01:27 am: |
Continuing:
THE RISE OF IMAM AHMAD IBN IBRAHIM, OR AHMAD GRAGN, AND ITS AFTERMATH
part III
http://addistribune.ethiopiaonline.net/Archives/2000/04/14-04-00/Hist.htm
The Changing Balance of Power
The advent of fire-arms in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden region led, in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries, to major changes in the balance of power in the Horn of Africa.
Imam Mahfuz
One of the most important of these developments was the rise of the Muslim state of Adal, in the east of what is now Ethiopia, bordering Gulf of Aden. This was followed, in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth century, by some twenty-four years of instability, in which Imam Mahfuz, the Muslim ruler of the Gulf of Aden port of Zaila, carried out annual slave-raiding expeditions from Adal into the Ethiopian interior. Such raiding resulted in a considerable expansion in the slave trade, and in particular to the export of numerous Ethiopian slaves to Arabia, India and elsewhere.
The importance of this slave trade, the source of most of India’s Habshis, was noted by the Portuguese traveller Francisco Alvares, who travelled widely in Ethiopia in the early 1520s. He observes that slaves from Damot, in the south-west of the Ethiopian empire, were especially "much esteemed by the Moors", i.e. Muslims. He adds that "all the country of Arabia, Persia, India, Egypt, and Greece", was "full" of such slaves, who reportedly made "very good Moors and great warriors"
Imam Ahmad
Slave-raiding was subsequently intensified by Mahfuz’s more famous son-in-law Imam Ahmad ibn Ibrahim, better known in Ethiopia as Imam Ahmad Gragn, or the Left-handed. (He was in fact left-handed, as is explicitly stated in his chronicle!)
A charismatic leader of Adal, and a man of no small military ability, Ahmad rose to prominence immediately after Alvares’s departure. In 1527 he began a series of expeditions which took him much further into the Ethiopian interior than Mahfuz had ever gone. In the course of these military operations Ahmad captured innumerable slaves, and thereby gave an immense new fillip to the slave trade. This resulted in a vast, but incalculable, increase in the number of Ethiopian, or Habshi, slaves arriving in the Indian sub-continent, and in particular Gujarat.
The prominence acquired in India by persons of Ethiopian, or other African, origin in the aftermath of Imam Ahmad’s campaigns is confirmed by foreign travellers of the time. Towards the middle of the sixteenth century the Portuguese mariner Joam de Castro for example declared that Ethiopian slaves, serving in India as soldiers, were "strong and valiant to such a degree that there was a proverb throughout India that good soldiers or ascaris, or servants, must be Abyssinian". Such men, he adds, were "so well regarded in Bengal, Cambaia, Ballagate and other places [in India] that all those who command the armies or have a rank there are taken from among this race".
Van Linschoten
The Habshi presence in India was also discussed in the last quarter of the century by the Dutch traveller John Huyghen Van Linschoten. Referring to slaves from the country of Prester John, i.e. the Christian empire of Ethiopia, he states, in an old English translation, that there were "divers men" there who sent slaves and free-men into India who served as "Sailors in the Portugalles ships". He also observes:
"There are many Arabians and Abexiins in India... the Abexiins some are Mahometans, some Christians after their manner, for they are of Prester Johns land... There are many of them in India that are slaves and captives, both men and women which are brought (thither) out of Aethiopia, and sold like other Oriental Nations... the Abexiins that are Christians have their faces 4 burnt markes in the manner of a Crosse, one over their nose in the middle of the forehead, betweene (both their) eyes, on each of their cheekes one, betweene their eies, and their eares, and one under their neather lip, (down) to the chin".
Linschoten, who published "pictures of the Arabians and
Abexijns with their wives, as they goe in India", also reports a significant foreign slave presence in Goa. Its population at this time, he says, included, "many Persians, Arabians, and Abexijns, some (of them) Christians and some (of them) Moores".
Gujarat
The relationship between Imam Ahmad ibn Ibrahim’s expeditions and the influx of Habshi slaves was evident to the contemporary Gujarat scholar Abdallah Muhammad ibn Omar al-Makki, al-Asafi, Ulugh Khan, generally known as Haji ad-Dabir. He mentions the impact of the fighting in Abyssinia in his Arabic History of Gujarat, completed around 1605. His observations are significant because he was particularly well aware of things Habshi. He was in fact successively in the service of two Gujarat Habshi noblemen: first Muhammad Yaqut Ulugh Khan, from 1559 to 1573, and later Abdul Kerim Sayfud Muhammad Fulad Khan, in 1599-1600.
Haji ad-Dabir considered Imam Ahmad’s fighting so central to the experience of north-west India that he included in his History of Gujarat long excerpts from the chronicle of the Imam’s Yamani scribe Shihab ad-Din Ahmad ibn al-Qader, also known as Arab-Faqih.
In his Gujarat History Haji ad-Dabir thus quotes from the Yamani writer’s account of the Adal ruler’s many victories over the Christian Ethiopians. He reports that many of the latter, taken prisoner at the battle of Dir, or Ad Dayar, and elsewhere, were sent to Amir Salman of Zabid, in the Yaman, and were handed over to him at the Yamani off-shore island of Kamaran. Amir Salman, it is said, selected the most promising Abyssinians, who are referred to as Rumikhanis, and put the rest to death. Those spared were obliged to embrace Islam, but were otherwise treated kindly and, significantly, received a training in arms as well as letters.
Amir Salman was murdered, in 1529, after which his slaves from Abyssinia were inherited by his nephew Mustafa ibn Bahram. The latter received orders in 1531 from his father in Constantinople to proceed at once to India to help the Gujarat sultan Bahadur (1526-1537) in his conflict with the Portuguese. Mustafa immediately set out, taking with him the newly captured slaves, by then irrevocably converted to Islam.
The significance of the arrival of such large numbers of Abyssinians in Gujarat was emphasised by Haji ad- Dabir. He claims that they were as good as Arabs in everything except descent, but were often disliked by ordinary Indians, who were sometimes incited to murder them. There were later, he adds, no less than 5,000 Habshis at Ahmadabad, and 1,500 in Baroda, in 1561-2. When the Mogul Emperor Akbar (1556-1605) subsequently entered Gujarat in 1572 there were likewise 700 Habshi horseman on the scene.
The importance of this influx of slaves from war-torn Ethiopia was not lost on the British historian of India, Denison Ross. Recalling the bitter fighting on the Horn of Africa, the resultant extensive capture of slaves, and their subsequent political importance on the sub-continent, he observes: "the Habshis who rose to such prominence in Gujarat in the 16th century were for the most part the prisoners or sons of the prisoners captured during the Muhammadan invasion of Ethiopia". It was "in this manner", he adds, "that these Abyssinians came to Gujarat", and "the manner in which many of them rose to prominence and independence forms one of the most interesting features of this story".
Elaborating on the above theme, he declares that in the disorders in India which began with the accession of Mahmud III (1537-1554), the Abyssinian slaves, i.e. those captured in Imam Ahmad’s wars, "found a scope for rising to favour and prominence", though "their rivalry with the local nobility, and with the leaders of other foreign mercenaries, brought about a state of dissension which enabled Akbar to conquer Gujarat almost without a blow ".
The above-mentioned wave of Habshi immigration, though crucially important was, it should be emphasised, only one phase in an on-going, and largely involuntary, movement of population from East Africa to Western India. Discussing migration to Gujarat, Ross observes that "from the end of the 13th century to the end of the I7th... soldiers, traders, and slaves kept flocking into Gujarat by land and sea". Immigrants, he adds, included Abyssinians and Arabs, as well as persons of many other races. Emphasising the cultural significance in particular of the Habshis, he concludes: "A close study of the history of Gujarat in the 15th and 16th century has led me to the conclusion that European historians, following in the wake of Muhammedan chroniclers, who no doubt had their prejudices, have failed to attach sufficient importance to the part played by the Habshis in the history of that country".
Most of the Habshis who arrived in Gujarat in the aftermath of Imam Ahmad’s expeditions in Ethiopia and the Horn of Africa lived a life of near anonymity, and scarcely feature in records of the time. A number of their leaders, however, attained prominence, and deserve mention.
Notable Habshis
Three notable Habshis were accorded the honorific title of Ulugh Khan.
The first Habshi to hold this title was Mandal Dilawar Khan, who attracted the attention of Sultan Mahmud III, and was appointed captain of the latter’s bodyguard in 1553, but died in battle in the same year.
"The First Fruit of Abyssinia"
The second Habshi Ulugh Khan was Sultan Mahmud’s vizier Yaqut Sibit Khan Habshi, also known as Yaqut Begi Sultani, who, on the death of Mandel Dilawar Khan, succeeded to his title and military commands. He commanded a Habshi force under Imad-ul-Mulk Arslan, and obtained the latter’s rank when Imad became chief minister to Sultan Ahmad II (1554-1562). On the death of Yaqut, in 1558, he was buried at Sarkhej, beside Bilal Jhujhar, another famous Habshi of the day. 1376. The latter, like other Habshis of that name, was probably been named after the Prophet’s first muezzin Bilal. The son of an Abyssinian slave woman in Arabia, Muhammad had spoken of him with appreciation as "the first fruit of Abyssinia".
GREAT HABSHIS IN ETHIOPIAN/INDIAN HISTORY
Part IV
http://addistribune.ethiopiaonline.net/Archives/2000/04/21-04-00/Hist.htm
The Third Habshi Ulugh Khan
The third Habshi bearing the title of Ulugh Khan was Yaqut's son Muhammad, also known as Shams ud-Dawlah Muhammad al-Habshi, who served as vizier to his father from 1543-4 to 1557-8. Also called Khayrat Khan, he also held the title of al-Majlis al-Ashraf al-Ali, and is remembered, as we have seen, as one of the patrons of the Gujarat historian Haji ad-Dabir. Muhammad Ulugh Khan appointed as his vizier yet another Habshi, Bilal Falah Khan, and, according to the Indian historian M.S. Commissariat, "secured the same devotion as his father had enjoyed from the Habshi troops in Gujarat and was thus able to take an active part in the confused politics of the time". He sided sometimes with Itimad Khan and sometimes with Imad-ul-Mulk Arslan, but after Akbar's conquest of Gujarat ended his days in captivity, and was buried at Sarkhej beside the graves of his father Yaqut and his son Ahmad.
The prestigious title of Jhujhar Khan, as Commissariat notes, was likewise successively held, by "two Abyssinian commanders" of Gujarat. The first was Bilal Habshi, who was appointed in 1538-9, and was governor of Burhanpur under Mubarak Shah of Khandesh (1537-1566). He was subsequently killed in battle before the great commercial town of Surat in 1558-9, and was buried at Sarkhej. His son, Aziz Khan, and grandson, Amin Khan, both acquired some prominence in Gujarat.
The second Habshi with the title of Jhujhar Khan was Bilal Habshi's son Marjan Sultani Habshi, who held the fiefs of Bahmanul and Munda. The adopted brother of Yaqut Ulugh Khan, he died in 1573, when he was executed by being trampled on by an elephant.
Other Prominent Habshis
Other prominent Habshis of this time included Said Safar Salami, who, after Bahadur's death in 1537, became governor of Surat with the title of Khudavand Khan; Bilal Falah Khani Habshi, vizier to Muhammad Ulugh Khan, who subsequently became an independent chieftain with the title of Khayrat Khan and died in 1563-3; and Fulad Khan Sandal, who ruled the town of Jamud, until his death in 1569-70.
Yet another important Habshi of Gujarat was Shaik Said al-Habshi Sultani. Originally a slave of Rumi Khan, he later entered the service of Sultan Mahmud III. On the latter's death in 1554 he joined the great Habshi captain Jhujhar Khan, and, after a long and distinguished military career, received valuable fiefdoms from the latter, who reportedly regarded him as a brother. Shaik Said managed his land efficiently, and acquired great wealth. He collected a fine library, and had over a hundred slaves, probably mainly or entirely Habshis, as well as numerous horses and camels. Until Emperor Akbar's conquest of Ahmadabad, he dined daily in the company of many nobles and divines, and maintained a public kitchen, which distributed food daily to nearly a thousand destitute persons. He died in 1576; and is perhaps best remembered as the builder of a famous mosque, known by his name, in Ahmadabad.
Emperor Akbar's Conquest
Akbar’s conquest of Gujarat had major consequences for thered abusive words against Akbar, was punished, as we have seen, by being thrown under an elephant and crushed to death. His son Walil Khan was on the other hand given a command in the Akbar’s Gujarat army. Another Habshi, Abdul Kerim Sayfud Muhammad Fulad Khan, the son of the afore-mentioned Fulad Khan, was the ruler of Songir under the kings of Khandesh. He subsequently transferred his allegiance to Akbar, who responded by reaffirming his possession of Songir. He later became, as we have seen, Haji ad-Dabir's second patron.
Bijapur
Habshis in this period after Imam Ahmad’s campaigns continued to be prominent further south of the sub-continent, in Bijapur, where their power was bitterly, and almost continuously, contested by other military factions.
Ibrahim Adil Shah’s old policy of dividing power between the Habshis and Deccanis, both of them Sunnis, was reversed by his son Ali (1558-1580). He once more dismissed the Habshis and other Sunnis, in favour of the Shiates. Later, however, during the reign of Ibrahim Adil Shah II (1580--1627), a Deccani nobleman seized the dowager queen Chand Bibi, and made himself master of the realm. Three Habshi nobles, Ikhlas Khan, Hamid Khan and Dilavar Khan - the second Habshi of that name - nevertheless soon afterwards drove him from the capital. Ikhlas, who is clearly depicted in a contemporary picture as being of African descent, or at least a man of dark colour, became regent for a short time. He was, however, shortly afterwards dismissed by Chand Bibi, but later resumed his dictatorship which was, however, soon challenged by the other foreigners.
The more northerly Kingdom of Ahmadnagar, taking advantage of these serious dissensions, attacked Bijapur in 1567. The Habshis, realising that they could not defend their city alone, thereupon tended their resignation to Chand Bibi. This, in the view of the British historian Wolseley Haig, provided "the only example of self-denying patriotism to be found in this strife of factions". The Shiah foreigners then rallied to the defence of the city, and the Ahmadnagar army was forced to withdraw, whereupon the struggle at Bijapur was, however, renewed. Ikhlas Khan attacked his fellow Habshi Dilavar Khan, but was defeated by the latter, who became the supreme ruler from 1582 to 1591. In the latter year he was defeated in a battle with the Ahmadnagar army, as a result of which his power in Bijapur collapsed. He thereupon fled to Ahmadnagar where he found service with Burhan II, who had by then seized control there. The ruler of Bijapur complained at this employment of the former Habshi dictator, but Burhan replied by declaring war. He was, however, unsuccessful, and was obliged to make peace. The Deccanis then rebelled against him, and found a ready leader in Dilavar's old rival the Habshi Ikhlas Khan who failed, however, to capture Ahmadnagar.
Burhan was succeeded by Ibrahim Nizam Shah (1595-1596), whose mother had been a Habshi. His chief minister, a Deccani, allowed Ikhlas Khan to return to Ahmadnagar. Ikhlas then persuaded the king, against his minister’s advice, to declare war on Bijapur. Ibrahim was killed, a further struggle for succession ensued. Ikhlas Khan proposed the accession of one prince, while two other Habshis, Ahang Khan and Habashi Khan, supported another.
The above struggles, in which the Habshis, as so often, thus played major role, immediately preceded the conflict between Ahmadnager and the Mogul empire which led to the latter’s decisive victory in 1597.
Sailors
Numerous Habshis were meanwhile employed as sailors in Indian waters. The Dutchman Linschoten recalls that besides Arabs there were also "Abexiins" serving as sailors around India, where they were replacing the Portuguese, who considered such work incompatible with their prestige. "These Abexiins and Arabians, such as are free", he declares, "doe serve in all India for Saylers and sea faring men, with such merchants as saile from Goa to China, Japan, Bengala, Mallaca, Ormus, and all the Oriental coast... These Abexiins and Arabians serve for small money, and being hyred are very lowlie (and subiect), so that often times they are (beaten and) smitten, not as slaves, but like dogs, which they bear very patientlie, not (once) speaking a word".
Some Habshis sailed even further east. They travelled indeed as far as Siam, where the Portuguese mariner Ferdinand Pinto told of "Turks, Abyssins and Moors" engaged in fighting in 1548.
And So It Went On...
And So It Went On... Indian trade with the Red Sea, Gulf of Aden and Eastern coast of Africa, as we will see next week, continued to flourish in the seventeenth centur. Such trade was accompanied by many further shipments of Ethiopian and other African slaves. The number arriving in India seems, however, to have been significantly less than at the time of Imam Ahmad, with the result that Habshis on the whole began, as we shall see. to play a diminishing role in Indian political affairs.
Habshis in the 17th & 18th
Century India
http://addistribune.ethiopiaonline.net/Archives/2000/04/28-04-00/Hist.htm
The Habshi Presence
Travellers to India in the seventeenth century,still report a significant Habshi presence. The Englishman Edward Terry noted for example early in the century that there were "many Abissines" in "Indostan". His compatriot the historian W.H. Moreland, writing of the time of the death of Emperor Akbar in 1605, agrees that "Abyssinians were in much demand", and "sometimes" rose to "very responsible positions".
The demand for Habshi slaves was likewise subsequently reported by the early seventeenth century British envoy Thomas Roe. He recalls that he was asked by the Mogul Emperor Jahanger (1605-1627) "to buy three Abassines (for fortie Rupias a man) whom they suppose all Christians", but he refused, declaring, "I could not buy men as slaves".
Later in the seventeenth century another Englishman, William Crooke, stated that Habshis, or "Syddies" as he called them, were raised to some of "the Chief Employments" in the land, with the result that "Frizled Woolly-paled Blacks" rose to "great Preferments".
The Eighteenth Century
Habshis were still in demand in the eighteenth century, at the close of which J.H. Grose, a British traveller, declared that the "Moors", i.e. Indian Muslims, were "fond of having Abyssinia slaves, known in Indian by the name of Habshee Coifrees", i.e. Kafirs, or Africans. Such slaves, he believed, came mainly from the Ethiopian region via the Red Sea and Arabian ports. The slaves’ principal place of origin, he thought, was the southern Ethiopian province of Enarya, bordering upon what was "commonly called Negroeland, in the heart of Africa". It was from Ethiopia, he claims, that such slaves were "selected, and a great traffic made of them, all over the Mogolistan and Persia". As for the character of these slaves, he observes that they were "highly valued for their courage, fidelity, and shrewdness; in which they so far excel, as often to rise to posts of great trust and honor, and are made governors of palaces; when they take the title of Siddees", i.e. Sidis.
Though there was still a considerable demand for Habshi slaves, as Grose suggests, most, by the eighteenth century, were probably descendants of immigrants imported into Ethiopia earlier rather than immigrants themselves.
Malik Ambar, and Other Prominent Habshis
The best known Habshi of the early seventeenth century was probably Malik Ambar (1549--1626), an "Abyssinian" slave purchased in Baghdad, who became chief minister in the shrunken kingdom of Ahmadnagar. He won renown in 1601 by defeating the Mogul forces in south-west Berar, and subsequently established Murtaza Nizam Shah (1603-1630) as the nominal ruler of the land. He also reorganised the tax system, and improved the training of the soldier. The Mogul court chronicler, Mutamid Khan, wrote: "This Ambar was a slave, but an able man. In warfare, in command, in sound judgment, and in administration he had no rival or equal".
On the death of Malik Ambar his son, Fath Khan, submitted to the Moguls, but soon afterwards joined Murtaza Nizam Shah in attacking them. The latter, however, subsequently appointed another Habshi, Hamid Khan, to the post of minister, and fell completely under his influence and that of the latter’s wife. She became the recognised means of communication between the monarch and his subjects, and on occasion even assumed control of the army. In 1626 she overcame the army of Bijapur, which, however, in the following year decisively defeated her husband.
"gathered together like ants and locusts", but were defeated. Hamid Khan's grandsons, realising the futility of the struggle, later made their submission to the Jahanger, who in return granted them fiefs in the Deccan.
Hamid’s defeat had fatal consequences. Malik Ambar’s son Fath Khan, uncertain of his influence over Murtaza, killed him, and replaced him by the latter’s son Husayn Nizam Shah III (1630-1633). Randola Khan, a prominent Habshi general in Bijapur, then persuaded Fath Khan to join in the struggle against the Moguls, but the two Habshis were eventually defeated. Fath Khan nevertheless received honourable treatment from the victors, and was allowed to live in Lahore with an ample pension.
Other Prominent Habshis
Several other Habshis held important positions later in the century. They included Atish Habshi (d. 1651), sometime governor of Bihar and later of the Deccan; Habsh Khan Sidi Miftah Habshi, who was honoured by Emperor Aurangzeb, and attracted the interest of the German scholar Hiob Ludolf, who reproduces his portrait in his Relatio nova de Hodierno Habessinae Statu; Habsh Khan’s son Ahmad Khan; Dilavar Khan (d. 1702-3), another sometime governor of the Deccan, who was in turn succeeded as its ruler by another Habshi;and Malik Marjan, Ibrahim Adil's governor of Bidar. Mention may also be made of an unidentified Habshi of Breampur, who, according to the Frenchman Pierre du Jarric, was "a very brave captain", and one of the principal guardians of the fortress of Asirgath.
Hyderabad
There was at least one prominent Habshi in eighteenth century Hyderabad, in the interior of central India. He was Rahut Jung, also known as Sidi Asud Ula (died 1796), an infantry commander, described by the historian J. Clunes as "a native of Abyssinia".
The Indian West Coast, and Janjira
Though the influence of the Habshis in the sub-continent was as a whole declining, they continued to hold power at the island of Janjira, on the west coast, where they were almost invariably referred to as Sidis. They were also prominent in the Nizam Shahi fleet of Ahmadnagar. In the early seventeenth century, during the reign of Malik Ambar for example, two Habshis, Habash Khan and Sidi Ambar, served as admirals of this fleet, while a third, Sidi Bulbul, was in command of Rairi.
The Sidis played a notable role in the struggle between Emperor Aurengzeb and the Maratha leader Shivaji (1674-1680). No less than "three of the principal provinces" of Bijapur, according to Orme, were then governed by Sidis. One of them was the admiral of the Bijapur fleet, and had under his jurisdiction a "considerable" stretch of coast both north and south of Janjira. Shivaji took the offensive in 1659 when he attacked Janjira, but failed to capture it. He nevertheless succeeded in seizing the nearby fort of Danda-Raipuri.
Several mutually irreconcilable accounts of this struggle are extant. One author, Muhammad Hashim Khan, claims that Fath Khan, the then ruler of Janjira, had "three Abyssinian slaves, Sidi Sambal, Sidi Yaqut, and Sidi Khariyat, each of whom had ten Abyssinian slaves, which he had trained and drilled". They were so well organised that "the management of the island and many domestic concerns" fell into their hands. Learning that Fath Khan intended to surrender the island to the Muslim leader Shivaji, they reportedly plotted together to forestall the betrayal. They succeeded in taking Fath Khan prisoner, and made Sambal ruler in his stead, after which they appealed to Aurengzeb’s imperial armies for help.
Conflict between Shivaji and the Habshis, according to this account, later "grew more violent". The Maratha leader collected forty or fifty warships to use against the Habshis, after which "there were frequent naval fights between the opposing forces, in which the Abyssinians were often victorious". Sidi Sambal was then given the title of commander of nine hundred, and, before his death, appointed Sidi Yaqut his successor, and "enjoined all the other Abyssinians to pay him a loyal and cheerful obedience". Yaqut, it is said, was distinguished for his "courage, benignity and dignity", and "strove more than ever to collect ships of war, to strengthen the fortress and to ward off naval attacks. Armed and ready night and day, he frequently captured ships of the enemy, and cut off the heads of many Marathas". He and Sidi Khariyat later launched a surprise attack, with scaling ladders, on Danda Rajpuri, in the course of which its powder magazine caught fire, and the Habshis made themselves masters of the area.
Another, rather different, version of the story, cited by Orme, and elaborated upon in the Bombay Gazetteer, claims that the Sidis on the mainland, faced with Shivaji’s growing strength, escaped to Janjira. Several Sidis were then "in high military command" there. One of them, Sidi Joreh, an admiral of the Bijapur fleet, was sent on an expedition against Shivaji, but, failing in his mission, was suspected of treachery and put to death. His successor, Sidi Sambal, and a group of other Sidis then opened negotiations with Emperor Aurengzeb's generals in Gujarat and the Deccan. The Sidis offered them their services, and the support of Janjira fort and the entire Bijapur fleet. They nevertheless reserved the right to rule at Janjira, and to recapture whatever former Sidi property in Bijapur they could.
Emperor Aurengzeb
Aurengzeb, according to this account, accepted the Sidi proposals, and Sambal was duly appointed a Mogul admiral. He was raised to the dignity of a commander of nine hundred, and given "a large stipend on the revenues" of the town of Surat, whence he afterwards received continuous support against Sevaji.
The Sidis, we are told, were at this time rich, and reportedly gained as much from their trade as from a stipend from Aurengzeb. Their administrative organisation, which was in some ways unusual, is described by Orme, who observes:
"Reverence to the higher family, and to the Mogul’s choice, had given the pre-eminence of command to Siddee Sambole; but the other captains preserved the distinct command over their own crews and dependents, and an aristocratical council determined the general welfare of this singular republic; in which the lowest orders from their skill and utility, maintained some influence, and proud of their importance, merited, by the alacrity of their service, in so much that they excelled all the navigators of India, and even rated themselves equal to Europeans; and indeed the onset of their sword was formidable in boarding, and on shore".
R.O. Cambridge
A similar picture is drawn by the eighteenth century British writer R.O. Cambridge. He asserts that the Sidis beside possessing "many vessels of force", "carried on a considerable trade".
Sidi Sambal’s appointment as admiral resulted, according to Orme in Sidi Kassim becoming commander of Janjira, and Sidi Khariyat ruler of Danda-Rajpuri. Kassim subsequently succeeded Sambal as admiral in 1677, after which he expanded his fleet, and captured many Maratha ships, while Sidi Khariyat became governor of Janjira, and held this position until his death in 1696.
Though some details of the above events are obscure, and differently reported, there can be no denying that the Sidis were in "constant war with the Marathas", between 1673 and 1707, as the Bombay Gazetteer states. "Sometimes laying waste large tracts of Maratha territory," they were "at other times stripped of their own lands", and only "with difficulty" held on to their island of Janjira".
The Habshi Story Concluded.
------------------------------------------------------
| By Anonymous on Monday, October 09, 2000 - 01:56 am: |
More sources on the African Community in India:
Visual evidence,
An Indian of African Origin
From a Deccan Miniature Painting
http://www.kamat.com/kalranga/people/1097.htm
Shown in the picture above is an African merchant in India. The Janjeeras, believed to be of Ethiopian origin, came to India on business and went on to control important positions in local governments during the fifteenth century. A fort built by them, and defended against even the forces as strong as that of Shivaji's can be visited in Maharashtra today.
------------------------------------------------------
Another document:
Habshis and Siddis - Africans and African descendents in India
http://www.colorq.org/MeltingPot/Asia/Habshi.htm
In old times, some East Africans came to India through the slave trade. There were also Africans who visited India as free people: as merchants and ambassadors from East African states.1 Africans are called Habshi or Habashi in India. Habashi is the Arabic word for "Ethiopian". Although there is no evidence of great numbers of African slaves in India, numerous Habshis achieved political and military success in India.2
A group of African freedmen converted to Islam and became known as the Siddis. The Siddis were sailors and established kingdoms in Western India as early as 1100 AD. They functioned as security forces for the Muslim fleets in West India and were famed for their bravery as "guarantors of safety on the Indian Ocean" (in the words of Ibn Battuta) Their commanders were titled Admirals of the Mogul Empire and received an annual salary of 300,000 rupees.3 The Siddis were active up to the end of the 19th century.
In the 16th century, there were many powerful Habshis in the political scene of India. Indian states employed foreign slaves as military officers and government administrators. Chingiz Khan, the prime minister to Nizam mul-Mulk Bani, King of Ahmadnagar in 1575, was of African origin. After the king's death, the king's son Murtaza I led a successful revolt with several Habshis against his mother's claim to power. 4 In 1595, during the reign of Murtaza II, the prime minister Abhangar Khan was also a Habshi.5
During the same period, Ambar, an Ethiopian slave, commanded Arab troops for the king of Bijapur, who gave him the title "Malik", meaning "like a king"6. In 1590, Ambar broke away from Bijapur and built an independent mercenary army of over 1500 African, Arab and local Dakani men. He eventually joined the state of Ahmadnagar and later imprisoned King Murtaza II, naming himself regent minister. Ambar promoted minorities of various ethnic groups to key positions and implemented financial, educational and agricultural reforms.7 Ferista, an contemporary Arab historian, praised Ambar: "he appears to have been the most enlightened financier of whom we read in Indian history." Ambar also organized a 60,000 horse army and successfully beat back the Moguls for the next 20 years. The Moguls could not conquer Dakan until after his death.8
Many Habshi officers were prominent in the Muslim courts of Dakan and the Mogul empire in the 17th century,. Today, the Habshi communities have been diminished due to widespread intermarriage with other Muslims.
------------------------------------------------------
Once again from the African Muslims in South Asia:
http://www.khyber.demon.co.uk/history/africa/india.htm
"...When Islamic rule was at the height of its splendour in India there was a considerable influx of Ethiopians, some coming as traders in the 1300s, but the majority as mercenaries and slaves. In time they emerged from the mass to become prime ministers, great military and naval commanders, hereditary admirals, and in several instances sultans. As late at 1833 three of the ruling princes of India were Africans [2].
The first of the Indian rulers to use Ethiopian soldiers was Barbek Shah who found them faithful and promoted them to high rank and important situations. His example was afterwards followed by the sovereigns of Guzerat and Deccan; and many of these people, who, if they had fallen into the hands of Europeans, would have been condemned to servile drudgery became the associates of princes and governors of provinces. Among other Africans who distinguished themselves in this region of India were Mawla, who was thrown under the feet of an elephant by Sultan Jalalu-Din because the people wanted to make him sultan; Admiral Sambal, who defeated the Portuguese in several naval battles: Admirals Masud and Ali Kasam; Generals Kafur, Abudullah, Rahim Khan, Abdul Rahman, Battla, Belal, Forts, Hillol, Ibrahim Khan, Jauhar, Johar, Kasim Sabaun, Sambal, Sat, and the eminent military commander, Yakut Khan. Ekhaz Khan was a noted prime minister.
Another African people who played a prominent role in India were the Moors. The latter practically dominated Indian trade until 1600."
When Islamic rule was at the height of its splendour in India there was a considerable influx of Ethiopians, some coming as traders, but the majority as mercenaries and slaves. In time they emerged from the mass to become prime ministers, great military and naval commanders, hereditary admirals, and in several instances sultans. As late at 1833 three of the ruling princes of India were Africans.
These Ethiopians or Shidis, as they are better known, first appeared in India about 1300, when a force of them seized the island fort of Janijira, the site of Bombay or Mombai as it is known now. Legend has it that one of their number, disguised as a merchant, obtained permission to land 300 boxes supposed to contain imported wares but in which armed soldiers were actually concealed. Once ashore, the soldiers took the garrison by surprise and captured the island.
Finding commerce, unprofitable, the Ethiopians engaged themselves as soldiers in the armies of the Brahmans. They brought tens of thousands of their women and their slaves to settle there, and in time they became the backbone of the armies. Under their own commanders, they eventually became the source of central power, as did the Mazois under the Pharaohs, the Zenghis under the caliphs, and the Bokkharas in Morocco.
Ethiopian industry, skill and statesmanship helped greatly in making India rich and prosperous country which the Portuguese, English and French later found it. The principal regions in which they settled were Bombay, Gujarat and the Deccan to the West and Bengal to the East.
(Incidentally, Bengal and India were extremely rich states prior to European colonisation. In 1787 a former British army officer wrote: In former times the Bengal countries were the granary of nations, and the repository of commerce, wealth and manufacture in the East. Jawarharlal Nehru wrote that those parts of India which had been longest under British rule were the poorest: Bengal once so rich and flourishing after 187 years of British rule is a miserable mass of poverty-stricken, starving and dying people).
A most distinguished of the African rulers of western India was Malik Ambar, who beginning as a slave under Queen Chand Bibi, the Queen Elizabeth of India, rose to the top, becoming commander-in-chief of the armies of the Bombar empire.
When Queen Chand was slain by rebels in her palace in July, 1600, Malik Ambar remained loyal to the ruling dynasty. By a brilliant coup he captured Ahmadnagar, the principal fort, from the rebels, and proceeding to the city of Aurangabad, which he himself had built, he proclaimed Mustaza, grandson of Nizan Shah, ruler with himself as regent. Seven years later, however, Malik Ambar deposed the king and seized the throne.
Malik Ambar's kingdom lay in the vast tableland of the Deccan, which lies to the east of Bombay. His nominal overlord was Jahangir, the great Mughal Emperor. Soon after he took the throne, however, there was an outburst of dissension among the Mughals, and Malik Ambar, taking advantage of it, took much of their territory and even threatened Jahangir's power.
In a long war between Malik Ambar and Jahangir, fortunes shifted. No one was victorious, than the other. Jahangir's wrath was not confined to military operations - he even took up the pen against Malik Ambar. Sometimes Malik Ambar, beaten, was forced to pay large sums in tribute; at other times Jahangir's throne hung by a thread. His Ethiopian compatriots stood behind Malik Ambar to a man. On one occasion he defeated, by sheer strategy, Jahangir's force of 40,000 against which he moved with only 10,000 men. Invading the coast, Malik Ambar seized the ships of the emperor and forced the city of Bijapur, in which he started his life as a slave, to pay him tribute. Golconda, a city whose name was once synonymous all over the world with wealth, was similarly dealt with.
When in 1628 the English came to India, their first contact was with Malik Ambar. He was then master of the island of Janjira, which the English, like the Ethiopians of three centuries before, wanted a base for commerce with the interior. With gifts, promises, flattery they tried to gain a foothold on the island, but Malik Ambar would not succumb to their blandishments.
When they tried to oust him by a conspiracy, Malik Ambar retaliated by seizing one of their caravans valued at 200,000 rupees. The English took one of his ships and demanded the return of their money. With characteristic humour, Malik Ambar sent word to the British asking if they were so absentminded as to have forgotten that they had his ship.
With rockets, cannon and armed elephants, Malik Ambar defeated Abdullah, an ally of Jahangir's, in a decisive battle in 1628, and it seemed as if Jahangir was doomed. But then Malik Ambar died at the age of 80.
Motamid Khan, an Indian historian says of Malik Ambar: `This Ambar was a slave, but an able man. In warfare, in command, in sound judgement, in administration, he had no rival or equal. He well understood that predatory warfare which in the language of the Deccan, is called bargi-giru. He kept down the turbulent tribes and maintained his exalted position to the end of his life and closed his career in honour. History records no other instance of any Abyssinian slave at such eminence.'
Relics of this great ruler are still to be found in his city of Aurungabad. Ferishta, another Muslim historian says of him: `such is the esteem in which his character is held that notwithstanding the lands dedicated to the support of the attendants of his tombs, are yet left incorporated for that purpose. He was the first general, politician and financier of his age, and his country was the best cultivated and his subjects the happiest of any in the Deccan. He founded Ghurkeh, now called Aurungabad, and ornamented it with a magnificent palace, gardens, and noble bodies of water, lined with stones, which yet remain. His charities and his justice are yet celebrated, and he was also eminent for pieties.'
Nawaz Khan, another Arab historian says similarly: `in military acts and in statesmanship and right judgement, Malik Ambar was unique.'
A poet of the times compared him to Bilal, another African who was Prophet Muhammed's (saw) companion. He said: `there was Bilal, the servant of the Apostle of God, After one thousand years, there came Malik Ambar'.
Among the many Ethiopians who attained to high power in eastern India was Malik Andeel, possibly the greatest of their number. Born a slave, he ultimately became commander-in-chief of the armies of the rich and potent kingdom of Bengal under the rule of Sultan Futteh Khan, and was later sultan himself.
He was elected sultan by the people of Bengal with the official title of Feroze Shah. He was an able ruler. His Ethiopian compatriots backed him so effectively that none of the white Turkish or Afghan chiefs dared to rebel against him..."
| By International Punjabi on Monday, October 09, 2000 - 01:57 am: |
To Anonymous on Saturday, October 7, 2000 - 02:47 am.
These claims of African sultans ruling over India and making it a rich and prosperous nation are held with respect only by those who make them and others who believe evidence and fact are not neccessary. It is these people who are racist and ignorant of other cultures to make such unsubstantiated claims simply based upon their own incoherent logic. They seem to know nothing of the great Sikh armies of Punjab (as one example), the huge influences on India from other cultures as written above and insult Indian literature and writings of the time with their unbelievably prejudiced rantings.
| By Anonymous on Monday, October 09, 2000 - 02:31 am: |
"These claims of African sultans ruling over India and making it a rich and prosperous nation are held with respect only by those who make them and others who believe evidence and fact are not neccessary. It is these people who are racist and ignorant of other cultures to make such unsubstantiated claims simply based upon their own incoherent logic.":
Those who believe evidence and fact are not necessary???; From a British scholar(by the way, ANOTHER authority on this subject:
http://archives.geez.org/AddisTribune/Archives/1999/05/21-05-99/Hist.htm
excerpt:
Denison Ross, a British scholar of Indian affairs, less familiar with Africa, observes that Habshi was "a term indicating Abyssinian, but no doubt includes other negroid races from Africa". Though the word was, as he says, nodoubt applied to non-Ethiopians from East Africa, it is, however, highly unlikely that negroid people, i.e. West Africans from the Niger area, were ever taken to India.
Hapshis played a major role in Indian history, for, as Ross declares, "like the Turks who founded dynasties throughout the Muhammedan world these Hapshis usually began as slaves, and seem to have shown the same wonderful capacity, as did the Turks, for rising from slavery to the highest positions".Several indeed established ruling dynasties, the history of which lies outside the scope of this, and the ensuing, article.
Hapshis are known to have arrived in India as early as the thirteenth century. The first Hapshi of whom we have record was a slave called Jamal ad-Din Yaqut, who is reported to have won the favour of Queen Radiyya (1236-1240), in the kingdom of Delhi.
Hapshis subsequently arrived in many parts of the sub-continent. The largest concentrations were, as to be expected, in the areas with which there was the most considerable trade with the Ethiopian region, i.e. in the north-west, especially Gujarat and the Gulf of Cambay. Hapshis were also established to the east of the sub-continent, in Bengal which was also engaged in extensive Red Sea trade. The local ruler, Sultan Rukn ad-Din (1459-1474), was reported to have no less than 8,000 Hapshi slaves, some of whom rose to high positions.The Deccan, on the west coast of India facing Africa, likewise had a sizable Hapshi population, who were first reported in the area at the time of Bahmani Sultan Firuz (1397-1422). He employed some of them as his personal assistants, and others in his harem.
The importance of the Ethiopian slave export trade, which constitutes the background to Hapshi history, was duly recognised by Alvares. He noted, of the 1520s, that Ethiopian slaves from Damot in particular were "much esteemed by the Moors", i.e. Muslims, and that "all the country of Arabia, Persia, India, Egypt, and Greece" was "full of slaves from this country". Such slaves, he says, "made very good Moors [i.e. Muslims] and great warriors"...
| By Anonymous on Monday, October 09, 2000 - 02:43 am: |
"Don't start the African theory about South Indians being African, there's no evidence to support such wishful thinking.":
No evidence to support such wishful thinking???
The document below contains 32 references to back up it's argument, of which the majority of the reference's author's were written by Indian scholars themselves:
The Sudroid (Indo-African) Race
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/1335/Anthro/sud_afr.html
The Sudran, or Sudroid, race refers to the aboriginal populations of India. Formerly widepread over all of India, they were displaced from most of Hindustan (North India) and virtually all of the Deccan by invading Aryans. Sudroid includes the following peoples:
Sudroid
Dravidoids (speakers of Dravidian languages)
Untouchables or Avarans
Antyajas/Dalits/SC
Adivasis/ST
Vedic Shudrs (Aryanized and enslaved blacks)
They are a black race, closely related to the Africans and Australoids, as evident from -
Black skin , broad noses , thick lips and wavy-curly hair
Linguistically, all the languages are related.
Genetically they are closely related
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This ends the basic section. The advanced section is below.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Sudran (Indo-African) Race
Table of Contents
The unity of Sudroids, Africoids and Australoids
1. Physiognomic Similarities
1.1 Black Skin
1.2 Nose Width (Nasal Index)
1.3 Wavy-Curly Hair and Thick Lips
1.4 Prognathism
1.5 Skeletal Similarities
2. Ethnographic Evidence
2.1 Boomerang & Hunting Customs
2.2 Theological
2.3 Burial & Funerary Customs
2.4 Circumcision & Initiation Rites
2.5 Agricultural
2.6 Building Construction & Ship-Building
2.7 Inheritance
2.8 Calendar
3. Archaeological
3.1 Megalithic Cultures
3.2 Pottery : Red-and-Black Ware
4. Linguistic
5. Genetic
6. Zoological & Botanical
6.1 Reptiles
6.2 Mammals
6.3 Botanical
1. Physiognomy
1.1 Black Skin
The most evident similarity between Africans and Sudroids is their black skin colour. It often approaches deep black, and when shiny resemble tar. The Adi Dravidas (true Dravidians) of South India are black like the Africans with a slightly different hair texture [ Win.gen ].
1.2 Nasal Index
The nose of Sudroids closely resembles that of Negroids and Australoids, being very broad. In both pure black African and pure Sudroid it is often as wide as it is broad, ie. the nasal index (ratio of width to height) is 100. By contrast Caucasians are fine-nosed. The Indo-Aryan is thus very similar to the European, possessing a fine nose, while the Sudroid is related to the Africans -
Race Nasal Index Nasal Type
Arya (Indo-Aryan)
Brahman (Bengal) 70.3 fine-nosed sub-leptorrhine
Rajput 71.6 fine-nosed sub-leptorrhine
Vaisya (Jat) 68.8 fine-nosed leptorrhine
Vaisya (Bania) 79.6 medium-nosed mesorrhine
Sudroid
Dravidian (Kadian) 89.8 broad-nosed platyrrhine
Dalit (Chamar) 86.0 broad-nosed platyrrhine
Adivasi (Munda) 89.9 broad-nosed platyrrhine
Vedic Shudrs (Dom) 83.0 broad-nosed sub-platyrrhine
-- [ Ris App. III p.395 ff ]
By comparison, the French of Paris average 69.4 [ Ris 28-9 ], while pure Africans average between 90 and 100.
1.3 Wavy-Curly Hair & Thick Lips
The hair of Sudroids is wavy and often curly, with imported Africans ( eg. the Makranis, the Siddis of Sind and the Dakhin ) it is frizzy. It is a common misconception to asume all Africoids have frizzy hair; it is often curly and wavy in Nubia and Abyssinia.
Curly Hair -
Friedrich Mueller classified black races according to hair texture, classing them under the tufted-haired peoples ( Bushmen, Hottentots and Papuans ), fleece-haired peoples ( Bantu and Negro ) and wavy-haired peoples ( Hamitic, Semitic and Nuba-Fulla ).
-- [ EB `Languages of the World' ]
Another trait in common is the thick everted lips [ Arav.neg ] .
1.4 Prognathism
Pronounced prognathism is characteristic of all black races from Africa to southern India and Oceania - Australia. In addition, the teeth are relatively larger in case of Australoids and Kolarians, as well as Dravidians.
1.5 Skeletal Similarities
Long Forearm -
The forearm of Suroids and Africans are long.
Dolicocephaly -
Dolicocephaly ( long-headedness ) is common amongst Sudras. In fact, many are classed as hyperdolicocephalic. Dolicocephaly is common amongst East Africans in general ( Nilotes, Sudanic Blacks and Cushites - Hamites or Abyssinians )
2. Ethnographic Evidence
2.1 Boomerang & Hunting Customs
The boomerang is used by Dravidian abroginals, Australoids and is recorded from Egypt.
2.2 Theological
Both Africans and Dravidians held a common interest in teh cult of the Serpent and believed tn a Supreme God, who lived in aplace of peace and tranqulity. Murugan the Dravidian god of the mounatins parallels a common god in East Africa worshipped by 25 ethnic groups called Murungu, the god who resides in the mountains [ Win.gen ]
2.3 Burial & Death Rites
Burning of the dead body is a characteristic of Indo-Aryans, while burial of the dead was common to Indo-Africans. In both South India and the Western Sudan and Senegambia the dead were buried and interned in terra cotta jars [ Singh ] [ Win.gen ]
2.4 Circumcision & Initiation Rites
Circumcision, both male and female, was practiced by Dravidians and is still widely practiced in Africa.
2.5 Agricultural
Both groups use the hoe for tilling the ground, manuring the ground to fertilize crops, terracing irrrigation and canal building.
Wheat of the 6-row variety, which is found in predynastic graves in Egypt, has been discovered at Harappan sites dating much later, as late as 2300-1750 BC. On the Gangetic plain, barley was found at neolithic Hallum in Mysore state (1800 BC). Pearl millet has been found at Saurasthra and Ahar (1200-100 BC). Indian sorghum is clearly of African origin. Cultivated cotton which came from West Africa appear at Mohenjo-Daro and harrapa from 2300-1700 BC. [ Win.agri ]
2.6 Building Construction & Ship-Building
Both races used a single log or planks tied together
2.7 Inheritance
Among the ali tiravitar (Adi Dravidas, or real Dravidians), the system of inheritance passes from the uncle to his nephews, instead of his sons (maru makkal tayam) as in Africa [ Win.gen ]
2.8 Calendrical
The Dravidians and Africans used the same calendrical systema [ Win.agri ].
3. Archaeological
3.1 Megalithic Cultures
Megalithic cultures in India and Africa dating to the third millenium BC are very similar: both contain black-and-red ware, bones and pottery sarcophagi near water tanks [ Win:Agri ]. Cave paintings are also very similar, pointing to ancient contacts.
3.2 Pottery : Red-and-Black Ware
The black races are consistently associated with red-and-black pottery all over the world. Pottery of the Nubians is very similar to Dravidian pottery.
4. Linguistic
The most evident linguistic connections between African and Dravidian languages is in place-names:
Africa India
------ ------
Botswana, Bophutatswana (reg) Gondwana (region)
Ubangi (river) Bhangi (caste)
Gonder (town, reg.) Gond (tribe)
Galla (tribe) Goala (caste), Gaya (town)
Kongo (river, reg., tribe) Kongu Nadu (reg.), Kond or Khond (tribe)
Imbangala (tribe) Bangala or Bengal (tribe, reg.)
The `Congo' river and the `Kongo' tribes are cognate to the Kongu Nadu comprising the Salem tract in Tamil Nadu prior to its conquest by the Cholas [ EB 10 salem 350 ].
The suffix `-wana' is common to Bantu and Dravidian languages, thus Botswana and Bophuthatswana in southern Africa [ EB 2 botswana 412 ] [ EB 2 boph. 376 ] and Gondwana in central India [ EB 5:358 ].
The Mbangala or Imbangala warrior tribe of central Angola [ EB 6: imb. 266 ] are cognate to the Bangala tribe and the region named after them in eastern India, which later became Bengal.
The Ubangi river [ EB ubangi 12:98 ] is the largest right-bank tributary of the Congo river and flows past Bangui town (the capital of the Central African Republic). A black tribe (and later low caste) by the name of Bhangi exists in northern India. The Bangweulu is a large lake and swamp region in northeastern Zambia. In Bantu the term denotes `Large Water' [ EB 1 bangw. 868 ]
The Galla are the largest ethnic group in Ethipia, forming 40 % of the population [ EB 5 galla 87 ]. They are cattle-herders, as are the black-skinned low-caste known as Goala (cow-herders) in central India.
The Mbundu are the second-largest ethnic group of Angola [ EB 7 mbundu 986 ] while the Munda are in Eastern India.
The Ndongo tribe of the Mbundu [ EB 7 mbundu 986 ] are perhaps cognate to the Dombas or Doms of India.
The Godabas of Somalia may have given their name to the Godavari River in the Deccan.
Congates of `gond' and `gong' are widepread in Africa and Dravidia. Gonder or Gondar is the ancient capital of Ethiopia 1652-1855 as well as the surrounding region. The Gongola river is the primary tributary of the Benue River, while the Gongola basin is in northeastern Nigeria [ EB 5 gongola 359 ]. The Guang or Gonja in northern Ghana, who are descendant of Mandingos, speak the Gur and Goja languages and founded the Gonja kingdom [ EB 5 guang 532 ] The Gond are a large group of Draviidan tribes in Central India.
The Congolese linguist Th. Obenga proposed the term `Indo-African' languages in analogy with `Indo-European' [ Obenga ]. Prof. L. Homburger established close linguistic connections between Dravidian and Senegalese languages especially Fulani, as well as Kannada - Bantu and Telugu - Mande relationships [ Hom ]. Prof. Tuttle established connections between Nubian and Dravidian languages [ Tuttle ]. Prof. Lahoverty established conections between African and Dravidian languages [ Lah ]. Senegalese and Dravidian languages are closely related grammatically, structurally and lexically [ N'D ] [ Ups ]. The Upper Nile basin is considered by some scholars to be the original home of the Dravidians on linguistic grounds [ Win.gen 1118 ]
Dravidian legends mention an ancient landmass which disappeared into the Ocean. The Tamils say that it was highly populated and included large cities, now buried beneath the sea. Tamil historians have discussed this land mass in detail throughout history; eg. Ariyarkkunallar in the 12th century. Linguistic evidence indicates that the Dravidians are related to the C-group Nubians of the Western Sahara who built the Kerma empire. Since Egypt was often at war with Kerma, the connection across Lemuria seems more plausible. [Winters:Agri]
5. Genetic
The Sudroid and Africoid peoples are also genetically closely related. The genetic similarities between Africans and Sudrics include:
Glucose-6-Phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency
Gene for sickle-cell anemia is common
Enzymes providing malaria resistance are present
The Kolarians (Indo-Australoids) share many genetic similarities with the Australoids and Oceanic Negroids. Genetic similarities of the Kolarians with the Australoids and Oceanic Negroids include :
Glucose-6-Phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency and alcohol intolerance
A large ratio of B type blood
Rarity of Rhesus negative
Rarity of P2 gene
Rarity of A type, and especially A2
Shovel-shaped incisors are common
Low bi-zygomatic diameter
In addition, the hair is frequently reddish to blonde in childhood in the case of Australoid Blackfellows, Dravidians and Kolarians.
Genetic Studies of mtDNA of Dravidians in Andhra displayed a close similarity with African populations [ Bam ].
6. Zoological & Botanical Evidence
Zoological and Botanical similarities are numerous between animal and plant species of Africa, Australia and South India (Dravidia). This indicates that the similarity of humans extends to the plant and animal kingdoms as well. These similarities arise from either migration across the Suez and the MIddle East into India and thence to Australia, or due to submerged land bridges in the Indian Ocean.
6.1 Reptiles
Python -
The python is found from western Africa to China, Australia and the Pacific Islands. The slender reticulated python is probably the world's longest snake, often reaching 8 m ( 26 feet ) with one specimen recorded as 9.6 m in length. The Indian python is usually less than 4 m but is much thicker and sometimes reaches 8m in length. The African python often reaches 7 m while the species in West Africa ( the Ball/Royal python ) is, as expected, smaller, reaching 1.5 m. The blood python of Malaya, Sumatra and Borneo is reddish and averages 2.7 m.
-- [ EB 9 `python' 828 ]
Mangrove Snake -
The manrove snake, comprising 30 species of hte genus Boiga, is found from tropical Africa to Australia and Polynesia [ EB 7`mangr.'774 ].
6.2 Mammals
Rhinoceros -
The term denotes any of 5 species of the family Rhinocerotidae ( and sometimes includes extinct fossil genera ). These animals are found only in eastern and southern Africa and tropical Asia, lending further support to the unity of vegetation of Africa and India and indicating that recent exchange of zoo-botanicl contact existed much after the breakup of Gondwanaland. The great Indian rhino ( R. unicornis ) is the largest of all extant species, reaching 4.3 m in length and 2 m in height at the shoulder, while the Sumatran rhino is the smallest ( height 2.5 m or 8 foot and 2 m high ).
-- [ EB 10 `rhino' 23 ]
Buffalo -
Buffalos are again common to Africa and the Indies, while the related bison/wisent occurs in North America and Europe. The black Indian buffalo ( Bubalus bubalus ) reaches 1.5 m of more at the shoulder, as does the black Cape or African buffalo ( Syncerus caffer ). A red-brown subspecies of the Cape buffalo in the dense forests of equatorial western Africa is, like humans and animals of West Africa in general, much smaller. The anoa, a small dark brown buffalo of the dense Celebes rainforests and the tamaraw of the Philippines are also smaller species.
-- [ EB 2 `buffalo' 607 ]
Elephant -
The elephant once again is restricted to the Indies and Africa. 3 species exist: the Indian elephant, the large African elephant and the dwarfish Pygmy elephant of the rainforests of West Africa.
-- [ EB 4 `elephant' 441-2 ]
Felidae (Felines) -
The lion was once found in Africa, Europe and Asia. Now it is found only in sub-Saharan Africa and in India (eg. the Gir National Forest, Gujarat) [ EB 7 `lion' 382-3 ]. The leopard is found from Africa trough Anatolia, Central Asia, India, China and Manchuria. Varieties include the Barbary, South Arabian, ANantolian, Amur, SInai leopards [ EB `leo.' 281 ]
6.3 Botanical
Baobab Tree -
The baobab trees ( Adansonia digitata ), belonging to the bombax family (Bombacaceae) are native to Africa. However, a closely related and very similar tree, also known as baobab ( Adansonia gregoria ), occurs in Australia ! [ EB 1 `baobab' 877 ]
Banyan Tree -
The banyan tree ( Ficus benghalensis ) with its characteristic prop roots that resemble trunks is native to India. However, a similar variety, the wonderboom ( Ficus pretoia ) of Africa is very similar [ EB 28 `trees' 881 ] !
Capparaceae Trees -
Trees of the order Capparaceae, family moringaceae occur from Africa to India [ EB 13`angio.'638 ] and are another indication of the unity of Indian and African botanical life.
Appendix I - The Sudran Races
The Sudra, or Indo-African, Race consists of the following sub-races:
Dravidian - Dravidian-speaking Sudras:
Settled Dravidians - Tamils, Mallas/Malabaris, and Karnadas
Adivasi Dravidas in North India (Gonds, Bhils, Brahui etc.) and South India (Tulus, Kurumba etc.)
Kolarians - Austric-Speaking Blacks or Indo-Australoid Sudras.
Dalits - Hindicized Aboriginal Blacks and imported Africans (Habshis), SC in North India
Appendix II - Origin of the Term Sudra
The term Shudra first appears in Sanskrit texts around 1500 BC denoting one of the black aboriginal tribes that the Aryans conquered. It was subsequently expanded to all blacks subjugated, and the term Dasa or Dasyu , or slave, was used to denote the servitude to which most Sudras were subjected. Sanskrit texts refer to the Shudra as the black varna or colour. Thus Shudra is equivalent as a racial term to the Latin Negra . Initially it only referred to subjugated aboriginals and not the aboriginals themselves who were referred to as avarna and later Adiavasi. Thus the terms Adivasi and Sudra were exclusive. Later under Muslim rule Arabic: sudd-> black and hence Sudra 9not Shudra) became the generic term for Indian blacks.
In its modern sense Sudra denoted any black man in India and hence includes the following sub-races:
Dravidians - Speakers of Dravidian languages. This includes
South Indian Dravidians or Settled Dravidians
Tamils
Mallas/Malabaris : Malayalis, Mallas
Karanad
Adivasi or Aboriginal Dravidians (eg. Tulu, Kurumba)
Kolarians - Kolarian speakers, incl. Mundas, Oraons, Santal, Ho
Dalits - Hindicized Sudras. This includes
Habshis or Hindicized Abyssinians
Hindicized Kols, eg. Bhuiyas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The term Shudra is first recorded from Sanskrit texts as referring to one of the black aboriginal tribes that the Aryans encountered. It is the name of a black tribe that was adopted into Sanskrit and was subsequently used to denote those blacks who had entered the caste system as the lowest `varna' or color. They were the black varna. Initially, a distinction was drawn between Sudra and Adivasi (aboriginal blacks outside the caste system). However, in Prakrits the distinction was blurred, and Shudra was used for any aboriginal. During the Islamic Califate of Hindustan, Arabic became a sacred language, and in Arabic `sudd' means black ( hence the `bilad as-Sudan' or the Sudan of Africa ), and hence Sudra was used for any black, even the blacks imported from Africa. Terms of Abuse incl. Kalu kalia Kaluta kaffir English Hindustani Negro (Latin "negri") Sudra (Sans. "Shudra", Arab. "Sudd",black Black Kala
| By International Punjabi on Monday, October 09, 2000 - 03:44 am: |
To anonymous who just made the 3 lengthy posts above, let me ask a simple question. If I was to make the a statement such as "Blacks are an inferior race" and then use various books and articles from Internet sites to further attempt to prove this point (there are tons of white supremecist books by PhD's or even more mainstream suttle titles and Internet sites which could provide support). Would you believe that blacks are inferior? Most likely not. Simply because all the CREDIBLE (credible entailing that it is something which is not ONLY held by various Internet sites, or people on the fringes of their profession) logic deems that such a statement is obviously wrong. How credible do you think your sources are? That website you listed above(http://www.khyber.demon.co.uk/history/africa/india.htm) also states that Arabs are a inferior race to blacks, I'm assuming you believe this also? If all the supposed evidence you post is so very absolute and comes from credible and accredited resources (in this case Internet sites and various books) then it must simply be racism by the rest of the world against Africans which suppresses the "great truth"?? Let me put it another way, say I went to a labourer working in the mines in South America and told him that white people rule Japan and the Japenese are simply labourers. To prove this point I showed him various pictures of white professionals working in Japan, and pictures of a few low-income Japanese. Now you see how this little proof, carefully orchestrated brings forth the exact image I wish to present? And you see how if I wanted this proof to be accepted by the whole world as fact I would be shunned? This example is perhaps a little harsh but you get my meaning. Almost everything you posted above is refuted by accredited academia, and accepted by fringe elements of society (as is the case with my white supremicist example above).
| By International Punjabi on Monday, October 09, 2000 - 04:10 am: |
Also anonymous I forgot to add. Why the fanaticism in attempting to prove this rule of India by Africans? Let's say theorectically you could somehow, beyond doubt prove this to be undeniable fact to all. What do you hope this would achieve? Do you think the Indian and African communities would run and embrace each other?? You don't think India has a culture that is very distinct from others in its values, beliefs, and embodiments? Just reading through some past posts here there seems to be a contingent of people bent on proving some type of strong association in history between India and Africa, so what would this achieve?? What's the innate purpose behind it?? ..?
| By Anonymous on Monday, October 09, 2000 - 07:36 am: |
To International Punjab...
"Almost everything you posted above is refuted by accredited academia, and accepted by fringe elements of society (as is the case with my white supremicist example above).":
I don't know of any cases of the sources that I have used that have been refuted by accredited academia; some of the scholars I have used have a doctarate degree and have taught at accredited US universities...please give me specific names of people who refute my claims, books, articles, etc to support your assertion that my sources are not credible.
no fanaticism in trying to prove rule of CERTAIN parts of India by Africans, i am just simply trting to state the facts according to the sources I have. Black, Indian, and White scholars are saying the same thing-Certain parts of India were ruled by Black Africans during a period of Indian histiry.
| By Anonymous on Monday, October 09, 2000 - 08:14 am: |
"That website you listed above(http://www.khyber.demon.co.uk/history/africa/india.htm) also states that Arabs are a inferior race to blacks, I'm assuming you believe this also?":
International Punjabi,
where in the article does it say that Arabs are inferior race to Blacks???? I did not see that statement mentioned at all in the article???
| By dee on Monday, October 09, 2000 - 01:08 pm: |
I am surprised to have people in this world who thinks that one race is superior then another. That notion is ridiculous. Are you a Nazi?
I basically grew up in America, since I came here at a very young age. I respect all the people I've met here, and am a product of all their influence. Most of what I have learned has been from a mix of people, not from one ethnic group. By closing our mind to other people and other ideas, we are shutting the door in our quest to understanding, knowledge, and success.
If you are a true Indian, and a true Hindu, then you will know that ALL our books say that we should not judge others. Our holy books say that we allow for the existence of other religions. Everything says that we should live in harmony with our fellow man.
Mixing with other races will only make us richer and better as people. The most successful people I know, Indian or not, are those who do not blind themselves by discrimination, by close-mindedness.
Perhaps you should rethink YOUR point of view. It is stupidity like this which holds any man back, regardless of his ethnicity.
| By International Punjabi on Monday, October 09, 2000 - 01:29 pm: |
To Anonymous on Monday, October 9, 2000 - 03:06 am.
What I meant by accredited academia was essentially that of material which is taught in the history classes of the world's top Universities or is otherwise the generally accepted consensus. Now I am not doing my studies in history nor have I ever completed any formal studies in the area however thanks to a well placed contact here are some textbooks, or just books in general which do not signify as black or African many of the empires, dynasties, ruler's, etc. that you have listed in your various posts. I trust we can agree that the credibility of the Oxford University Press or that of Columbia is not at question.
Ali, M. Athar, Mughal India Oxford University Press
Basham, A. L., A Cultural History of India Oxford University Press
Stanley Wolpert, A New History of India, 4th ed Oxford University Press
Columbia Chronologies of Asian History and Culture Columbia University Press
Sadly I was not able to aquire more material as for sure many other text's are used in history classes concerned with this particular region. You should be able to find some of these books at most major college/Uni. bookstores and all of them definitly at the sites of their respective publishers. Unfortunatly I don't know if public libraries carry the above material but as you appear to have a great interest in history with regards to India perhaps you wouldn't mind having to pay for some of them.
To By Anonymous on Monday, October 9, 2000 - 03:44 am:
I incorrectly posted the wrong link. This site http://www.khyber.demon.co.uk/history/africa/ seems to concern itself with dispelling incorrect myth's with regards to African history and if you go to it's depication of Arab/Africa interactions http://www.khyber.demon.co.uk/history/africa/arabs.htm
you will see what I was referring to.
| By DesiandProud on Monday, October 09, 2000 - 03:44 pm: |
Your accounts of history are mind boggling. They seem to be in th esame league as some Hindu accounts that Taj Mahal was built by a Hindu king!!The Marathas defeated by the Africans? The last time I read Indian history, Dravids inhabitated the Indus Valley civilisation 5,000 to 7,000 years ago and then moved south to occupy southern India. Africans dont fit in the picture.
Anonymous seems to be convinced that India was built by Ethiopans/Africans just like Europeans seem convinced that they built India. Nonone seems to want to accept that a civilisation as great as India's was indegenious. Any self proclaimed scholar can open up a web site and preach any garbage and "quotes" by Indian rulers about the greatness of Africans and how India would have never achieved her civilisation without them. It's a lot more difficult to have the book printed by a credible publisher isn't it?
You seem to totally divert from the topic as well, in the post Arvind asks why Indians should mix with Africans today? If Africans were such a dynamic people how come there's no sign of any advanced civilisations in Africa. Surely someone would develop their own backyard before going to India and developing India. Oh yeah, African cities conveniently sank into the sea. Where are the African scriptures, books on philosophy, astronomy, religion, arts etc.
| By Anonymous on Monday, October 09, 2000 - 10:56 pm: |
To DesiandProud:
I am not convinced that India was built primarily by Ethiopians and Europeans. My goal was to simply highlight the CONTRIBUTIONS to India made by Ethiopians during a particular period of time in Indian History. I already know that there were many other ethnic groups, besides, Africans that inhabited India throughout it's history. I just simply wanted to acknowledge the African contributions to Indian history. I am not ethnocentric or a racist.
"It's a lot more difficult to have the book printed by a credible publisher isn't it?":
To International Punjabi and Desiand Proud:
THESE BOOKS LISTED BELOW, ARE THEY CREDIBLE ENOUGH?:
Abu-Lughod, Janet L. 1989. Before European Hegemony: The World System AD 1250-1350. New York: Oxford University Press.
Chaudhuri, K. N. 1990. Asia Before Europe: Economy and Civilisation of the Indian Ocean from the Rise of Islam to 1750. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chauhan, R. R. S. 1994. Africans in India: From Slavery to Royalty. New Delhi: Aryan.
Harris, Joseph E. 1971. The African Presence in Asia: Consequences of the East-African Slave Trade. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
Irwin, Graham W. 1977. Africans Abroad. New York: Columbia University Press.
| By anon on Tuesday, October 10, 2000 - 09:59 am: |
lol, firstly dravidian refers to a linguistically related group of families and not a race! lol I am a south indian and i have brown skin, sharp nose, thin lips and straight hair, but because im south indian (TAMIL) im an african? HUH?! Sorry guys, try coming up with a real argument and not some worthless propaganda from pro-african sites. How come black people are always trying to connect south indians to blacks, when most of us look so different from them?! Absolutely asinine! Oficially according to MOST scholars, all people in india share racial similarity barring the ADIVASIS(native tribes), who resemble the aborigines of Australia.
| By Indian Guys on Wednesday, October 11, 2000 - 12:27 am: |
Look anonymous you have so much proof which is so credible and cannot be argued by anybody why don't you stop WASTING your time trying to prove to a few Indians on a Internet message board that they should recognize African rulers in Indian history and instead take all this great literature and proof and show it to the education boards in India or the history departments at Universities all over the world. Because schools in India and most other ones all over the world don't teach what you're preaching here regardless of how many of these articles or books you post.
btw noone's saying there were NO African's ever in India what people are saying is they weren't these dominant ruler's with large populations who then all of the sudden disappeared or "mixed" into the Indian race.
| By Anonymous on Wednesday, October 11, 2000 - 03:27 am: |
To Indian Guys,
Thank You...I really appreciate your comments. I really should stop wasting my time
| By Anonymous on Wednesday, October 11, 2000 - 06:46 am: |
To International Punjabi and DesiandProud:
By International Punjabi on Sunday, October 8, 2000 - 09:27 pm:
"...it is these people who are racist and ignorant of other
cultures to make such unsubstantiated claims simply based upon their own incoherent logic..."
By International Punjabi on Sunday, October 8, 2000 - 11:14 pm:
"...all the CREDIBLE (credible entailing that it is something
which is not ONLY held by various Internet sites, or people on the fringes of their profession) logic deems that such a statement is
obviously wrong. How credible do you think your sources are?..."
"...Almost everything you posted above is refuted by
accredited academia, and accepted by fringe elements of society (as is the case with my white supremicist example above)."
By DesiandProud on Monday, October 9, 2000 - 11:14 am:
"Your accounts of history are mind boggling. They seem to be in th esame league as some Hindu accounts that Taj Mahal was built
by a Hindu king!!The Marathas defeated by the Africans? The last time I read Indian history, Dravids inhabitated the Indus Valley
civilisation 5,000 to 7,000 years ago and then moved south to occupy southern India. Africans dont fit in the picture."
"...Any self proclaimed scholar can open
up a web site and preach any garbage and "quotes" by Indian rulers about the greatness of Africans and how India would have never
achieved her civilisation without them. It's a lot more difficult to have the book printed by a credible publisher isn't it?"
My reply:
First to hindustan.com and readers, I regret that I have to take up more space at hindustan, however, I just had to make a rebuttal at this post in order to respond to misleading comments made by a small minority of readers at hindustan who still don't want to accept the fact that, Africans, just like any other ethnic group in India in the past, were a significant minority during the time of Medieval India.
Both of you should take time to think more carefully and reconsider your comments when you say things like "Africans don't fit in the picture" and "Any self proclaimed scholar can open up a website and preach garbage quotes by Indian rulers"
Please take the time to review the background of my sources and any reasonable reader at hindustan will conclude that these people are not extremist, radical, pseudo, discredited, or refuted scholars. But instead, reputable scholars who wrote high quality reviews in books, journals, articles, or even internet sites to get their message across. Personally, I don't think it would make any sense for Black, White, or Indian scholars to spend their time making up things about Indian history, because, if they did, I think they would have immediately been discredited by their peers and fired from their university posts.
1.) Dr. Vasant D. Rao
A native of India who at the time of writing was an instructor in the Department of History at
Fisk University in Nashville, Tenn.
"African Dynasty In India" August 1975 BLACK WORLD Pages 78-80
2.) Shanti Sadiq Ali
Founder of President, African Studies of India. Her books include India and Africa through the Ages and
India and the East African Littoral, Hinterland and Indian Ocean Island States.
"The African Dispersal in the Deccan : From Medieval to Modern Times." New Delhi: Orient Longman. 1996
3.) Dr. Richard Pankhurst
Authored or co-authored twenty two books on Ethiopia. He has either edited or compiled an
additional seventeen. Over the past four and a half decades Dr. Pankhurst has produced several hundred articles on Ethiopia
that have appeared in numerous academic journals throughout the world, and in magazines and newspapers. His most
accessible writings are probably his articles for Selamta, the magazine of Ethiopian Airlines, and his newspaper articles for
Addis Tribune, which are all available in the on-line archives of the paper. Dr. Pankhurst’s writings have presented Ethiopian
history, culture, and tradition not only to academics and students of history, but also to a wide spectrum of readers, both
Ethiopian and non-Ethiopian.
Dr. Pankhurst received his Ph.D. in Economic History and moved to Ethiopia in 1956 and began teaching at the University
College of Addis Ababa. In 1962 Dr. Pankhurst founded the Institute of Ethiopian Studies, located on the grounds of Addis
Ababa University, and was the first Director of it. This is perhaps one of his more prominent contributions to Ethiopia as the
Institute continues as the foremost center of research and learning on Ethiopia in the world today.
4.) Sir Edward Denison Ross (1871-1940)
*Professor of Persian in University College London
University of London
*Principal of Madrasah Muslim College, Calcutta and first Director of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 1916-1937
| By indian on Wednesday, October 11, 2000 - 09:30 am: |
Soon we will hear that the blacks landed first on the moon.
| By Anonymous on Wednesday, October 11, 2000 - 09:31 am: |
The Tamils of India are some of the brightest brains of India.Wonder why I have never seen a black engineer.
| By DesiandProud on Wednesday, October 11, 2000 - 12:35 pm: |
Anonymous, sure there are always academics who contradict popular opinion either because they geniunely belive it or for private gain.
Popular Indian history talks about the Greeks, the Iranians, the Chinese, the Mughals. Yes, there is a siddi community in India even today, but they were largely traders or slaves who migrated to India, a few may even have become officers or commanders in armies, but to say they ruled large parts of India, regularly defeated Shivaji, the most powerful Hindu king often, is ridiculous.
Why don't Indian text books teach that in schools? They teach about Alexander, Akbar and the British, but not these great warriors from Ethiopia. Let me guess, we're racist right??!!
| By anon on Wednesday, October 11, 2000 - 02:30 pm: |
I dunno y southies esp. tamils r looked at as africans. Lol they look nothing alike. Hell my family is tamil and we all have sharp features, i have cousins who look like punjabis! Where is the question of african?! Another stupid theory kicked around by afro-centric scholars!
| By Yasmeen on Wednesday, October 11, 2000 - 04:06 pm: |
Anonymous those references were inciteful and you have no doubt taken time to research and write all of that up - so thankyou. However ignorant people who will not accept fact are not worth wasting time on. You dont need to waste time on defending that Africans are in any way inferior to any race because they are not - simple as that and so is any other race for that matter.The peoples of Africa have a rich cultural heritage of over a 1000 different complex languages, varied art forms, paintings, sculptures that are thousands of years old. Furthermore one of the so called theories of evolution of man the 'out of africa' hypothesis suggests that the earliest and oldest fossils of Australopithecus the forbear of Homo sapien (modern man) were in Africa. So if we truly evolved 'out of africa' we better not run our African brothers down. And aesthetically speaking except for the hair there are many dark south indians and srilankans who look just like darker Africans. Just like Indians, Srilankans, Pakistanis have a broad spectrum of skin colour from the very very light to the very dark Africans have the same differences. I believe that all this "my race is better than yours" is just a waste of time and its truly insulting. Wny do you think Anonymous went to that extent of writing up pages of information just to try and get you all to see that ? Furthermore when you think about it there are no such thing as race genetically speaking since the entire human population ( Africans, Indians, Lebanese, Italian, Turkish, Hispanic and Caucasian peoples ) despite their physical and aesthetic differences all share 99% of the same DNA. So for those of who are wondering about the measly 1 % which is different this is the physical characteristics of hair colour/type , height, nose width and skin colour that is different. And let me ask you something else yes you should be proud of the cultural identity you have or belong to but should the amount of melanin in someone else's skin give you the right to prejudge their capabilities and their competence ??
| By Anonymous on Thursday, October 12, 2000 - 12:15 am: |
To: DesiandProud on Wednesday, October 11, 2000 - 08:05 am
"Anonymous, sure there are always academics who contradict popular opinion either because they geniunely belive it or for private gain."
"...Yes, there is a siddi community in India even
today, but they were largely traders or slaves who migrated to India, a few may even have become officers or commanders in armies, but to say they ruled large parts of India, regularly defeated Shivaji, the most powerful Hindu king often, is ridiculous."
My reply:
I have just finished skimming this book that I obtained in the reference section of a university library. Please take a look.
Oliver, Roland and Michael Crowder, eds. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Africa. Cambridge: Cambridge University of Press, 1981.
General Editors:
Roland Oliver, Professor of the History of Africa
School of Oriental and African Stufies, University of London
Michael Crowder, Editor - History Today
Research Professor, Lagos Univ. Centre for Cultural Studies 1975-8
From Chapter 4, entitled AFRICA AND THE WORLD
Section 3, entitled THE BLACK DIASPORA
Exact words quoted word for word; no deletions or additions = PAGE 470, 2nd and 3rd paragraph:
"In India Black African soldiers have played the most significant role of all, often rising to important administrative positions and even becoming rulers themselves. In the late 14th century a eunuch called Malik Sarwar was appointed first vizier to the Sultan of Delhi, and then governor of the eastern provinces. On his death his adopted son, another black slave, succeeded him with the title Mubarak Shah and ruled in virtual independence of Delhi. On Mubarak's death in 1402 his brother Ibrahim succeeded and ruled for 38 illustrios years.
In the 15th century Deccan and Bengal black Africans played important roles in government and administration. Black Africans were also important in the maritime province of Gujerat. Sultan Bahadur (1526-37) had some 5000 in his service. They were predominant in the Gujerat navy in the 16th-17th centuries both commanding and serving, and they ruled the island principality of Janjira. The most celebrated is probably Malik Anbar, who reached India via the Yemen in 1575 and served in the Deccan, championing resistance to Moghul imperialism. From about 1600 until his death in 1626 he was the real power in the sultanate. He reformed its financial administration and built up an efficient army. His court attracted poets and scholars, and he was famed for his public works and the fine bulidings he put up during his years in power."
END OF 3rd PARAGRAPH-THE REST OF THE SEC. TALKS A/B THE AFRICAN DIASPORA IN OTHER COUNTRIES.
Let's be realistic DesiandProud, the passage that is quoted above, do you think the editors of a book produced by the cambridge univ. press(for those ppl. interesred in books published by elite or prestigious univ.) would have included this passage if these accounts of history were not true?
Do you think Cambridge Univ. Press would allow itself to have their reputation and credibility destroyed over false information printed in their books?
Do you actually believe Cambridge Univ. Press would allow the general editors of this book to publish this passage because they "geniunely believe it" or they have a "private gain". Moreover, if these general eds. were ppl. "who contradict popular opinion", do you think cambridge univ. press would allow these ppl. to be their editors in the first place?, and at the same time ruin their reputaion?
Please...Let us be sensible.
-------------
"Why don't Indian text books teach that in schools? They teach about Alexander, Akbar and the British, but not these great warriors
from Ethiopia. Let me guess, we're racist right??!!"
-DesiandProud
My reply:
No, I would not say you or ppl. who think like you are racist. Instead, I would say ppl. like you are miseducated about your own history. I am not going to speculate as to why the Indian Ministry of Education does not teach this material in their schools.
By the way, I just completed some research I performed over the past few days about the African Diaspora in India. As a result of the research undertaken, I have more books that will allow to back up and corroborate
everything that was said by me or said by the sources I have used and supplied at hindustan.net, for starters DesiandProud, International Punjabi, Indian, and Arvind try to see if you all can obtain access to these books listed below and if see so, tell the readers at hindustan.net what you found.
Wolseley, Haig. The Cambridge History of India. Delhi: S. Chand & Co., 1965.
Mehta, J. L. Advanced Study in the History of Medieval India (1000-1526 A.D.). New Delhi: Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd., 1979.
Lane-Poole, Stanley. Mediaeval India Under Mohammedan Rule. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1903.
| By now on Thursday, October 12, 2000 - 03:44 am: |
By International Punjabi on Sunday, October 8, 2000 - 11:14 pm:
"How credible do you think your sources are? That website you listed
above(http://www.khyber.demon.co.uk/history/africa/india.htm) also states that Arabs are a inferior race to blacks..."
Did Arabs Enslave Africans? 2000. ADREES Publishers and Universal Bookshops Ltd.
.
My response:
Nice attempt on trying to discredit the source I posted above. However, astute readers at hindustan.net will note that the Internet web site I listed never stated "that Arabs are a inferior race to blacks."
Instead, the Internet web site mentioned a commentary as reported by an Islamic scholar back in the 6-7th century, this scholar, who goes by the name of Al-Jihaz wrote:
""We Blacks have conquered the country of the Arabs as far as Mecca and governed them. The desert swarm with
the number of our men who married your women and who became chiefs and defended you against your enemies.
You even have sayings in your language which vaunt the deeds of our kings - deeds which you often placed above
your own; this you would not have done had you not considered them superior to your own. We defeated Dhu
Nowas (Jewish ruler of Yemen) and killed all the Himyarite princes, but the Arabs and Whites (from Europe)
have never conquered our country. Our people, the Zenghs (an African race), revolted forty times in the
Euphrates, driving the inhabitants from their homes...Blacks are physically stronger. A single one of them can
lift stones of great weight and carry burdens such as several whites could not lift nor carry between them. They
are brave, strong...- these good traits are the gifts of God."
As a matter of fact, International Punjabi, Arvind even mentioned in his first post that:
By Arvind Kumaran on Thursday, October 5, 2000 - 01:38 pm:
"There is nothing wrong in accepting there is a difference in the mental and physical make up of races. Its obvious and widely
accepted the black race is dominant in physical stength and stamina as evidenced by their performance in sports."
What the Internet site did say was:
"Africans are physically the strongest of all the nations / tribes on the earth. The Arabs are NOT. SEE how the oil-rich Arab countries are totally dependent on military personnel (mercernaries) from Europe, America and Pakistan for their defence from fellow Muslims in Iraq and Iran!"
You did not have a problem nor did you say that Arvind should by regarded as a derelict or that Arvind's statement was not credible, but when the Internet website I used said the same thing as Arvind said, you tried to use that statement as the basis for your reason as to why that Internet web site should not be regarded as being credible at all.
| By Indian Guys on Thursday, October 12, 2000 - 05:00 am: |
Anonymous there are disputes about parts of EVERY countries history and India being one of the oldest civilizations (could probably find people who would dispute this also) is no different. But in most such disputes there's popular opinion about one account of history that is agreed on by MOST scholars and people and this is what you'll find taught in the schools both of that country and MOST other places around the world. There are THOUSANDS, very key point here, thousands of people with Dr. in front of their name who have studied Indian history (and that's probably a understatement), listing 5 or 10 or 100 of them and whatever books or articles they might have published does little. You're free to believe what you want just know that majority of people (including Indians themselves) don't feel that way.
| By anon on Thursday, October 12, 2000 - 07:23 am: |
Lol, y does every black poster try to justify that south indians r africans?!lol Its absolutely absurd. Like i said, my family has full sharp features and we r south indian Tamils. hell i have cousins who r as fair as punjabis and kashmiris. yet according to these damn afro-centric people we r africans! Unbelievable.
| By Saurabh on Thursday, October 12, 2000 - 11:24 am: |
Just hang on a second here, anonymous. Who are you to tell us that Indian version of history is distorted? This person has the nerve to tell us indirectly that Africans built India. Man, look at Africa today and all through history. You guys never even learnt to ride a horse, for God's sake and you claim to send these excellent soldiers who were the iron pillars in Indian armies. Wake up, anonymous.
Maybe you should get a real education insted of subscribing to this alternative lifestyle. I'm sure you even believe the world is flat, don't you? Noone's interested in your afrocentric versions of history, white people threw out your theories, so you're trying to influence the brown folk now , are you? You're sure these "scholars" you're quoting aren't actually your uncles and aunts and cousins cause they sure seem to think like you....Africa is the greatest, we built the world, but somehow our backyard always looked like the aftermath of a nuke attack.
Yasmeen, stop that patronising attitude towards black people (if u're not black yourself, which people here seem to feel now) just because someone's black we don't have to turn a blind eye to them talking rubbish. Oh, 99% DNA is the same and 1% accounts for color, hair texture etc is it?? But it doesn't account for the fact that Blacks are taller than Asians of Indians, or that a black person has more fast twitch muscle fibres than someone of other races. Or that a black person's brain weighs less in mass that say a caucasion or Indian. Or that the Bantus tribe of Africa is the only group of people who have a unique glandular secretion that makes them more aggressive and better equipped in the face of danger. It's more that 1% Yasmeen.
| By RSK on Thursday, October 12, 2000 - 08:48 pm: |
Anonymous after reading through this topic here's what most people are trying to tell you. Ever hear of this country called Egypt?Another really old civilization like India. Now do a survey on who the Egyptions were and who engineered and built the Prymaids most people will tell you brown or light skinned people right? Expect there's a group out of all the ones who studied Egypt who say NO! It was infact black people who inhabited Egypt and built the prymaids. However see anywhere you go, including in Egypt the above idea isn't exactly widely held. There's still plenty of books on it, and articles and whatever else but that doesn't make it anywhere near true! History isn't exact science like math or physics BUT we have explanations that most people agree with but ofcourse not ALL.
By the way what any college press prints isn't neccessarily what they teach in their classes. Those books you listed above aren't history textbooks they're just general books published by those authors.
| By Anonymous on Thursday, October 12, 2000 - 10:15 pm: |
For an perspective of Africa's role in human civilization, and the rise of cultural endevours as we know, read "Guns, Germs, Steel" by Jared Diamond. It talks about how hunter-gatherers (which many African tribes practise) evolved to farming and how it spread from Africa to mesapotamia, to India, to China, Indochina etc. Also, it talks about European civilization began to dominate. The author presents facts and his interpretation, without bias that "white race" has superior mental genetic make up etc. He does say that due to geographical and other developmental circumstances, people of certain regions acquired the skills to become dominant in warfare, science & technology.
I'd love to hear other opinions on this persons narrative and interpretation.
| By now on Thursday, October 12, 2000 - 11:17 pm: |
by now, formerly anonymous(beginning from post Saturday, October 7, 2000 - 02:47 am and afterwards)
To Saurabh October 12, 2000 - 06:54 am
"Maybe you should get a real education insted of subscribing to this alternative lifestyle. I'm sure you even believe the world is flat,
don't you? Noone's interested in your afrocentric versions of history, white people threw out your theories, so you're trying to
influence the brown folk now , are you? You're sure these "scholars" you're quoting aren't actually your uncles and aunts and
cousins cause they sure seem to think like you...."
First, name me one white person who can throw out my facts(not theories) that are posted above. Be precise. I want a specific person(critic) and the specific names and dates posted above that this critic you know about(it's strange...you have not provided not one name of a critic yet) can refute.
Second, just about 80% or more of the sources I listed above are either White or Indian scholars. Now, why would a White or Indian scholar go out of their way to write as you say "afrocentric versions of history[Indian History]"? If anything, if these scholars(white and indian) were not objective(as you and the others who are still not convinced claim) it would seem like that there accounts of history would either have a eurocentric or indocentric slant to it when discussing the african presence in india, not a afrocentric point of view.
Third, did you take a look at my post on 10/11/00 at 7:45pm?
Try to take the time to read the three books(if you have access to it) posted at the bottom of the post.
Check to make sure that the names and dates posted in the previous posts correlate with the material in the 3 books that I listed in that post.
Then, offer a opinion on what you think of the African presence in India, because, right now the foolishness that is coming out of your mouth about me and the sources I listed makes you sound like a court jester.
| By Saurabh on Friday, October 13, 2000 - 01:26 pm: |
Anon, lets get one thing here clear...you're trying to convince us that your fairy tale version of history (the kind African moms tell their kids at bedtime) is factual, not the other way around. Now that we've established that, you name one reputed educational system that includes your alternative history in their curriculams. Get back to us when you do, till then you can keep posting 1,000 word essays, noone really cares.
| By Saurabh on Friday, October 13, 2000 - 01:49 pm: |
Sorry the above post was to now, not Anon.
| By Yasmeen on Friday, October 13, 2000 - 02:40 pm: |
Saurabh -
I was just trying to put in a little perspective in this discussion and being patronizing was not one of them. Fine im not black myself but that has nothing to do with this. i agree one should not humour someone spewing rubbish just because they are black but by the same token we shouldnt publicise our ignorance either when they say things that are verifiable. Saurabh the 99 % DNA homology between 'racial and cultural groups' and the 1 % difference i think i should explain a little further since you seem to be confused :). First peoples of African origin are on average taller than those of asian origin and that is exactly what that is "an AVERAGE". So as with all averages there are peoples who will not fit into the popular norm or the 'bell curve' so to speak. The pygmies peoples of Africa are the same height or even smaller than asians. There are some indians who are darker than the berber peoples of Africa. The 1 % difference is due to physiological adaptations eg height, hair type, nose width, skin colour. Peoples living in specialised environments either by choice or as a result of pressure from other groups become adapted physically in response to intensive selective pressure. Thats why the pygmies who also live in Africa are the height they are since they mainly lived near forests. So physical adaptations are seen in human beings in response to extreme cold, humid heat, desert conditions and high altitudes. The people of Europe are adapted to colder climes hence they tend to be stockier and shorter than the Africans in central Africa who are taller and leaner so as to increase surface area. So when they perspire the greater surface area enables them to stay cooler. Furthermore the typical African nappy hair has its significance too. Not only to keep the head protected but doesnt become saturated with sweat due to its unique interwoveness. NOw isnt that an ingenious wonderful fact ??? The wide nose and the dark skin are again the results of thousands of years of adaptation to the environment around them. So in the end what all this is to try and show is that these environmental adaptations are used by ALL humans let me repeat ALL HUMANS. it is and was a means of survival otherwise you just perished. And Saurabh give me the reference where it says that Africans have a lower brain mass could you give me evidence from a respected journal ?? And let me also add that within the same species a discrepancy in brain mass is of no intrinsic value since IQ is not related to brain weight. Man, i think our ancestors had it easy all those thousands of years ago, all they had to tackle was a fourlegged animal with bared teeth today i dont think my Palm V could help me defend myself against some of you who probably are worse than an animal with bared teeth - ouch !!!
| By Anonymous on Friday, October 13, 2000 - 11:09 pm: |
Hey, why do Indians try to deny their blackness? Ask any white person if they think Indians are another version of black people and they'll scream, hell yeah! (as dark as most Indians are, LOL!)
NEWS FLASH: Indians must learn to live with the fact in America you are considered people of color -- not white -- as most of you poor lost Indian souls so wish to think!
| By Indian on Friday, October 13, 2000 - 11:40 pm: |
First of all, Indians have been listening to fairy tales told by Europeans for centuries. I don't know why we're so averse to even listening to what "anonymous" has to say.
African presence in India from a long time is quite well-known. And Indian political system had been known to be conducive to growth for the able. Examples include the rise of slave dynasty. I guess Iltutmis was one of the members of it. Now, I don't remember his ethnicity, though... and this I can recall from what I was taught in school. I vaguely remember about Siddi's too... and I think they were big-time warriors. So I don't see, given the prevalent political situation, why it is unthinkable that an able black warrior could make it to the top.
And one thing I can't help noticing. The "anonymous" (can you please use a name?) person has provided a lot of references and data... each of which has been doubted, but none rebutted. I understand if something is too frivolous one might not stoop to contradict, but the present case is far from it. Many of the things s/he pointed out are quite plausible given the openness of the Indian psych of that time. I didn't check the merits of any of the books s/he referred to, but if we go by the reputation of the publishers, well it's difficult to trash all of them outright.
Last but not the least, I guess this website doesn't belong to any country in particular. If there is one authority to show somebody the doors, it's the owners of the site. It's outright rude, and defeats the purpose of discussion boards, to ask somebody to go elsewhere. I personally believe that, at least I stood to gain by talking to him. "Anon", if you read this message, you can reach me at del_61801@yahoo.com, and perhaps we can talk more.
| By anon on Saturday, October 14, 2000 - 04:28 am: |
How come blacks r obsessed with proving that indians(esp. south indians) r black? How many blacks have the features of indians?NONE
| By aa on Saturday, October 14, 2000 - 07:34 am: |
Why do Africans perform so poorly in intelligence related tests? Nobody has given a valid reason either.
| By aa on Saturday, October 14, 2000 - 07:41 am: |
Indian( if you are Indian),the theory doing the rounds now is that there was no Aryan invasion at all.There are a lot of reputed books holding this view.Also what happened to the nappy hair? Why dont Indians have nappy hair if they are basically from Africa.Nobody has explained this.
| By Saurabh on Saturday, October 14, 2000 - 12:25 pm: |
aa, read Yasmeen's incomplete and naive explanation regarding nappy hair and what she calls "physiological adaptions" throwing out the law of averages. surprise!! surprise!!
Yasmeen, brain size may not correlate to intelligence, but brain size to body mass definately does. It's surprising (or ignorant) how according to you any adaptations a body makes to the environment is purely physical and has no correlation to mental makeup as well. If the human physical make up is determined by environment, so is the mental makeup. It's a known fact that intelligence is related to both genetic and environment circumstances. In that case, a person living in a mentally unchallenging society like the African bush or North American savannah would pass on their genes to future generations AND continue to live in the same environment which the future generation learns to live in by habit and experience, thus limiting their intelligence.
On the other hand, in an advanced society like ancient Rome or India, China or fifteenth century Europe, the society is constantly looking for ways to improve the standard of living thus challenging their mental capacity because physical capacity like fighting a wild animal is obsolete and unnecessary. This is passed on from generation to generation, and the combination of genes and environment results in a more intelligent civilisation.It's also a fact that continuous mental activity results in a larger brain size(you read your facts, Yasmeen, dont give us some ideal world melodrama)
| By Desi on Saturday, October 14, 2000 - 03:53 pm: |
Indian read an Indian history text book before you jump onto anomymous' or now's bandwagon. Man, we are our own civilisation, not European or African! If Indian civilisation is indeed African?!?! how come there's no mention of African Gods or customs in our scriptures. How come no African Holy Site is mentioned in any of the scriptures of any religion?
Get off it, ya sure a few mercenaries may have served in India, but it doesn't mean they shaped our civilisation! Oh my God, I don't believe we're actually discussing this.
| By Arvind on Saturday, October 14, 2000 - 04:03 pm: |
We dont care if the white folk think we're black, brown, pink or yellow. But why do the black folk seem hell bent to prove that we're the same race as them? So they derive some kind of solace and happiness that even their race has achieved something throughout civilisation? Thats sad, but understandable!
| By Arvind on Saturday, October 14, 2000 - 04:26 pm: |
There are only four primary races, namely, Caucasian, the Mangolian, the Australians and the Negroid. Both the Aryans and Dravidians are related branches of the Caucasian race generally placed in the same Mediterranean sub-branch.
The difference between the so-called Aryans of the north and the Dravidians of the south or other communities of Indian subcontinent is not a racial type. Biologically all are the same Caucasian type, only when closer to the equator the skin gets darker, and under the influence of constant heat the bodily frame tends to get a little smaller.
And these differences can not be the basis of two altogether different races. Similar differences one can observe even more distinctly among the people of pure Caucasian white race of Europe. Caucasian can be of any color ranging from pure white to almost pure black, with every shade of brown in between. Similarly, the Mongolian race is not yellow. Many Chinese have skin whiter than many so-called Caucasians.
A recent landmark global study in population genetics by a team of internationally reputed scientists over 50 years reveals that the people habitated in the Indian subcontinent and nearby including Europe, all belong to one single race of Caucasion type. According to this study, there is essentially, and has been no difference racially between north Indians and the so-called Dravidian South Indians. The racial composition has remained almost the same for millennia. This study also confirms that there is no race called as an Aryan race.
(The History and Geography of Human Genes, by Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Paolo Menozzi and Alberto Piazza, Princeton University Press)
That's right, Princeton University Press....enough said!
| By Yasmeen on Saturday, October 14, 2000 - 06:27 pm: |
Saurabh
"the ratio of brain size to body mass definately correlates to intelligence. i agree absolutely. Now just find me a respectable publication which says that African peoples on average have a lower brain size to body ratio.
"a person living in a mentally unchallenging society" huh ??? what does mentally unchallenging society mean ? Yes Greece, India, China Egypt were all advanced societies i agree. Just picture Africa - a land of deserts, extremes of temperature and terrains, having some of the most dangerous and exotic flora and fauna in the world, the African peoples must have been unintelligent so thats why they thrived there for thousands of years and developed complicated languages numbering over a thousand. They must have been so stupid so thats why they developed at first basic tools to survive and then through the Fauresmith, Sangoan, Stillbay and Lupemban industries developed intricate tools and made technological improvements in the upper paleolithic times. The Nox culture of Nigeria for instance created sculptures/pottery that dates around 500 BC and these are by no means an approx date there may have been earlier artefacts that could have been destroyed or not preserved. They had arts, culture, paintings, music, festivals/rituals and a rich oral tradition they werent the 'cavemen' that the stereotype suggests. Look it all up if you want to. You cant deny that the oldest fossil remains of Homo sapiens and modern man were found in Africa. And scientists who have calculated the approx brain volume able to fill the skull cavity ( cranium ) agree that it is larger than that of homo erectus
( sapiens predecessor of which there were also fossils in Africa )which proves that there was a cerebral evolution as well as a physical one in Africa.
Saurabh of course im naive thats what a college education does to you im afraid :)
| By Anonymous on Sunday, October 15, 2000 - 12:49 am: |
Yasmeen, Please read "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond, to get a reasonable explanation (based purely on facts), how certain tribes, races and geographical regions got to dominate in certain pursuits. The basic tenet is that consistent exposure to challenging geographical, social and environmental situations have forced humans to evolve into where we are today. It describes how cultural, political and social values dispersed from one location to another, and how even such things as "major axes" of continents being east-west in Eurasia and north-south in Africa and old America was an important factor.
| By anon on Sunday, October 15, 2000 - 12:03 pm: |
Hahahha, now these black posters have finally stopped harping on the baseless argument of south indians being africans.Lol the very idea is absurd.
| By Saurabh on Sunday, October 15, 2000 - 03:29 pm: |
Yasmeen said on 13 October "First peoples of African origin are on average taller than those of asian origin and that is exactly what that is "an AVERAGE".
Yasmeen said on October 14
Saurabh
"the ratio of brain size to body mass definately correlates to intelligence. i agree absolutely. Now just find me a respectable publication which says that African peoples on average have a lower brain size to body ratio.
so now you're defying the laws of common sense, are you? Taller people generally have more body mass, remember!!
ya Africans built tools, thats nice. While we were building cities and dams. Thats the difference Yasmeen. Don't make vague statements.
| By now on Monday, October 16, 2000 - 02:59 am: |
To clarify again, this post is written by "now", I no longer go by the alias anonymous.
All the previous postings above were written by me (beginning from post Saturday, October 7, 2000 - 02:47 am), except for:
By Anonymous on Sunday, October 8, 2000 - 02:47 am
By Anonymous on Wednesday, October 11, 2000 - 05:01 am
By Anonymous on Thursday, October 12, 2000 - 05:45 pm
By Anonymous on Friday, October 13, 2000 - 06:39 pm
By Anonymous on Saturday, October 14, 2000 - 08:19 pm
these postings were not written by me("now").
To Yasmeen:
"I was just trying to put in a little perspective in this discussion and being patronizing was not one of them. Fine im not black myself but that has nothing to do with this. i agree one should not humour someone spewing rubbish just because they are black but by the same token we shouldnt publicise our ignorance either when they say things that are verifiable."
This statement by you is exactly the point that I am trying to make to the readers at hindutan. No one so far has actually taken the time to check out my sources and actually see whether or not I am making this stuff up.
Also:
No one has provided NOT ONE piece of evidence or the name of a crtic stating that:
(1.)the muslim rulers of Bengal between, 1486 - 1493, were NOT AFRICAN:
INDEPENDENT MUSLIM RULERS OF BENGAL
ABYSSINIANS (1486 - 1493 )
1486 Barbak Shahzadz
1486 - 1490 Saifuddin Firoz Shah
1490 - 1493 Shamsuddin Muzaffar Shah
(2.)The rulers of the Sharqi Kingdom of Jaunpur between, 1393 - 1440, were NOT AFRICAN:
1393-99 Khwaja Jahan or Malik Sarwar
1399-1402 Mubarak Shah
1402-1440 Ibrahim Shah
To Indian Guys:
"You're free to believe what you want just know that majority of people (including Indians themselves) don't feel that way."
Please tell me...How do the majority of the ppl. (Indians themselves) feel about the above points #1 and #2 just above. If they say these rulers WERE NOT africans, then who were they and what are there names.
Also, do you know what the schools in India teach specifically about the above points #1 and #2. Do the schools teach what are their names and race during that particular time peiod and that particular dynasty?
To RSK:
"There's still plenty of books on it, and articles and whatever else but that doesn't make it anywhere near true! History isn't exact science like math or physics BUT we have explanations that most people agree with but ofcourse not ALL."
What do ppl. in India agree on a/b the numbers #1 and #2 above. What were the names and dates of the rulers mentioned in #1 and #2 that these ppl. agree on that according to you WERE NOT africans?
To Saurabh:
"Anon, lets get one thing here clear...you're trying to convince us that your fairy tale version of history (the kind African moms tell their kids at bedtime) is factual, not the other way around."
Where are your evidence or the names of scholars, academics, and people that write or say what popular opinion about one account of history that is agreed upon in India during medieval times to say the material that I have presented IS NOT FACTUAL? What do these critics then teach in #1 and #2 about these dynasties in Indian history?
I am not African, I have never been to Africa, so I would not know what African moms tell their kids at bedtime.
To Desi:
"Man, we are our own civilisation, not European or African! If Indian civilisation is indeed African?!?! how come there's no mention of African Gods or customs in our scriptures. How come no African Holy Site is mentioned in any of the scriptures of any religion? Get off it, ya sure a few mercenaries may have served in India, but it doesn't mean they shaped our civilisation! Oh my God, I don't believe we're actually discussing this."
I, nor the sources I have presented ever said that Africans are responsible for Indian civilization. Africans were only dominant in military and political power during the medieval times of India and only in certain parts of India; NOT ALL OF INDIA.
| By Yasmeen on Monday, October 16, 2000 - 09:57 am: |
Saurabh
"the ratio of brain size to body mass correlates to intelligence.so now you're defying the laws of common sense, are you? Taller people generally have more body mass, remember!!"
this is ridiculous Saurabh !!!! If thats the case then i feel sorry for everyone ( male and female ) who is considered "tall" because according to your logic they are less intelligent be they African, Persian, Indian, Asian !!!!! You dont get it do you ? it would be ironic if you yourself were tall. The ratio of brain size to body mass is to compare intelligence between different species not within the same species !!. IQ tests are used to find out your IQ not your height or your BMI or the fact you wear glasses !!!!! Saurabh believe whatever you want to believe i officially give up !!!
to Anonymous on Saturday, October 14, 2000 - 08:19 pm about the book im afraid i wont be able to read it right now but i hope to read it soon but thankyou :)
| By Yasmeen on Monday, October 16, 2000 - 10:21 am: |
Now -
i agree that if anyone here disagrees with what you have said they must say why and give evidence showing it. One cant say that indians are Africans and vice versa. The two cultural groups are unique and different but they are still our brothers. Why cant we just accept the fact that both cultures are rich and unique in their history and development through the centuries and learn to coexist with each other ? Remember the cliche "a kingdom divided against itself will not stand " why cant we all coexist and strive for a better future for ALL irrespective of race ? I think that sometimes our detail to the small pedantic details of our differences blinds us to the bigger picture.
| By Desi on Monday, October 16, 2000 - 01:17 pm: |
That's rubbish, "now". Africans were never dominant in the political and military power in India, you cant make wild claims and expect us to find evidence to the contrary. Just name us one educational syllabus that supports your theory...why dont you? You conveniently keep ignoring these valid questions.
| By Raghu on Monday, October 16, 2000 - 01:48 pm: |
Hey guys, its a fact that Abbyssians were brought to India as slaves in the 1300's and even rose to rule Bengal from 1485 to 1493. A few of them rose to administrative and military ranks in the armies of the rulers of the Deccan as well. While they did in no way have the power the Mughals or European colonisers did in future years, the Abbyssians were respected as servants, soldiers and warriors.
Its indeed credible to the few who rose to administrative and command positions for they were a race of people who were broght to India as slaves. Their influence and power was neutralised in the 1500's and they have been assimilated into Indian society, however even today its possible to see siddhis, one of my family members being a prime example!
| By DeisandProud on Monday, October 16, 2000 - 01:57 pm: |
Yasmeen, maybe you should leave college if they teach you to contradict yourself and talk nonsense.
| By Vinod on Monday, October 16, 2000 - 02:06 pm: |
I was wondering, why do Africans do well( only reasonably I may add) when they are taken as slaves to some other country and then given opportunities? It looks like they have to be handed opportunities, and cant seem to create opportunities in their own land.
Yes, Abbyssians were respected as fighters in parts of India for a a limited time, but once again that proves Arvind's point that they are largely a race of people who are physically gifted, but not endowed with great creative, scientific or technological abilities (of course there's exceptions)
It looks like Africa has always been largely underdeveloped and with the continous brain drain there seems to be little hope of a change.
| By Saurabh on Monday, October 16, 2000 - 02:18 pm: |
Yasmeen, parts of Africa did have its own society, but it could hardly be called a civilisation. If you're incapable of seeing the differences between Indian civilisation in the last 5000 years and Africa, its fine by me.
Yasmeen said on 14th Oct "They had arts,
culture, paintings, music, festivals/rituals and a rich oral tradition they werent the 'cavemen' that the stereotype suggests.Look it all up if you want to.
A rich ORAL tradition? If it was only oral, how do you know it was so rich? And how can you look something up, if there's no original records or they never were?
God, you fail to amaze me, look at it the way it was, they were too underdeveloped to have a script, simple!
| By DesiandProud on Monday, October 16, 2000 - 02:27 pm: |
Yasmeen said" Just picture Africa - a land of deserts, extremes of temperature and terrains, having some of the most dangerous and exotic flora and fauna in the world, the African peoples must have been unintelligent so thats why they thrived there for thousands of years and developed
complicated languages numbering over a thousand".
Hey yasmeen, even a chimp and a camel survived in Africa, it doesn't make them a very evolved and developed species does it? A civilisation has to be in control of their habitat, not just make a few tools and have an "ORAL" language which you seem to be in awe of.
| By Indian Guys on Tuesday, October 17, 2000 - 05:58 am: |
Now - Indians are taught that the time you talk about and in that area there were many ruler's fighting for control and there was lot of turmoil. It's not JUST Indian schools, here's from ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA, take a look at http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/0/0,5716,121170+15,00.html
it says the same thing (about Jaunpur) and it doesn't say that these guy's were African either, it only mentions them as muslim, and you'll see there was always fighting going on with no stability. Your other guys, the ones who ruled in Bengal barely lasted 2-3 years each. Yeah they existed but they're nobodies, like ton's of other small rulers, when it comes to Indian history and culture.
and if you're Kuwaiti then why are you so interested in African rulers in India?
| By adr on Thursday, October 19, 2000 - 11:15 am: |
Why? Why do you say these horrible and offensive things? Why do you fall into the same superiority/inferiority complex that has been used to tie blacks, Indians, Asians, Latinos, etc. into bonds of servitude for centuries?
And why do you call a woman (Yasmeen) you do not know names?
It doesn't make anyone a better person.
Now the purpose of this post, which is the myth of race hierarchy. The concept is to take those who have been disempowered (and if you say the subcontinent was not emasculated by the Raj, there's really no point in having this discussion), handing them someone to hate, and letting them fight it out while the dominant majority helps itself to the spoils - to the products of the minority's labor, and to their preexisting wealth. First example, the American South. Keep the poor whites happy, while the landowners have their field day, by giving them a class of people who are even less deserving of respect than themselves - the black slaves. Classic divide and conquer; strategically it is one of the simplest and most effective tools of socioeconomic segregation.
The system works in a very simple fashion, and on a global scale. How can Indians criticize the African and black communities for falling for bait we took hook, line, and sinker? India-Pakistan? We're still fighting, and over what? At least in sub-Saharan Africa the fight is partially justified by scarce resources. What excuse do we have, my brother?
Race works in subtle and overt ways to pervert individual minds in order to compel obedience to the greater collective whole. That whole, in the post-colonial era, has been that of the European nations. It's a bitter pill, but swallow it.
Because once you do, you will realize that there is a reason why you feel the need to engage in petty judgments, which are useless to boot. The reason why discrete racial groups may appear to be less intelligent in your prejudiced eyes than others is that - this may come as a shock to you - but they have fewer economic resources, and therefore cannot afford the educational luxuries that other communities can.
To simplify, a diagram of sorts:
Slavery (= forced poverty) --> segregation (= Maintenance of the status quo "under color of law") --> 1963, and the Civil Rights Movement takes off, also somewhat contemporaneous to the passage of 42 USC sec. 1983, prohibiting denial of 'equal protection of the laws' 'under color of law' --> gradual economic progress.
1963 was only the beginning, and it is a joke to expect community turnaround in that short of a time - less than one generation to remedy lifetimes of deliberate disenfranchisement? And how about when the systematic oppression of a class of people, i.e. blacks, still continues? I can't believe that Vinod meant what he said with the comment "It looks like they have to be handed opportunities, and can't seem to create opportunities in their own land."
You're right, slavery was a great ••••••• idea. Must have been like a weekend in the Caicos, and all those darkie folk should have come back relaxed and ready to hit the books, eat more watermelon like they do best.
That's sarcastic, if you can't tell. Think before you speak next time, and let's try to be a little less stupid and insensitive.
The black community has paid a ridiculous price for the standing that all persons of color now enjoy in the US. Yes, Asians and Jews have paid their toll, but can anything equal centuries of bondage, knowing that you exist in a society that says that of your body, blood, labor, children - none of these are yours?
We, the Indian community, were fed so many lies by the various European invaders that we no longer know the fundamentals of who and what we are. Some say unified India is only a figment of the British imagination, and existed only briefly prior to their arrival during the reign of Ashoka...
And the greatest lie of all is perceiving the world in which we live through now white-coated lenses.
We have, as a race and as a class of conquered people, allowed the eyes of the conqueror become our own, as to both the outside world and to ourselves. Think of all of the things you think are beautiful and good. Now name one that cannot be traced to Anglo or American origin or influence.
I agree that African rule in India is farcical. Muslim rule, that existed, and for a very long time. But why belittle someone who asserts the theory? Why not just respond intelligently?
The intelligent response is that we draw discrete national lines, based on communities of persons who share enough to live under a common government. India is India, and those who govern it have, generally, been Indians. We assimilate foreigners into the wild chaotic breathtaking thing that is our nation at lightning speed - a generation or less - until India (not the US) becomes the greatest melting pot the world has ever known. There is no racial thing as 'Indian,' the nation is too hybrid to countenance that. But the statements made my Raghu and Now were proferred to show (or at least I choose to read them to say) that the world is as much black as white.
In reality, we live in shades of grey, so why not get rid of all this useless gerrymandering? The view expressed by many here essentially reads: "I'll draw a line in the sand, and say that I'm Desi, fervently reject any alternative hypothesis of race because I so desperately want to be white (that's what the Orient fan commercials of the late 80s did to me)."
It's a symptom, not a cause. It is the mirror image of what the racism expressed here tries to accomplish - one man asserts political domination via "facts" and chronology, another (my Indian brothers) via dissociation and claims of intellectual superiority.
Get over it. As to Arvind, yes, there were 'Aryan' people, and they were Caucasian, and archaeological evidence indicates that the first territories to which they wandered after leaving the Caucasus Mountains in Central Asia were the Middle East and India. The 'Dravidians' are *not* Caucasian, and are the same class of persons into which Australian Aborigines are placed. To reject this controverts not only traditional Hindu history and mythology, but also carbon-dated physical evidence. There's nothing wrong with being one or the other, so why insist that neither exists? Again, it doesn't really serve a purpose, being Caucasian versus being not is not at all that indicative of any trait, racial or personal.
I am Brahmin, as is my family. That, to me, means everything and nothing all at once. It is everything, in that it is my family, my place, and my soul. It is nothing in that it is no basis whatsoever (despite our ever-proud Desi chaste tradition) upon which to assert my innate worthiness on the global stage. Shouldn't we hit a point where we stop arguing about trivialities, learn to look forward, and judge one another on the basis of one's character, and not on the color of his/her skin?
For an informative discussion of modern views of race and power, see anything published by Prof. Derrick Bell, http://www.law.nyu.edu/belld.
| By now on Saturday, October 21, 2000 - 07:56 am: |
To Desi Monday, October 16, 2000 - 08:47 am
"That's rubbish, "now". Africans were never dominant in the political and military power in India, you cant make wild claims and expect us to find evidence to the contrary. Just name us one educational syllabus that supports your theory...why dont you? You conveniently keep ignoring these valid questions."
1.)What exactly are the wild claims (as you say) are that I am making?
2.)There are thousands of educational institutions all over the world, each with their own philosophy and curriculum. To expect me to find specifically what schools teach the history of medieval india would be tremendously time consuming and I presently do not have the time to do that. That is why I did not answer those questions that were put to me. Since I do not presently know what educational institutions teach the history of medieval india-does not mean that this material is not taught in schools.
****
If you think the info. I have posted is false, it's really simple that check the accuracy of it. All you have to do is consult the appendix/tables/charts/records, etc. in any source that describes the names and dates of rulers, governors, etc. in the history of medieval india. Some detailed sources will even describe the ethnicity of the ruler's in india's past.
By the way did you look at the messages that were posted after your most recent post? Your inadequate knowledge of your own history has shown by you when you stated that the material I have presented on the Habshi People is nothing but theory. Even your own Indian brethren have said that the material I have presented is factual-of course I knew all along:
By Raghu on Monday, October 16, 2000 - 09:18 am
By Indian Guys on Tuesday, October 17, 2000 - 01:28 am
I think that your credibility is now suspect as the readers at hindustan can see that you do not know what you are talking about
****
The level of ignorance exhibited by the various posters at hindustan is just absolutely astonishing.
| By now on Saturday, October 21, 2000 - 08:30 am: |
To Indian Guys:
"You're free to believe what you want just know that majority of people (including Indians themselves) don't feel that way."
- From your previous post
"Yeah they existed but they're nobodies, like ton's of other small rulers, when it comes to Indian history and culture.
and if you're Kuwaiti then why are you so interested in African rulers in India?"
-Most recent post by you as of this posting
*****
One minute you say that the majority of ppl. and Indians feel there was no Afican rulers in the history of India....Then, the next minute you now say that there were in fact African rulers in the history of India. I am puzzled, what do the majority of the ppl. and Indian now feel(when I really should be asking what they THINK?) a/b the presence of African rulers in the history of India?
*****
Personal Note:
Feelings do not count when ppl. search for and examine historical proof.
| By now on Monday, October 23, 2000 - 10:56 pm: |
To Arvind, DesiandProud, Saurabh, and aa:
I.Q. -- The Untold Story:
WHAT ANCIENT WHITE WRITERS
SAID ABOUT BLACK INTELLIGENCE
..Vitruvius and other ancient writers associated dark skin with high intelligence. To the Greeks and Romans, the 'sunburnt' peoples of the south --Egyptians and Ethiopians alike -- were nothing less than the founders of civilization. What is truly astonishing is how effectively proponents of the Master Race theory were able to turn this ancient opinion topsy-turvy in the centuries that followed.1
Throughout the history of this nation great pains have been taken by scientists and academicians to prove that people of African descent are inferior to Whites. Such thinking and research have generally been either tolerated or encouraged on many college and university campuses. Furthermore, by virtue of their eager coverage of all "Black inferiority theories," no matte how specious or unscientific, the American media have literally become agents in the promotion of these ideas.
In all of their feigned objectivity, the media have never deigned to consider the opinion of ancient White writers, who, in truth, believed that the most intelligent human beings on earth were Black Africans. This is a far cry from prevailing opinion which often suggests that "Black intelligence" is a contradiction in terms. Over the past twenty years in particular, a number of White scientists have claimed that Black people are genetically inferior to Whites, specifically with respect to intelligence. Some of these theorists have gone so far as to hold that, when compared to Whites and Asians , people of African descent are genetically deficient.
Among the most recent scientists, scholars and academicians to promote theories of Black genetic inferiority are psychologists Arthur R.A. Jensen and J. Phillippe Rushton, sociologist Linda Gottfredson, writer Daniel Seligman, Michael Levy of the City College of New York, biologist E.O. Wilson; Charles Murray and the late Richard Herrnstein, co-authors of "The Bell Curve;" and the late physicist, William B. Shockley.
While the American media, academic and scientific establishments have provided vast forums for White supremacists -- even while claiming to shun their theories -- by contrast, evidence of Black intellectual achievements is either suppressed, invalidated, ignored or dismissed as liberal propaganda.
For example, in his book, "Even The Rat Was White," social scientist Robert Guthrie has written that "[t]he earliest effort by American researchers to investigate Black-White differences using intelligence tests was made in 1897 when G.R. Stetson tested 500 Black and 500 White public school children in Washington, D.C."2
In these experiments, which tested for the children's facility for memorizing poetry, the Black children excelled their White counterparts. Consequently, according to Guthrie, "it was determined that the memory technique was not a valid measure of intelligence."3 During this same period, another White scientist, R.M. Bache, tested the reaction time of Native Americans and African Americans. Since the people of color excelled the Whites, Bache concluded that "primitive peoples" were highly developed in physiological tasks, while the more advanced Whites "tended less to quickness of response in the automotive sphere; the reflective man is the slower being."4
A few years later, during World War I, educated Black soldiers scored higher than Whites with equivalent college training. This of course was not highly publicized.
This pattern of dismissing or ignoring Black ntellectual achievements over those of Whites remains widespread today and raises a number of significant questions.
Why, for example, have all of the American media uniformly ignored numerous tests given newborn infants? A number of White scientists have been literally astonished at the brilliance of African and African American newborns when compared to all other children. Predictably, to minimize the significance of this precocity, several scientists have insisted that the Black infants have only demonstrated physical prowess. In truth, however, the Black babies have also exceeded all other groups on special intelligence tests formulated for infants."5 This clearly reflects the potential of Black children before the onset of cultural bias, poor education and racism.
Why, moreover, have the mass media failed to report the results of studies undertaken in the schools of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania? After the Black school curricula were restructured in this city, Black elementary school children excelled Whites in a number of subjects, including math and science.
In the same vein, the London Times of January 12, 1992, reported that Black primary students are the highest achievers in all of Britain. Why has this escaped the attention of the American media?
Just as White scholars, scientists and journalists
suppress Black achievements today, they are equally
silent about the glowing reputation of the Black race
in antiquity. Ancient Romans, Greeks and no doubt other
Europeans did not fantasize about Black genetic
inferiority. They knew better. They consistently wrote
of Black people -- whom they generally referred to as
Ethiopians and Egyptians -- as being highly
intelligent, just, pious and favored by the gods. Let
us consider the comments of some of the early White
writers.
Roman architect Vitrivius Pollio said "...[t]he southern
peoples [Ethiopians and Egyptians] are of acute
intelligence and infinite resource..."6
The Roman writer Lucian also noted that the Ethiopians
"being in all else wiser than other men," had invented
astrology and taught it to the Egyptians.7
Diodorus Siculus, the Greek historian who lived in the
first century B.C., said:
"The Ethiopians concieved of themselves to be of
greater antiquity than any other nation; and it is
probable that, born under the sun's path, its warmth
may have ripened them earlier than other men.
They supposed themselves to be the inventors of
worship, of festivals, of solemn assemblies, of
sacrifices, and every religious practice."8
Historian Basil Davidson has noted: "The Greeks all
agreed upon the cultural supremacy of pharonic
civilization and the ways in which they wrote about
this clearly show that they would have thought it
absurd to advance a contrary opinion." 9
In this same vein, such scholars as Cheikh Anta Diop,
Theophile Obenga, Martin Bernal and others have clearly
documented the fact that most prominent Greek
authorities attributed the origin of Greek philosophy,
science, math, logic, astronomy, architecture and
theater to Black people along the Nile River in Africa.
While the Greeks and Romans did indeed think highly of
Black intelligence, they reserved their greatest praise
for Black spirituality. In the Iliad, Homer states that
Zeus and other Olympic gods feasted for twelve days
with the "blameless Ethiopians." 10 Diodorus said that
the Ethiopians enjoyed "the favor of the gods."11
Lady Flora Lugard has summarized the opinion of the
ancients with respect to Black people:
The annals of all the great early nations of Asia
Minor are full of them. The Mosaic records allude
to them frequently; but while they are described as
the most powerful, the most just, and the most
beautiful of the human race, they are constantly
spoken of as black, and there seems to be no other
conclusion to be drawn, than that at that remote
period of history the leading race of the Western
world was a black race.12
In all of their insulting pontificating over whether
Black people are subhuman, why have modern White
scientists and academicians overlooked the obvious:
What was the state of the Black race in its purest
form, before genetic mixing, slavery, colonialism, the
invasion of foreigners, the destruction of indigeous
cultures, the annilihation of indigenous people and the
domination of North Africa by Arabs and the remainder
of the continent by Europeans?
As Lady Lugard has pointed out, Black Africans were the
most revered people in the ancient Western World. Had
she known, she might have added that evidence of
Ancient Black civilizations and remnants of prehistoric
Black people have not only been discovered in the West,
but also in India, China, Japan, the South Sea Islands,
Tasmania, Australia and the New World.
What MA'AT readers must understand is that the
preoccupation of White scientists and academicians with
Black genetics is a carefully orchestrated conspiracy --
which has no scientific basis whatsoever -- to promote
White supremacy and to defame Black people. The
recurrence of this nonsense every twenty years or so is
no accident. It was timed in the early `70's to arrest
the Civil Rights Movement, and its reappearance in the
`90's, particularly in "The Bell Curve," was to seal
the fate of affirmative action.
White scientists and academicians are fully aware of
the Black origin of the human race and global
civilization. But they remain in a mass State of
Denial. They also know that, as the genetically
dominant parents of the human family, Black people
cannot be inferior, in intelligence or anything else,
to their racially diverse offspring. In the final
analysis, as Dr. Frances Cress Welsing so aptly
demonstrates in The Isis Papers: Keys To The Colors:
White scientists are obviously very insecure about
their own genetic vulnerabilities on a planet where
Whites are vastly outnumbered by Black, Brown, Red and
Yellow people.13
Source: http://www.melanet.com/clegg_series
WHEN BLACK MEN RULED THE WORLD
Legrand H. Clegg II, Editor & Publisher
Volume II, Edition VI, September/October 1998
| By now on Monday, October 23, 2000 - 11:36 pm: |
To Vinod, DesiandProud, and Saurabh:
"The Theft Of African Wealth" http://www.tbwt.com/webforum.asp
By Junious Ricardo Stanton
09-11-00
"Africa accounts for a significant proportion of U.S. imports-100% of industrial diamonds; 58% of uranium;48% of cocoa; 44% of manganese used in producing steel, 40% of antimony to harden metals; 39% of platinum, 36% of cobalt for jet engines and high strength alloys, 33% of petroleum, 30% of beryl used in weapons and nuclear reactors, 23% of chromite used in gun barrels, 21 % columbium-tantalum for heat resisting alloys in missiles and rockets and 21% of coffee." from Imperialism and Dependency Obstacles to African Development by Daniel A. Offiong
Once while I was giving a talk about Africa to a group of adolescent African-American males a young brother asked, "if Africa is so rich in natural resources, why do the people look so poor and starving?" Due to time constraints I didn’t have enough minutes to explain why, aside from racist anti-African stereotyping, the mass media deliberately depicts Africans as under developed, destitute, backward, diseased and staving. I didn’t have time to tell them about the Berlin Conference of 1884 in which 14 European nation states including the United States sat around a large table and carved up the continent conspiring to shanghai its riches, its natural and human resources and plotting to appropriate them for their benefit.
Even today, most Africans in America think Africa is underdeveloped because our people are not as intelligent, technologically advanced or sophisticated as Europeans or Asians. Most of our people think Africans are starving because they are too lazy or too backward to invent efficient labor saving devices. Given we have been lied to about African history and European history we never stop to ask how the roles and fortunes of the two land masses get reversed in just five hundred years? We don’t question how Europe went from being a resourceless, backward, starving, disease ridden and destitute subcontinent to commandeering most of the world’s wealth while Africa went from being the cradle of civilization with most of the gold, rich lands and mineral resources to being a vast expanse of arrested social and technological development?
We don’t grasp the correlation between European military and political ascendancy, its wealth and Africa subjugation. We’ve been duped into believing Europeans have a higher standard of living because they are smarter and work harder; rather than realizing Europeans are where they are today because of their history of covetousness, imperialism, larceny and rapine. The so called age of exploration wasn’t a time of scientific investigation, mutually beneficial, ethnic, racial and cultural relations or exchange. The whites made out like the bandits they were/are. Even before the industrial and technological revolutions, European imperialism and colonialism created wealth generating opportunities and improved the quality of life throughout Europe while simultaneously introducing disease, social disruption, death, ecological and trade unbalances everywhere they set foot on planet earth. This was true no matter which European nation was involved. Not to mention how the whites forced or attempted to force the indigenous inhabitants of the lands they invaded or the millions they kidnaped or bartered for around the globe to work for little or nothing to enrich the mother countries.
We fail to grasp the causes of African poverty because we don’t understand the legacy of Arab and European imperialism, colonialism and neocolonialism, their seizure of the richest lands, soil depletion due to massive cash crop cultivation, political oppression, corruption and genocide. Africa is our motherland yet it is still under the yoke of European and Arab imperialism. African depopulation due to Arab kidnaping and exportation and European Trans Atlantic trafficking in human beings, the direct oppression, physical and psychological abuse during colonialism and the present day theft of their natural and human resources have had a devastating impact all over the continent. Africa is valuable to the AmeriKKKan empire. She is the primary source of most of the raw materials needed to run its high tech military-industrial-consumption oriented empire.
This is why we should study world history. The two so called world wars weren’t about democracy or freedom. They were squabbles between European and Euro-American imperialist powers over who would get and keep what in Africa, Asia and the Pacific! In the first third of the twentieth century England, France and America acquiesced to Hitler because in their scheme of global imperialism, Poland was a resourceless region. If Hitler had invaded Africa or Asia they would have gone to war immediately! We must become more familiar with AmeriKKKan geo-political policy with regards to Africa. We must be ever vigilant about Africa and what is going on there and not uncritically support AmeriKKKan policies on the continent.
Junious Ricardo Stanton can be reached at: email jrswriter@tbwt.com
Editor's note: The views expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Black World Today.
| By now on Wednesday, October 25, 2000 - 04:39 am: |
To adr on Thursday, October 19, 2000 - 06:45 am->
"I agree that African rule in India is farcical. Muslim rule, that existed, and for a very long time. But why belittle someone who asserts
the theory? Why not just respond intelligently?"
---------- ---------- -------- ----------
Why do you say that certain parts of India ruled by Africans are farcical?
Again, please supply names, dates, critics, scholars, whatever and whoever to support your claim that African rule in India is farcical.
Everything else you said, I agree with 100%. I would even go so far as to say that some Indians suffer from psychological slavery. The British education they received in India taught Indians self-hatred and hatred for other Indians and other people.
| By now on Wednesday, October 25, 2000 - 07:18 am: |
To International Punjabi, DesiandProud, Indian Guys, Saurabh, RSK, Desi, and adr
I would not use the argument about the material I have presented thus far as not being taught in history classes of the world's top Colleges and Universities(according to you guys); or
whatever the viewpoint that are agreed upon by most scholars(according to you guys) are what is accepted as truth, as the basis for saying the material I have shown in this post are false. As a matter of fact, under the post:
History of India: Myths Realities Fiction ? Facts ! Ancient to Modern to FUTURE
->A Fraudulent History : Discussion on Fabricated History
Even the EDITOR of, hindustan.net, said in the intro:
"Our educational system is still feeding itself from foreign writers residuals and virtual copy of western authors highly dubious
research."
Even though I am not Indian, nor never visited India, I have enough Indian friends and spoken with MANY Indians from both the north and south, east and west to get an idea of what is the state of the educational system back in India. Though there are many fine schools such as the IIT, many schools are still using an outdated British system curriculum that dates back to the days of WWII. In other words, many contents in the curriculum have remained unchanged for about 45-50 years.
I think this explains why so many people have never heard of the Habshis and/or Siddis at this posting. Moreover, if they did hear about the Habshi people, then they cannot beleive they ruled over parts of India at one time-why?
Because you guys for one reason or another have never been taught!
Let me give you guys an example of what I am trying to say. How many of you knew that 5,000 Indian soldiers lost their lives during the late 1930s/early1940s in Ethiopia.
Why were these Indian soldiers there? Because Ghandhi(India perhaps being the only country or one of the few countries during this time) sent them to Ethiopia to help his friend, Haile Selassie-Ruler of Ethiopia, defend the defenseless Ethiopians against Italian occupation. Yes, that's right-5,000 Indian soldiers lost their life in trying to defend Black African lives!
I brought this up for two reasons. First, I knew this fact because I did my research. You all are probably are going to starting screaming this is not true because, "I did not learn it in my inadequately funded schools back in India," Is this fact taught in the schools of India?
Second, why would 5,000 so-called Caucasians(Indians-according to Arvind)go to Ethiopia and fight against the Italians? Doesn't make sense does it for Indians to fight for people who are supposedly beneath them.
I have seen South Indians who have so much in common with Australian Aborigines than with "Caucasians"(also mentioned by adr in his post).
MORAL OF THIS POST: DO YOUR HOMEWORK, THEN ARGUE!!!
| By Indian Guys on Wednesday, October 25, 2000 - 08:41 am: |
Ok that's great Now, thanks for uplifting the shackles of pyschological slavery from us all. The content and character of your posts speak for themselves!
| By Gaurav on Wednesday, October 25, 2000 - 04:29 pm: |
Yasmeen have a question for you ? if you say that youre not black then why the fierce defense of Africans ?let me guess you're either an african sympathiser or a desi who's going out with a black guy and feel obliged to defend him. If youre so interested in appreciating ones culture as you yourself say then you wouldnt be going out with someone else of a different race let alone a black guy at that!!!! Thats like saying one thing and doing another. You make no sense its like you contrzdict yourself on different posts.
| By Desi on Wednesday, October 25, 2000 - 06:30 pm: |
Now said
"There are thousands of educational institutions all over the world, each with their own philosophy and
curriculum. To expect me to find specifically what schools teach the history of medieval india would be
tremendously time consuming and I presently do not have the time to do that. That is why I did not answer those
questions that were put to me. Since I do not presently know what educational institutions teach the history of
medieval india-does not mean that this material is not taught in schools".
Thats a nice and round about way to shy away from the question and the chance to actually say something thats factual and not a figment of your imagination or other afrocentric people like yourselves! You seem to have the time to post pages of "history" thats not recognised by any educational syllabus, but when we ask for some examples where this nonsense is taught you keep dodging the question. These references you quote sure exist, I'm not refuting that, but its not very difficult to write a book or make a web site with an alternative account of history. Its definately difficult to have these accounts ratified by educational bodies that are interested more in facts and not your biases. Its your credibility that you're trying to establish here(because as of now it doesn't even exist) and from the quality of your arguements you're not going very far.
We ask a simple question, give us a simple answer. Is there any (which one) educational syllabus that teaches your account of history and racial composition of Indian people?
****
| By Arvind on Wednesday, October 25, 2000 - 07:04 pm: |
now, our educational system is fine thank you. I definately feel its far superior to any eduactional system in Africa. Our history is not only a western version of history, but Indian versions as well. This is possible as we have had a script for thousands of years in India and were able to write our accounts of history. Unlike your afrocentric fairy tales that were passed down orally from father to son for want of a script and writing ability.
In a way, I admire your persistance to sit on your computer and tell us on an Indian site that WE- the people of a 5000 year old civilisation are ignorant and dont know our facts.
now said" Ghandhi(India perhaps being the only country or one of the few countries during this time) sent them to Ethiopia to help his friend, Haile Selassie-Ruler of Ethiopia, defend the defenseless Ethiopians against Italian occupation. Yes, that's right-5,000 Indian soldiers lost their life in trying to defend Black African lives!
Everyone knows Indian soldiers served in Africa and Turkey in the wars. If your know Indian history as well as you claim you do, you'd know that these Indian soldiers were under the command of the British rulers in India and not Mahatma Gandhi. Maybe your alternative accounts of history have missed this fact. Indian soldiers were'nt trying to "protect" Ethiopians from Italians, they were fighting against the Italians under British instructions. Simple as that. Indian soldiers serve to this day in Africa in United Nations missions, they do this not for love of African people, but because its their duty as soldiers of a UN member nation. I know this because I did my current affairs, something you obviously haven't. Maybe you aren't aware, but a lot of Indian soldiers have lost their lives fighting to be honest Africans.
Now said" Second, why would 5,000 so-called Caucasians(Indians-according to Arvind)go to Ethiopia and fight against the Italians? Doesn't make sense does it for Indians to fight for people who are supposedly beneath them.
Race isn't a criteria to fight a war. Why would the English fight the Germans? Or the Germans the Russians? Or the North Koreans the South Koreans? or the Iraqis the Iranians? or the Americans the Germans? This is an angle you would do well to consider when making ridiculous statements like the one you've made above.
Now says" I have seen South Indians who have so much in common with Australian Aborigines than with "Caucasians"(also mentioned by adr in his post).
Australian aborigines have been in that continent for over 50,000 years and did not go beyond the hunter gatherer stage. The South Indians of India were/are accomplished in science, literature, music, warfare, navigation and arts. A comparison between the two people is ridiculous. There is nothing similar between South Indians and Native Australians.
By the way, my information on races is from
(The History and Geography of Human Genes, by Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Paolo Menozzi and Alberto Piazza, Princeton University Press)
I'm sure you agree the authors of the above publication were "well funded". Or do you prefer afrocentric fables?
| By Vinod on Wednesday, October 25, 2000 - 07:15 pm: |
sure Now, blame the Europeans because the people in Africa have been underachievers all through history. But the Oriental civilisation did well, as did the Native Americans, as did the Indians.
Why is the African Americans community in AMERICA to this day below the poverty line, more prone to crime? Blame the whites? Sure, its easy isn't it? But the Indians are doing well, as are the Chinese and Japanese.
Look at this way, if the whites hadn't enslaved the Africans and brought them to the west, the few Africans who're doing well in Western Society wouldn't even exist!!! Most black achievers in the world have prospered in Western countries, not in Bantu land! its the facilities they were free to avail of in the west that enabled them to achive something in their lives. The same thing applies to you, now, you're sitting on your comp. giving afrocentric speeches bacause you were lucky enough to get an education and are now in a position to refute popular knowledge and follow your afrocentric theories in order to create a niche for yourself.
Bottom line, the way anyone with common sense would see it, the African civilisation hasn't achieved nuts!!
| By Vinod on Wednesday, October 25, 2000 - 07:24 pm: |
The way I see it, African Westerners suffer from a massive inferiority complex and are desperate to accept and propogate any theory that may show that the entire human race evolved from them or that they have made enormous contributions to every civilisation humanity has seen. This is understandable and only a natural human reaction.
The bitter truth is that there are is no solid archiological evidence to support these theories or even an ancient African script that has survived to this day. How can a civilisation claim to be advanced if they cant even write?
| By now on Wednesday, October 25, 2000 - 11:15 pm: |
Desi, you tell me. What are the popular version of history during medieval india that apparantly which I have posted above is an alternative history? Tell me what you know to be true concerning the rulers of bengal, rulers of janjira, rulers of jaunpur, etc. during the time of medieval india.
Arvind, from what I know, Ghandhi sent those troops to ethiopia on his own intiative, not the british. when ethiopia was being invaded by italy, not one european or african country came to the aid of ethiopia, except for india. Ghandhi knew what was going on a/b the criminal and illegal invasion of ethiopia and personally sent the troops to ethiopia from india.
To Arvind and Desi:
Why would Indian and European writers write Afrocentric fairy tales of Indian history?
Why would an Indian scholar try to discredit and downgrade his/her own race with afrocentric garbage of medieval indian history?
| By now on Thursday, October 26, 2000 - 12:03 am: |
To Desi on Wednesday, October 25, 2000 - 05:00 pm
One more thing. Since when have encyclopedia's started to include alternative accounts of history in their books?
| By now on Thursday, October 26, 2000 - 05:27 am: |
"Why is the African Americans community in AMERICA to this day below the poverty line, more prone to crime? Blame the whites?
Sure, its easy isn't it? But the Indians are doing well, as are the Chinese and Japanese."
-Vinod
My reply: So ya think I'm rustic, huh? You should know by now that I am not naive! You did not mention in your argument that the United States government's very selective immigration policy is weighted overwhelmingly on the side of Indian professional classes; which began in 1965. Your argument ignored this fact. We took the best of what Indian society had to offer in terms of it's highly educated class(doctors, engineers, scientists, etc.) and let them come over to the US, since oppurtunities back in India are limited. At the same time, the US allowed them to make their high salaries, which they were unable to do so back in India.
By the way, I just found some educational syllabi, as per your request that teaches about Medieval India and the Habshis. I will post it several days from now as I am still organizing it.
| By anon on Thursday, October 26, 2000 - 08:00 am: |
Y are blacks so obsessed with indian civilization? y do blacks have such an attraction for indians?Most IMPORTANTLY y ARE BLACKS OBSESSED WITH MIXING THEIR RACE WITH INDIANS through intermarriage?ITs really funny to see black posters desperately trying to lay some claim to indian civilization. The most notorious being that south indians r africans. Ya guys, Ashwariya Rai, Tabu,Hema Malini, Rekha, Padmini, Keerthi Reddy, Sridevi,etc.etc. are all africans according to these people. I have never heard so much garbage in my life. For the last time, dravidian refers to a linguisticly related family and not a racial family. Modern scholars, all agree that the mainstream indian population exhibit no distinctive racial difference from each other. There are obvious regional differences, such as a kashmiri compared to a tamilian. For godsakes southern india is close to the equator! But, all r classified under the same race. MEDITERRANEAN CAUCASIAN. South indian bone samples r caucasoid and the dravidian speakers r believed to have migrated from Persia. SO, there is not a shred of proof for the afrocentric garbage being spewed here. Just wishfull thinking from blacks.After all the majority of IT engineers come from south india!lol O yea, and to "Now" who compared south indians to australian aborigines. All i can say is, were u smoking some serious weed when u said that? Im a tamilian, and my family and I have sharp features, thin lips, straight hair etc. I have people in my family who r as fair as kashmiris, with light colored eyes,etc. So what nonsense r you talking yaar? The Tamil Cholas nearly conquered all of southeast asia, and were expert sailors and navigators. The founder of modern-day hinduism, Adi Sankara, was a south indian. The bhakti movement originated from Tamil Nadu. Complex carnatic classical music originated in tamil nadu. bhartanatyam, an ancient indian classical dance originated in tamil nadu. We have a glorious history as do the north indians. You and your ilk try to divide indians by breaking them into north and south. We r all the same,racially and culturally indians. Your garbage theory about south indians being africans is an intellectually dishonest statement and u know it. This divide and conquer garbage AIT theory is a lie that all you guys love to piggyback on,especially blacks. Poda!
| By adr on Thursday, October 26, 2000 - 10:14 am: |
To "now":
I say farcical b/c I believe that "Indian" isn't a race. I also think 'race' is a farce. The rest of the paragraph explains what I meant, though I may not have explained myself very well. So here goes:
(1) Race is a European construct, and exists only because we believe in it. Essentially, to continue to assert dominance over native peoples, Europeans looked to the most obvious difference, be it race religion, whatever, and drew a line in the sand. Divide themselves from those they ruled over.
(2) As there is no 'Indian' race, what is it to be Indian? I think that gets to the community of interest concept proposed. I truly do believe that India managed to assimilate all foreign persons into the *cultural and spiritual* amalgamation that is India within one generation maximum. So point three
(3) India has been ruled by Indians, in the same way that the American President is, always, an American first. We've been divided by 'race' (chaste) for too long.
I find it fascinating that the same people who deride Africans and blacks would probably argue against the maintenance of the caste system. Why? Because it places the majority of Indians at the bottom of the totem pole. You are all just trying to prove your inherent worth to yourself by placing yourself above another. It's insanely Freudian. And you're all doing it, be you Now, Arvind, Vinod, whoever.
(4) To look to part African (if we buy the race myth) rulers of India, you could reference pretty much any of them. I mean really, you'd have to be blind to think we're straight up Caucasian. To all the "blacks are idiots" people out there, look in a mirror, and tell me what you see. Answer? Brown. How do you think that happened, a freak microwave accident?
And, to the rest of you, I'm not black. As I said earlier, I'm about as Indian as they come. And I don't have a black lover, so you can get over that one too. Oh, and yes, I do have an education, quite a nifty and expensive one at that. You see, that's one of the neat things about an education. It makes you less stupid. I wish that you had paid attention in whatever schools you attended, or even bothered looking with a critical eye at the world around you.
And clarification, I'm a woman. As to the Dravidian origin thing, I think it's a waste of time to argue, but I would like to point out that if we're all trying to keep to the old ways of race, the Vedas themselves indicate that the native Indians were of another race. Hmmm, which could that be? Maybe they were Chinese.
Lastly, why bother arguing with some of these people? It's just not worth it. They'll never change, and they come to the Net not to discuss but as a venting place for their frustrations. To say things that are unacceptable in polite society. So let them get their petty nonsense off their chests, and just have an intelligent discussion (which it seems like you're searching for) with those who are willing to do the same.
Don't know if that made much sense, but I'm watching the World Series as I write this, and whatever. Commercial break's over, so cheers!
| By Saurabh on Thursday, October 26, 2000 - 11:02 am: |
Now, you're making us laugh!!! Gandhiji sent 5,000 troops who were under his command to Ethiopia??!!! Lol, does that mean he had a private army? But thats not possible, he practised and preached Ahimsa! Where did he get the money to raise and arm an army? How come the British didn't object to him having a private army?
Now, you've established what everyone on this post suspected all along......you're out of touch with reality!!!!!!If only you'd listened to your dad and stayed in school(the real one)!!!
| By Vinod on Thursday, October 26, 2000 - 11:11 am: |
adr, if you're so high and mighty, you shouldn't come on this post and write a mini thesis. You're obviously one of those "greenies" who coexist on the fringes in every society trying to be heard and sound different.
The Vedas make no mention of Native Indians being a different race. Maybe you should read the Vedas someday.
To answer your question, you didn't make any sense.
| By Raghu on Thursday, October 26, 2000 - 11:22 am: |
Hey adr, if you haven't any valid points/evidence to talk about, you'd do well to not make personal slurs on the post.
Unfortunately, your "expensive" education has not resulted in an end product of high quality.
| By adr on Thursday, October 26, 2000 - 03:00 pm: |
Vinod: I use rather strident language, and apologize for that. It's a habit, and I should be more careful about how I word things. Actually have read the Vedas, several times in fact. They do mention the color differences in the lower castes. I'm not sure what a "greenie" is, but it sounds like an insult. That's fine, we can all agree to disagree.
Raghu: I was responding to Now's question. I apologize if what I wrote was taken as a personal slur. The point I am trying to make is that race is a destructive concept, like caste, and is better left forgotten, especially since it has little biological basis. There's no basis for claims of racial superiority. A lot of what has been said here sounds a lot like the rhetoric of white hate groups, and it scares me to hear that. If you'd like to comparison check, try out www.crosstar.com or www.stormfront.com. Word of warning, they're white supremacist groups, and the language is really disturbing.
I got a little overzealous in preempting people's responses to my post, and I apologize for that. It's just odd, though, that if someone defends other races, they're asked if they are in a mixed-race relationship or if they are uneducated. I came across as having a serious attitude problem, and I'm sorry about that.
I can see how Now's postings can be upsetting. As a people, we're constantly being told that we owe our accomplishments to someone else. I find that as irritating as you. However, there's no reason to get all worked up about the concept of being part African, part Caucasian, part Mongoloid, whatever. Under race as it now exists, there is no separate "Indian" group, so we have to be somewhere in between. Who cares if we are racially mixed?
Because, in the end, we are culturally Indian, right? Isn't that what should matter?
| By now on Thursday, October 26, 2000 - 11:10 pm: |
Now, you're making us laugh!!! Gandhiji sent 5,000 troops who were under his command to Ethiopia??!!! Lol, does that mean he had a private army? But thats not possible, he practised and preached Ahimsa! Where did he get the money to raise and arm an army? How come the British didn't object to him having a private army?
- by Saurabh
Do you think Gandhi really practiced Ahimsa?:
"...Gandhi's tyrannical habits, his hypocrisy, his appalling treatment of his wife and children, his bizarre fixation on bowel functions, and his support for violence in various wars. The film ignores Gandhi's views that sexual attraction between men and women is unnatural and that he demanded celibacy between even married members of his entourage. He was so fanatical about his views on sex that he disowned his son Harilal for wishing to marry, and repeatedly tested his own will by sleeping nude with young women. The film Gandhi ignores the Mahatma's elitist attitudes. He is portrayed as a champion of freedom and individual rights, but in real life he was steadfastly opposed to granting additional rights to India's millions of Untouchables. The film's portrayal of Gandhi as a pacifist is incorrect. He supported the British military in the Boer War and World War I. The so-called pacifist gave his approval to men who, as he put it, were "using violence in a normal cause." He gave his blessing to the Nawab of Maler Kolta when he gave orders to shoot ten Moslems for every Hindu killed in his State. Gandhi's hypocrisy and double standards (not mentioned in the film) are also indicated by his opposition to modern medicine and his refusal to allow his wife to receive a life-saving shot of penicillin when she was dying of pneumonia."
Source: http://ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p--9_Bennett.html
| By Arvind on Friday, October 27, 2000 - 12:53 am: |
Unfortunately, noone's interested in your views about us, adr. We aren't, and since there's nonone else here, its safe to say noone is!!! Of course, you're welcome to rant while watching the world series or whatever, we'll make concessions for your psychological condition.
A suggestion, you may be more appreciated(doubt it, but give it a try) on the posts requesting help about a foreign spouse etc. If not make sense, you may atleast bring a smile to someone's face with your wannabe American attitude! "cheers"???
| By Desi on Friday, October 27, 2000 - 12:56 am: |
Yeah now and also include educational syllabi that says South Indians are originally African or whatever you say.
| By Saurabh on Friday, October 27, 2000 - 01:01 am: |
We've heard that crap about Gandhiji before, now. How do you know he slept naked with girls, was someone in your family one of them?? God, you alternatives bore us to death.
Anyway, answer the question, How in the world did Gandhiji manage to get 5000 soldiers armed, trained and shipped to Ethiopia under the British eye? Let me guess, in your opinion the British were never in India!!!
| By Raghu on Friday, October 27, 2000 - 01:09 am: |
adr, our point is that South Indians are not of African origin. Its not a question about caring or not caring, how can someone say something that isn't true and not be challenged?
I agree with "now" about Africans coming to India and the role they played in Indian history, but his/her racial views of India are inaccurate and I dispute them. The source Arvind has provided proves it.
| By anon on Friday, October 27, 2000 - 04:53 am: |
Ya rite southies r def. african. So i guess then that Ashwariya Rai is a nubian princess rite? hahahaha u black posters r a joke. SOuthies r as caucasian as northies are.
| By now on Friday, October 27, 2000 - 06:50 am: |
(Saurabh) and (DesiandProud)
Here are some links to get real information on Africa, instead of the gossip, t.v. media and hearsay things you have heard about Africans:
African Indigenous Science and Knowledge Systems
http://members.aol.com/afsci/africana.htm
(Vinod)
EUROCENTRISM AND THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
http://members.aol.com/sekglo/racism.htm
| By anon on Friday, October 27, 2000 - 09:47 am: |
"Now" i trust the REPUTABLE sources that Arvind, Vinod,et all have quoted. NOt some half assed pro-african dogshit u find on the net. Poda! To all the other black posters with an inferiority complex, u could only dream that south indians r africans. The truth is they are mediteranean caucasians as are north indians. If u go to india u will see there are MANY dark north indians. Esp. in bengal, UP, maharashtra,etc. Skin color is more a result of climate, type of work,etc. Like i said before south indians have quite a glorious history. South indians were experienced in warfare,navigation,arts,music,dance,etc. The classical language Tamil is also from south india. I am a south indian tamil, and I look no different from an average north indian. I have straight hair, oval narrow face, sharp nose,thin lips, etc, The average features of an african im sure. As for skin color, there r people in my family as fair as kashmiris, so this bullshit theory of south indians being africans is garbage that blacks desperately pray is true. Unfortunately it aint. Sorry.
| By anon on Friday, October 27, 2000 - 09:49 am: |
To all the educated posters here (eg. vinod,arvind,saurabh,etc.), check out the garbage being posted about south indians on the history section of hindustan.net.
| By Arvind on Friday, October 27, 2000 - 11:23 am: |
lol, NOW the sites you've referred are amongst the most lame ass sites I've ever seen. Its full of vague statements and claims. There is no mention of references, excavations, dates, time etc. I'll bet it was the secondary school project of some African kid in the congo!!
| By Yasmeen on Friday, October 27, 2000 - 11:51 am: |
Gaurav and Saurabh -
please spare the personal attacks ok ??? This was meant to be a rational forum not some portal to vent your frustrations upon. i find your attitude insulting and the fact that you resort to personal attacks alongwith desiandproud shows the depth of your argument.
adr I agree with you completely go girl !!. I think more than fear its ignorance that is the enemy and education is the only solution to ignorance. At the end of the day im not sure what someone like Saurabh for eg is trying to prove. Is it that indians are better than Africans or that one culture is better than the other ? where does that get you at the end of it ? nowhere. adr you mentioned your thesis - is it on race/origins and or race relations ? Could you tell me more about it ? im really interested in it ive given my email add above. anyway i wish you well on it. It helps having mature individuals like you on this board.
| By anon on Friday, October 27, 2000 - 01:17 pm: |
yea anyone who agrees with yasmeen is automatically mature.hahaha what a load of bullshit. Now y would anyone want that kind of compliment from a high school dropout like yasmeen is beyond me!
| By now on Friday, October 27, 2000 - 11:22 pm: |
yasmeen-
I would not pay much attention to name callers.
Racism causes people not to think in a rational and logical way.
Their thinking about Blacks clearly is an indicator that their brains are not adapted for the 21st century.
| By Saurabh on Friday, October 27, 2000 - 11:50 pm: |
Yasmeen, we really would like to establish this once and for all.....Are you blind to logic or just plain baised against Indians? Some guy talks rubbish about Mahatma Gandhi without any evidence and you tell us we dont have depth in our arguements!
| By DesiandProud on Friday, October 27, 2000 - 11:58 pm: |
Hey Yasmeen, if you find my attitude offensive..you're gonna have to live with it, I'm not changing for you.Bottom line is, I'm aggressive in what I believe and wont let any afrocentric or afro patronizer like you bag my country or my people.
I find it offensive that in your post Indians is spelt using small letters and Africans is spelt using caplitals, it shows us what you think of Indians and how proud you are to be one, if you are really one.
| By now on Saturday, October 28, 2000 - 05:21 am: |
The reason why I posted:
The Sudroid (Indo-African) Race
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/1335/Anthro/sud_afr.html
Are that I read a fascinating article a few months ago in, National Geographic, October 1999, pages 72-73.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"THE FIRST INDIANS?", the title of the section, is the written caption in bold type that says:
"Partha P. Majumder of the Indian Statistical Institute is using DNA from blood samples taken from 30 different ethnic groups, including members of the ancient Oraon tribe, to build a model for the peopling of the subcontinent. His data suggest that the first population arrived from Africa, then rapidly expanded and diversified. Genetic studies may solve riddles of human origins and migrations."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess the writer is a poorly funded, pro-african scholar who fabricates data to support his theory-Huh guys?
According to you guys logic, the world famous National Geographic magazine would let him write this junk in their publications.
On page 72 is shown a girl who is just about twice as dark as me. The girl's nose, lips, skin color, and facial features are about 75% more african than me-a Black American.
Again, remember what Ms. Adr said in her previous post:
"The 'Dravidians' are *not* Caucasian, and are the same class of persons into which Australian Aborigines are placed. To reject this controverts not only traditional Hindu history and mythology, but also carbon-dated physical evidence. There's nothing wrong with being one or the other, so why insist that neither exists? Again, it doesn't really serve a purpose, being Caucasian versus being not is not at all that indicative of any trait, racial or personal."
I think it would be a very good idea if you all could get hold of this article; you will begin to understand what I and the others are talking about.
As you know already(I hope)the Black races's gene is the dominant gene, white is recessive gene. Then how did the original Indians get their dark skin?
MOST(i.e. general consensus) scientists believe that Homo sapiens evolved in Africa and migrated to the other continents beginning 100,000 to 200,000 years ago. Traditional races show physical differences produced largely by climate but are genetically almost identical.
| By RSK on Saturday, October 28, 2000 - 07:44 am: |
To Yasmeen and adr, the reasons some Indians on this board have reacted harshly is due to the extreme nature of what this person has posted. Just reading through some of his/her posts this was posted under two topics here. In this topic from
Anonymous on Sunday, October 8, 2000 - 09:26 pm: (this now said was him/her under anonymous alias)
and from the "African Diaspora of the Indian Sub-continent" topic on
Anonymous on Tuesday, September 19, 2000 - 01:59 am:
"Ethiopian industry, skill and statesmanship helped greatly in making India rich and prosperous country which the Portuguese, English and French later found it."
Or under this topic again look at
By now on Monday, October 23, 2000 - 06:26 pm:
"Why, for example, have all of the American media uniformly ignored numerous tests given newborn infants? A number of White scientists have been literally astonished at the brilliance of African and African American newborns when compared to all other children."
from the book aparently titled, "When Black Men Ruled the World".
Yeah if this man/woman wants to believe this that's their choice but when they post this in public forums they will get harsh responses. Try this experiment, here's two links I got just from searching for the word "Afrocentric" in a search engine.
http://homepages.luc.edu/~cwinter/blshang.htm
http://homepages.luc.edu/~cwinter/xia.htm
http://homepages.luc.edu/~cwinter/blshang2.htm
These range from showing a black presence in ancient China to explaning how blacks founded civilizations in ancient China.
Now post this on a some Chinese discussion forum or something along that line and add to it with claims of how Africans were a large part of ancient China's success or birth and check to see what type of responses you'll get. Yeah they might be very racist, or whatever else but they wouldn't be without provocation. Might be better to just ignore this guy or tone down on personal/racist insults but it's easy to see why people react harshly when someone posts the stuff mentioned above. Add to that insults Gandhi, calls India's educational system outdated, Indians psychologically enslaved, etc. it's one thing to discuss this intelligently but look at the foundation this person's layed from his/her above posts.
| By now on Saturday, October 28, 2000 - 08:10 am: |
I am a south indian tamil, and I look no different from an average north indian. I have straight hair, oval narrow face, sharp nose,thin lips, etc, The average features of an african im sure. As for skin color, there r people in my family as fair as kashmiris, so this bullshit theory of south indians being africans is garbage that blacks desperately pray is true. Unfortunately it aint. Sorry.
-anon on Friday, October 27, 2000 - 08:17 am
Just like in India, there are many regional differences among Africans. Africans come in all kinds of different shapes, colors, religions, sizes, hair textures, facial features, etc. There are africans who also have:
"I have straight hair, oval narrow face, sharp nose,thin lips, etc."
For example, Ethiopians in general, especially the ones from the north tend to have straight hair(women), curly/very fine hair (men), oval faces, sharp/narrow noses and then lips just like europeans.
Earlier in my previous posts I asked:
To Arvind and Desi:
Why would Indian and European writers write Afrocentric fairy tales of Indian history?
Why would an Indian scholar try to discredit and downgrade his/her own race with afrocentric garbage of medieval indian history?
anon, I am now asking you the same 2 questions written above. Notice, they along with the others still have not answered the questions I have asked.
I would really appreciate a reply. Tell me exactly what you agee with and what you do not agree with so I can explain things to you step by step.
If you are going to insult me when you reply, just do not even bother with it.
| By Yasmeen on Saturday, October 28, 2000 - 08:32 am: |
Let me explain - to all of you especially Saurabh and desiandproud i am part Indian and im proud to be so. Desiandproud i did not intend to spell Indians with a small "i" it was a typing mistake. How on earth could i be biased in a negative way toward my own people ??????? of course not thats insane !! And furthermore i did not say that i agreed with EVERYTHING that 'now' has said to be honest i havent even read a quarter of what he/she has put up since its way too long ( sorry no offense :) and i dont have the time to be reading it. Ganhiji was one of the greatest men of our time and what he achieved and ended up dying for will be historically and culturally remembered forever. HOwever when someone says things about our history and our people that are wrong what we should do is to disprove it using fact and do it in a professional way instead of fuelling racist /personal comments. People reading some of the things on this board would have the opinion that ALL indians think this way - that we cant have a intellectual debate about race/Indian history and its people without bringing other negative comments into it. And the fact that my fellow indian brothers choose to insult their own countrymen on this board is appalling.
| By now on Saturday, October 28, 2000 - 08:33 am: |
Might be better to just ignore this guy or tone down on personal/racist insults but it's easy to see why people react harshly when someone posts the stuff mentioned above. Add to that insults Gandhi, calls India's educational system outdated, Indians psychologically enslaved, etc. it's one thing to discuss this intelligently but look at the foundation this person's layed from his/her above posts
- RSK
I asked you two questions that you still have not answered yet on:
Sunday, October 15, 2000 - 10:29 pm
When are you going to answer them?
If the information I have posted on the Habshis in Medieval India are false, simply show your sources to the post that will refute my sources. Why don't you do this?
I am not trying to provoke anyone or Indians at this post, on the contrarary I am trying to have a intelligent discussion here. In no way would I present afrocentric data or extreme statements that would insult Indians or any other ethnic group for that matter.
When other's here at the postings present their sources, I don't start screaming-"it's biased" or "eurocentric propaganda". But any book, journal or magazine article, internet web site what have you, I use it is immediately branded afrocentric trash.
Has anyone here ever heard of something called peer review, the scrutiny a writer's info. goes through before being published.
Seriously, I really want to have a intelligent discussion with the readers at hindustan.net
| By now on Saturday, October 28, 2000 - 09:20 am: |
now on Monday, October 23, 2000 - 06:26 pm
To Arvind, DesiandProud, Saurabh, and aa:
I.Q. -- The Untold Story:
WHAT ANCIENT WHITE WRITERS
SAID ABOUT BLACK INTELLIGENCE
WHEN BLACK MEN RULED THE WORLD
Legrand H. Clegg II, Editor & Publisher
Volume II, Edition VI, September/October 1998
Footnotes
1 Richard Poe, Black Spark, White Fire, Prima
Publishing, Rocklin,
CA, 1997, p. 355.
2 Robert V. Guthrie, Even The Rat Was White, Harper &
Row, publishers, New York, 1976, p.54.
3 Ibid.
4 Ibid,
5 Amos Wilson, Developmental Psychology of The Black
Child, African Research Publication, New York, 1978.
6. Vitruvius, On Architecture, VI, I, 10-11 (Frank
Granger, Trans.), Harvard University Press, Cambridge,
MA, 1934.
7 Black Spark, p. 349
8 Lerone Bennett Jr. Before The Mayflower: A History of
the Negro In America, Johnson Publishing Company, Inc.,
Chicago, 1962, p. 6.
9 Basil Davidson, The Search For Africa: History,
Culture, Politics, Random House, New York, 1994, p.
323.
10 Black Spark, p. 349.
11 Ibid.
12 Before The Mayflower, p.
13 Third World Press, Chicago, 1989.
| By anon on Saturday, October 28, 2000 - 09:34 am: |
"Now" obsessed with proving south indians r africans. Listen Madaiya DRAVIDIAN REFERS TO A LINGUISTICALLY RELATED FAMILY, NOT A RACIAL FAMILY! Can u comprehend that? ANy scholar can tell u that. Adi-vasis yes are african in appearance and have seperate settlements away from mainstream indian society. An average indian from north or south is not going to look like an african much to your dissapointment. Its obvious that you want to connect africans to indians in some way. Its really pathetic. Now the fact that south india has produce highly qualified doctors and IT engineers, and that the south has such a rich culture is certainly tempting for blacks to piggy back on them. U blacks r so pathetic, u keep wanting to prove this nonsense, without a shred of REAL PRoof, like say from stanford uni. or princeton, or some other REPUTABLE source. REcently Dr. Joseph Greenberg, a professor of genetics at STANFORD university, said that he believed after his research, that dravidian speaking people originally came from Northern Iran. Again u can check this up, it was even published in India West last year. I am a Non-brahmin, tamil guy who can tell u, i nor my family look anywhere near african.lol Like i said before, dark skin is more probably coming from the climate, and the type of work done. My family has people who r as fair as kashmiris. Skin color however is a poor indicator of race. Features r a better indicator, and one look at a south indian from any state will tell u that we r nowhere similar to africans in appearance, unless blacks have sharp features and straight hair, in which case we r related them. Which blacks dont have, hence we hav no relation. Is it any mistake "NOW" that so called "DRAVIDIANS" are classified even now as mediterranean caucasians? Maybe u were looking at an adivasi on your national geographic magazine, thats all i can say.
| By RSK on Saturday, October 28, 2000 - 10:43 am: |
see, Now this is the half-truth half presumption that you're jumping from. There is debate whether humans evolved from homo sapien or homo erectus OR most likely a mixture of the two. Even homo erectus however was from what is now known as Africa. But homo erectus migrated from Africa something like 1.5mil years ago and was living in Asia, Europe, middle east, etc. a million years ago. At this time it barely resembled humans today and was definitly not black, brown, white or whatever else. Homo erectus evolved over a million years suited to the environment they were in and came to be humans as today. Now most likely when homo sapien came out of Africa like 200,000 years ago they mixed with some homo erectus (some say though that homo sapien wiped out homo erectus completely but again that's the debate). But even this 200,000 years ago homo sapien was not someone you would say is black, brown or white. Going back hundred's of thousands of years or millions of years you're talking about effects on the ENTIRE human pop. not just Indians and Africans. Concerning Dravidians, adr is not professional opinion (as is noone here I think). I also think you know very well that Dravidian is listed as a family of languages in most places that you look but you love to search just for the internet address or book or article or even web poster who might suggest otherwise. By the way that National Geographic article, it doesn't say Dravidians are black we both know that. It says what's pretty well known about homo erectus/sapiens. After something like a month at it isn't it fairly clear that this argument is pointless and going nowhere?
| By RSK on Saturday, October 28, 2000 - 11:45 am: |
Now, let me just take the material you must have missed from a post in reply to this question you asked. From Encyclopedia Britannica, the Sharqi Dynasty is muslim, nowhere does it say it they were African. Your other rulers don't show up, considering they had control for 2-3 years in a region (which again as the the Encyclopedia states) was in various states of war that's not to surprising. YES (and Vinod, Raghu also agreed with you on this) there were african slaves used in the militaries of Indian's because these slaves had no families, no ambitions of power, would in turn fight to the death and were very loyal. If they survived they got freedom and/or land as was the custom. But here's the difference you seem to think that this wasn't just a handful of African slaves, but instead thousands. Ones who consolidated power and controlled large or sig. parts of India. Quotes from your posts like the ones i posted above about Africans contributing significantly to India's past successes.
| By Saurabh on Saturday, October 28, 2000 - 11:45 am: |
Yasmeen said on 11 october " ignorant people who will not accept fact are not worth wasting time on".
Yasmeen said on oct 13 "i dont think
my Palm V could help me defend myself against some of you who probably are worse than an animal with bared
teeth - ouch !!!
Yasmeen said on oct 28 "And the fact that my fellow indian brothers choose to insult their own countrymen on this board is appalling.
Hey Yasmeen, you've been insulting Arvind, Desi, Vinod and me all through the discussion, and then you make a ridiculous statement like the one on 28th oct. Girl, you need serious psycho help!
| By DesiandProud on Saturday, October 28, 2000 - 11:57 am: |
Now, you're going have to answer our questions about Gandhiji sending troops to Ethiopia and how he could have raised and army of 5000 under the British nose and ship them to Ethiopia. I belive this will finally establish you and ignorant person out of touch with reality.
| By RSK on Saturday, October 28, 2000 - 11:59 am: |
and do you hold along the lines as the links I listed above concerning blacks building ancient civilizations in China and having dynasties there? Or that they had influences over Japan in the early stages of that country??
| By DesiandProud on Saturday, October 28, 2000 - 12:06 pm: |
Lol yeah Yasmeen seems no to have clue what she's talking about! Here are a few more gems to have a laugh at:
Yasmeen said on 11 oct "Anonymous those references were inciteful and you have no doubt taken time to research and write all of that up
- so thankyou.
Yasmeen said on 22 oct "to be honest i havent even read a quarter of what he/she has put up since its way too long ( sorry no offense :) and i dont have the time to be reading it.
Lol hahahaha, if you haven't taken the time to read it how can you say it was insightful and thank now for his/her "research"??? Yasmeen, I must be honest with you, you're making a jester of yourself, this is a frank assesement!
| By Yasmeen on Saturday, October 28, 2000 - 02:35 pm: |
Wow Saurabh and desiandproud - seriously you guys give comic relief in this heated discussion !!!
First to Saurabh -
"Yasmeen said on 11 october " ignorant people who will not accept fact are not worth wasting time on".
yes i did say that general comment but im sorry i dont remember mentioning any names with that comment, so if you felt that it was directed at you gee im sorry you feel that way about yourself. Saurabh youre not ignorant at all not in the least :)
Yasmeen said on oct 13 "i dont think
my Palm V could help me defend myself against some of you who probably are worse than an animal with bared
teeth - ouch !!!
That comment is fairly self explanatory and still stands -
And moving on to desiandproud :
Yasmeen said on 11 oct "Anonymous those references were inciteful and you have no doubt taken time to research and write all of that up
- so thankyou.
Yasmeen said on 22 oct "to be honest i havent even read a quarter of what he/she has put up since its way too long ( sorry no offense :) and i dont have the time to be reading it.
NO if you went back and read what i wrote - i wrote that on the 28th not the 22nd . And let me spell it out for you. Between the 11th and 28th of october now has written a considerable amount of material particularly between the 23 - 25th. What i meant on the 28th is that i have only skim read material after the 11th.
Desiandproud dont make me laugh on October 27, 2000 - you write "Hey Yasmeen, if you find my attitude offensive..you're gonna have to live with it, I'm not changing for you." Yes i find your attitude offensive but brother you dont have to change for me and no i wont have to live with it cos i dont have to. Your poor girlfriend/wife is the one who has to. I offer my condolences to her in advance.
| By Vinod on Saturday, October 28, 2000 - 03:42 pm: |
Yasmeen said on 28 Oct "Ganhiji was one
of the greatest men of our time and what he achieved and ended up dying for will be historically and culturally remembered forever.
By the way, Yasmeen its GanDhiji, with a D.
Yasmeen said on 28 Oct " i am part Indian "
I'm now not surprised as to why you've adopted such an aggressive and hostile attitude towards us totally ignoring the reasons we're aggressive in our stand. You simply cannot understand it, it wont matter to you at all.
| By Vinod on Saturday, October 28, 2000 - 04:03 pm: |
Hey now you're still talking nonsense about South Indians being Africans. So what if they're dark, is it difficult for you to understand that the climate makes them darker?
Have you also noticed the head shape of Africans and South Indians? South Indians have a head shape just like North Indians and other caucasion people, whereas Africans have a shape sloping outwards from forehead to mouth when seen from the side.
| By Vinod on Saturday, October 28, 2000 - 06:52 pm: |
Whatever you do Yasmeen, please continue posting here, we need a few laughs!
| By Arvind on Saturday, October 28, 2000 - 07:06 pm: |
Now asks repeatedly "Why would Indian and European writers write Afrocentric fairy tales of Indian history?
What kind of a ridiculous question is that? Being of the same race is no reason why Indian "scholars" should not write something thats out of the ordinary, at the end of the day everyone wants to make a fast buck and gain some recognition.
Why would an Indian scholar try to discredit and downgrade his/her own race with afrocentric garbage of medieval Indian history?
Why did African cheiftans sell their own people to white traders who came to Africa? Why did Adolf Hitler send millions of his own people to their graves? Why did/and still does Saddam Hussein toture and kill his own people and plunder his own country? Why did Idi Amin massace thousands of his own people?
Being of the same race does not mean everyone is concerned about and cares about their people or history, its all about personal gain. I hope this answers your ridiculous questions.
| By Vinod on Saturday, October 28, 2000 - 11:45 pm: |
Oh boring...Yasmeen your comebacks and explanations are pathetic with a capital P!
| By Saurabh on Sunday, October 29, 2000 - 12:01 am: |
The only person repeatedly contradicting themselves is you Yasmeen, so dont make some lame excuses coupled with a weak attempt at humour. Your identity as an involuntary jester has been well established on this post and we all look forward to your next senseless post.
| By anon on Sunday, October 29, 2000 - 05:32 am: |
Man these half indian half black cross breeds have one hell of an inferiority complex. THey r prolly pissed that most indian guys wouldnt turn their heads for them and that their only choice are black guys. They resent that, hence their obsession with trying to somehow connect the african community with the indian community to somehow justify and promote interracial marriages between both. WHo would benifit most from a black/indian marriage? BLACK obviously. The indian has everything to lose. Then there are posters like "NOW" who have a huge inferiority complex about being black and wish to somehow elevate their race and ego by trying pathetically to identify with a superior race like indians. How sad.
| By voice of reason on Sunday, October 29, 2000 - 07:58 am: |
Hey guys give Yasmeen a break will you. What happened to old fashioned respect for women and gentlemanly chivalry ? If you say that Yasmeen is immature then you are no better when you act the same way !!! come on be reasonable here.
Yasmeen you mentioned that youre part indian if i may ask you whats the other half ? Perhaps you dont feel so strongly about the issue of an exclusively indian identity or as they say a 100% desi because you've become accustomed to having not one but two cultural halves. Now i think that children of mixed background have a wealth of culture and tradition and history to draw from but in the end you end up being torn between which culture to belong to, believe in, or live in. I think thats what Vinod meant when he said that since you are only half indian you may not fully understand the reasons why some of the indians on this board said the things they did. However i agree with you Yasmeen in saying that being patriotic is one thing and being racist is another and there is a fine line between the two.
To all of you - please carry on this discussion in an intelligent manner. If all you have to say is Yasmeen you are this or you are that and post juvenile immature remarks then please refrain from posting. it does not help anyone and certainly doesnt contribute to this discussion.
| By adr on Sunday, October 29, 2000 - 08:45 am: |
Just curiosity. Are we referring to 'Indians' as the privileged caste Indians only? Are we excluding the dalits?
The reason why I ask is because the Dalit movement identifies itself racially with the African race. See http://www.dalitstan.org/sudrology. They cite to HLA allele (blood marker) studies conducted by reliable sources, published in Human Biology and Tissue Antigens, both of which are highly respected international bioresearch publications. Their results are that the Tamil Brahmin populations (particularly Iyer) closely mirror those of 'Caucasoid stock,' while the Sudra populations closely match African blacks. "Significant ethnic differences in single polymorphisms were found between all groups except for African Blacks-Dravidian Indians, who differed only in their MspI7-16-bp duplication haplotype distribution." See `p53 polymorphisms and haplotypes show distinct differences between major ethnic groups,' A. Sjalander, R.Birgander, N.Saha. L.Beckman, G. Beckman, Human Heredity ( 1996 Jan-Feb ) vol.46 (1): 41-8. The site itself is clearly biased, but the sources they use are reliable.
Basically, in Mendelian genetic theory, the contrasting forms resulting from cases of discrete variation when two or more Mendelian characters are represented in a population are called polymorphs. Polymorphism happens only when the characteristic is discrete (i.e. blood type instead of weight, absolute instead of falling within a spectrum) and each morph is represented in high enough frequency to be readily noticeable. A haplotype a set of genetic determinants located on a single chromosome. The haplotypes referred to in the study are varying tissue antigens and the HLA-x (x = A1, A2... C13) markers. Result: there is a statistically significant genetic immunological difference between Brahmin and Dravidian populations, and Dravidian disease resistance more closely matches that of Afroid populations than Caucasoid.
On the flip side of the debate: With respect to the melanin issue (in terms of both skin and hair color), there's an interesting MC1R receptor study published in Genetics (the journal of the Genetics Society of America), that indicates that the human consensus protein found in all Africans studied was absent in the Southeast Asian population. The Arg163Gln (i.e. Arginine-Glutamine, where 163 indicates codon) variant at the five nonsynonymous MC1R sites identified was present in 70% of Southeast Asians, but not in the African population. See 'High Polymorphism at the Human Melanocortin 1 Receptor Locus' Brinda K. Rana, David Hewett-Emmett, Li Jin, et al. Genetics 1999 151: 1547-1557. Also available online at http://www.genetics.org.
The studies point to the ongoing genetic debate over where certain Indian populations fall in the racial spectrum. Thought it may be fun to give fuel to both sides. I ran across both a couple of years ago in my Genetics class, and they make for an interesting read at least. Taken together, they support the contention that changes in skin color resulted in part from adaptive processes, but that disease resistance in the majority of the indigenous population more closely mirrors that of the Afroid racial classification.
Regardless, Dalits are Indians, and they think that they're racially African, so doesn't that mean that some Indians at least think they're racially African, given blood match studies and competent evidence? And if they think they're African, shouldn't we respect that belief? Then again, there's always the idea that race is a fool's dream anyway. I have sources for that too, but won't take up any more space.
And no one can get mad at me for this post :), because I'm not saying that anyone is African, just that genetic studies indicate a closer match in HLA markers.
| By adr on Sunday, October 29, 2000 - 09:29 am: |
Arvind:
If you disagree with me so much, you always have the option of not reading my posts. I apologized for going over the top before you posted your reply; I consider your comments as to my psychological stability to be poor form. In the future, you're free to say you disagree, but it is not at all necessary to call me crazy, and it's tacky to do so when someone has already sincerely apologized.
And yes, I'm American, and there's nothing about that to be ashamed of. If it's such a bad thing, why do people come here? You can laugh at my language all you like, but there's no 'fake American attitude' or whatever. I grew up between Oklahoma and India, and this is how I speak. We are what we are...
| By Arvind on Sunday, October 29, 2000 - 12:57 pm: |
I'd posted that post before your post had actually appeared on the forum, maybe yours got through the censor before mine.
| By Saurabh on Sunday, October 29, 2000 - 01:03 pm: |
Chivalry and gentlemanly conduct is fine, voice of reason, but thats reserved for people/women who treat us with respect and don't call us animals.
"Yasmeen said on 11 october " ignorant people who will not accept fact are not worth wasting time on".
yes i did say that general comment but im sorry i dont remember mentioning any names with that comment, so if
you felt that it was directed at you gee im sorry you feel that way about yourself. Saurabh youre not ignorant at
all not in the least :)
Yasmeen said on oct 13 "i dont think
my Palm V could help me defend myself against some of you who probably are worse than an animal with bared
teeth - ouch !!!
That comment is fairly self explanatory and still stands -
With an attitude like hers', dont expect anyone to take it quietly, voice of reason.
| By RSK on Sunday, October 29, 2000 - 01:10 pm: |
Well just from Arvind's post - "By Arvind on Saturday, October 14, 2000 - 11:56 am". It looks like there are genetic studies that have pretty strongly disagreed with the interpretation you posted above. I've never heard of there being big debate among geneticists concerning Dravidians being linked to Africans, most large scale genetics studies seemed to pretty clearly show that there wasn't really one. Luca Cavalli-Sforza's (he's currently head of Stanford's Database of Human Genome Variation that's being compiled from his data as we speak) put out, "History and Geography of Human Genes" which is supposed to be one of the most authoritative works in genetics of human populations. It pretty clearly showed Indians intermingling between Europeans and China populations genes wise. There is a HUGE interpretation of the data as it applies to India at
http://144.16.65.194/hpg/cesmg/peopling.html#sec1.
Info. on Stanford's Human Genetics Laboratory is here
http://crick.stanford.edu/hgg/
| By Yasmeen on Sunday, October 29, 2000 - 06:34 pm: |
voice of reason -
i agree. To all of you especially to Saurabh, desiandproud, Vinod, Arvind, and those that i 'seem' to have offended and insulted i apologise in all sincerity. I was too quick to react and respond to your comments which i thought were insulting but i shouldnt have been so immature about my last few replies i apologise. I respect you for your different views but we should agree to disagree. voice of reason im half Pakistani. Perhaps since i am not 100% desi as you say i may not have an exclusive allegiance to all things Indian. Fine thats a fair comment since i belong to both. Yes when growing up it was quite difficult at times. But now choosing which to live by is not really an issue. I think more than being torn about which tradition i belong to i would rather be a better person and try to live a life without regrets, doing the best i can and living an honest Christian life. Being Pakistani and Indian means nothing and everything at the same time as adr said. It means everything because it is who i am and at the same time it is nothing because it does not make me prejudiced to those culturally different to me.
Now that its all sorted out lets go back to the issue at hand. adr mentioned HLA markers for eg. Heres one practical example of the DNA homology that i was talking about earlier. Immunologically Antigen Presenting Cells (APC's for eg macrophages ) are broken down into major histocompatibility complexes (mhc ) of which Human Leukocyte Antigen markers consist of class I and II. Class I comprises HLA-a, HLA-b, HLA-c, and class II comprises HLA-dp, HLA-dq, HLA-dr. Now all humans irrespective of race have 1 HLA subtype from each class. It is furthermore not dependent on racial origins or affiliation since people within the same 'race' have different HLA subtypes. What type you are is determined by variable microglobulin arrangement. So again this is part of the 1 % of differences between humans. You can refer each of these statements since i quote my lecturers on this.
| By Yasmeen on Monday, October 30, 2000 - 06:01 am: |
just in case there is any confusion in HLA similarities within sections of the population to finally add and elaborate on adr comments class HLA markers may be similar between subsets of the human population. Its quite plausible think about it in HLA class I there are only 3 subtypes which means there are millions of others besides yourself who has that exact subtype in class I either a, b or c. So in essence you may share common HLA class I markers with someone who is Chinese for instance. Similarly in Class II there are 3 subtypes so same story. And in case i get some response regarding my comment about "since even people within the same 'race' have different HLA subtypes" what i mean there is that HLA markers are not exactly the same for those within the same race as you would expect for eg not every Indian will have the combination HLA-a & HLA-dr and not every Vietnamese will have HLA-b & HLA-dq. Since HLA markers are associated with immune function and antigen presentation its irrevelant which race has which HLA markers/subtypes since its whole quintessential function within the immune and lymphatic system is to prevent you from getting sick in the end. Saurabh i apologise but the 'animals with bare teeth' comment was not meant at you in all seriousness i guess that was in your words a 'weak attempt at humor' to tone down the tensions on this board lol. I guess that one backfired on me d'oh.
| By Yasmeen on Monday, October 30, 2000 - 06:31 am: |
Saurabh - though i respect you for your different views perhaps we dont get along due to our border differences - im in syd ( swan and Carr territory :).
| By now on Tuesday, October 31, 2000 - 05:06 am: |
Here is the bibliography that was used for the post on:
By Anonymous on Sunday, October 8, 2000 - 09:26 pm:
“African Muslims in South Asia before Colonialism”
http://www.khyber.demon.co.uk/history/africa/india.htm
**I really do not know the reason why the Internet Web Site did not include the references which was obtained from the book:
Rogers, J. A. World’s Great Men of Color: Volume I. New York: Macmillan, 1972.
Anyways, I should have included the bibliography the first time since some readers at Hindustan.Net believe that this previous post by me is nothing but afrocentric propaganda.**
MALIK AMBAR (6 out 11 below are listed from the book due to time constraints)
Banaji, D. R. Bombay and the Siddis. London: 1932.
Gribble, J. D. B. History of the Deccan: Volume I. P. 256. London: 1896.
Elliot, H. M. History of India: Volume: VI. See Index. London: 1875.
Nawaz, Khan. Maese-ul-Amara. P. 534-536, Bibliotheca Indica. Calcutta: 1911.
Scott, J. Ferishta’s History of the Deccan: Volume I. P. 400-403. Shrewsbury: 1974.
Jackson, A. V. W. History of India: Volume III. P. 119. London: 1896.
MALIK ANDEEL (All sources from book are listed)
Ferishta. Rise of Mohammedan Power in India: VolumeIV. P. 341 et seq.
Stewart, C. History of Bengal. P. 100-108. London. 1813.
See also the bibliography of “Malik Ambar”
**RSK, on your post on Oct. 28, 2000 6:14 am, you questioned the foundation of my posts. I know I was late in just now introducing the bibliography for the previous post, but after taking a look at the sources from this Internet Web Site, I think the writer has consulted a source which shows details that information was obtained from reliable sources.**
PS- To readers at Hindustan.net, all of the above writers in the bibliography are either Indian or White. It would be very strange indeed if they were writing afrocentric fluff for money at around the turn of the 20th century when the concept of afrocentrism did not even exist during this time period!
Also, check out my latest postings at:
The African Diaspora of the Indian Sub-continent
Starting on: Friday, October 27, 2000 - 07:35 am
| By now on Tuesday, October 31, 2000 - 06:05 am: |
To RSK
Regarding the site showing a black presence in ancient China to explaning how blacks founded civilizations in ancient China.
http://homepages.luc.edu/~cwinter/blshang.htm
http://homepages.luc.edu/~cwinter/xia.htm
http://homepages.luc.edu/~cwinter/blshang2.htm
"and do you hold along the lines as the links I listed above concerning blacks building ancient civilizations in China and having dynasties there? Or that they had influences over Japan in the early stages of that country??"
When you asked if I held along the lines the links posted aboove concerning blacks building ancient chinese civilizations and having dynasties or the influence over Japan in the early stages of that country; I do not know enough about Ancient and Medieval China to say whether or not the information in the post are false. I'm only familiar with contemporary chinese history. Yes I did notice you typed in afrocentric in the search engine, but for me to contend that the proposals or assertions are false
would be the very height of stupidity for me(since, again I am not familiar with Chinese civilizations as I am with others such as the Americas, European, etc)
because I would be talking out ignorance by saying that an assertion is false when it has not yet been PROVEN false.
On the other hand, I do know that Africans had been planted at various points in Asia from the middle east probably as far as China since the first or second century AD, if not earlier-this according to Distinguished Professor of History, Joseph E. Harris, "Global Dimensions of the African Diaspora,", Howard University; this is the best I can do for you.
By the way, try to check out my latest postings on "African Diaspora of the Indian Sub-continent." Everything there correlates with all of the material at this particular post. I even included a link on Dr. Andre Wink if anyone wanted to ask him if he is a Afrocentrist scholar or if anyone doubts the veracity of the various passages I quoted from his book. Also, his book are included on numerours syllabi that offers courses on the history of medieval india; Syllabi that I have not posted yet.
**Again, textbooks are not a reliable indicator of popular history. Case in point, last spring I took a course in the History of the US in the 20th century. The author of the course textbook said that the US was a isolationist country in the 1920's, which was not true. The US was very much involved in the world in the 1920's. My instructor, Dr. Warren Cohen, a Distinguished Professor of History, had to repeadtedly tell the class that the US in fact was not an isolationist country.
I do not why people rely on educational institutions for the source of objective information, because, after all in my previous post on 10/23/00 which stated:
"recent scientists, scholars and academicians to promote theories of Black genetic inferiority are psychologists Arthur R.A. Jensen and J. Phillippe Rushton, sociologist Linda Gottfredson, writer Daniel Seligman, Michael Levy of the City College of New York, biologist E.O. Wilson; Charles Murray and the late Richard Herrnstein, co-authors of "The Bell Curve;" and the late physicist, William B. Shockley."
These people teach at some of the most reputed universities in the world.**
| By now on Tuesday, October 31, 2000 - 06:15 am: |
To Indian, 10/13/2000-to answer his question and for general information for readers:
"And Indian political system had been known to be conducive to growth for the able. Examples include the rise of slave dynasty. I guess Iltutmis was one of the members of it. Now, I don't remember his ethnicity, though... and this I can recall from what I was taught in school. I vaguely remember about Siddi's too... and I think they were big-time warriors."
About Ilutumis and you saying you don't exactly remember what his identity is. All of the books I have read on Medieval India have said, Shams ud din Iltutmish, was Turkish. Moreover, Iltutmish was the Sultan of Delhi from 1211-1236.
| By RSK on Tuesday, October 31, 2000 - 11:01 pm: |
the argument here isn't if African slaves were used in the armies of some Indians in some areas. It's against statements like,
"Ethiopian industry, skill and statesmanship helped greatly in making India rich and prosperous country which the Portuguese, English and French later found it".
If you look at Indian history as a whole instead of just where african slaves were at any one point you'll see how hilarious saying anything along those lines is. You'll also see that most major nationalities in history were in India at one point or another (usually not as slaves either) but majority of them had little to no impact.
| By now on Wednesday, November 01, 2000 - 12:45 am: |
To RSK on October 28, 2000 - 06:14 am
"Why, for example, have all of the American media uniformly ignored numerous tests given newborn infants? A number of White scientists have been literally astonished at the brilliance of African and African American newborns when compared to all other children."
from the book aparently titled, "When Black Men Ruled the World".
Here are the reference below to check out that statement. How do you it's extreme? Did you say that because I did not post the bibliography at first?
5 Amos Wilson, Developmental Psychology of The Black
Child, African Research Publication, New York, 1978.
| By now on Wednesday, November 01, 2000 - 10:29 am: |
Readers, please read the following passage carefully, taken from:
Shane, Scott. "Genetics research increasingly finds 'race' a null concept: Similarities in humans outweigh all differences." Baltimore Sun.
04 Apr 1999, sec A: 06.
CLAIMS OF SUPERIORITY
Yet throughout recorded history, for reasons of competition, exploitation or psychological identity, groups of humans have claimed superiority over their rivals.
Tribal fault lines-whether between the Old Testament's Canaanited and Israelits, Hutus and Tutsis, Serbs and Kosovar Albanians-have combined ethnicity, religion and historical grievance in various combustible mixes.
Since the 18th century, human differences have often been described in terms of race. The term has remained so vague that well into this century it was common to refer to "the English race" or "the Jewish race."
But the racial categories still listed in schoolbooks today were introduced by a Swedish botanist named Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778) and elaborated upon by a German anthropological pioneer, Johann Friedrich Blumenbach (1752-1840).
It was Blumenbach who was so taken by the beauty of the Georgian skull. Of the "Caucasian variety," Blumenbach explained: "I have taken the name of this variety from Mount Caucasus, both because its neighborhood, and especially its southern slope, produces the most beautiful race of men."
PRIMITIVE SCIENCE
Blumenbach's treatise "On the Natural Variety of Mankind" defined five races: Caucasian, Ethiopian (i.e.; African or "Negroid"), Mongolian (Asian), American (Native American) and Malayan (Pacific Islander).
The categories have changed little. Microsoft's Encarta encyclopedia on CD-ROM uses precisely Blumenbach's terms. Even "Caucasian" has lasted-despite the confusing fact that most people in the Caucasus are darker skinned than northern Europeans and are referred to in derogatory Russian slang as "blacks."
Though his science was primitive, Blumenbach was broadminded about race. He declared correctly that one race shaded gradually into another by "imperceptible passages," with bo distinct racial boundaries. He vehemently denied that "Ethiopians," or Africans, were inferior to any other race.
Bu the world ignored such subtleties.
A HANDY JUSTIFICATION
Blumenbach's major work on race was published in 1795-when imperial Europe states needed to justify their dominion over colonies inhabited by nonwhites, and American slaveholders needed evidence that they were superior to the black people they bought and sold. Racial categories served nicely.
In "Types of Mankind," a fat 1854 best seller, Alabama physician Josiah Nott and British adventurer George Gliddon offfered what they called "incontestable truths":
"The Caucasian differs from all other races: he is humane, he is civilized, and he progresses...In history, all religions are of Caucasian origin. ...All the great sciences are of Caucasian origin; all inventors are Caucasian; literature and romance come of the same stock; all the great poets are of Caucasian origin."
Another prominent Southern theoretician, S.A. Cartwrtight, even diagnosed in African slaves a unique malady he called "drapetomania"-the insane desire to run away.
In this century, such racial pseudoscience grew into a popular enthusiasm for eugenics, selective breeding to improve the human rae. Scientists expressed alarm that improving medical care and sanitation would eliminate the higher death rate of the poor, leading to a proliferation of "morons" and "defectives"
A 1927 Sun story, one of many on the subject was headlined, "Crossing of Races Alarms Eugenists...Cross Breeding Often Produces Inferior Stock...One of Few Successful Instances is Chinese-Hawaiian Mixture."
If such notions today seem not only archaic but offensive, the major reason is named Adolf Hitler. By carrying eugenics to its ghastly logical conclusion in the gas chambers, and by spewing noxious ersatz science about "the Aryan race," Nazi Germany managed to bring into disrepute the idea of superior and inferior races.
**ARTICLE CONTINUES ON**
**THESE ARE MAIN POINTS SO FAR I WANTED TO SHOW**
| By RSK on Wednesday, November 01, 2000 - 11:03 am: |
By now on Tuesday, October 31, 2000 - 04:35 am
"Again, textbooks are not a reliable indicator of popular history..."
"I do not why people rely on educational institutions for the source of objective information"
By now on Tuesday, October 31, 2000 - 11:15 pm
Here are the reference below to check out that statement. How do you it's extreme? Did you say that because I did not post the bibliography at first?
Ok i get it, textbooks are not a good indicator of popular history and educational institutions aren't a good place for objective information BUT the books you list here are?? and saying that blacks are genetically inferior is wrong but saying that blacks are genetically superior is ok ("...the brilliance of African and African American newborns when compared to all other children.")
Thanks for clearing all that up!
| By adr on Wednesday, November 01, 2000 - 03:35 pm: |
To RSK:
I found the study posted at http://144.16.65.194/hpg/cesmg/peopling.html to be altogether inconsistent with Cavalli-Sforza's team's analysis, which can be found at http://human.stanford.edu. I don't know where the obsession with Stanford originates, but to quote the Crick study conducted by Jin Li, one of the researchers on the polymorphism study I mentioned earlier (also cited to by the Iyer Heritage Foundation, though I think that's not all that informative), "The descending entropy values from Africa to America reflect the likely order of dates of settlement (Africa, then Asia, then Oceania, then Europe, and finally America), as expected if every new settlement is a genetic subset of its parental set. This scheme does not necessarily reflect where continent colonizers originated. However, subsequent gene flows of unknown magnitude between continental regions prevent accurate dating of settlement."
The Crick studies indicate nothing besides what we already knew intuitively after the discovery of Lucy; that Africa was the site of origin of the species (all of us, be we white, black, or somewhere in the middle), and that subsequent dispersion ensued. The data cited, including the high variety of haplotypes in Africa, suggest that the species homo sapiens sapiens originated in Africa. Of course, natural selection and mutation play significant roles as well.
The IIS study is flawed on two grounds: it extrapolates from what was originally a very small data set, despite the high potential for sampling bias, and it assumes that being able to explain away 57% of genetic variation between the Indian people and Caucasian accounts for the remaining 43%. Cavalli-Sforza's team was the one that determined that the genotype was >99% common, as between all races. The IIS study fails to acknowledge this reality altogether, instead lumping the world into African and non-African. They may have used the Crick data, but they did not do so with any degree of consistency or social responsibility.
If we're going to invoke Cavalli-Sforza's name, rely on his team's interpretation of the data received. I don't think that Crick is infallible, but to count on a biased interpretation of its data that controverts the bulk of reliable sources just makes no sense.
As to the cites on China and Africa, why should "now" even have to answer that question? He didn't cite to those sources. That's like saying that if one Indian person believes they're purple, all Indians must prove that they are not. It's just not logical. If one Afrocentric website has odd views, that does not mean that all do. That's like saying that all Indian men think women should commit sati, simply because there's a site that says so.
And "now", the reason you're getting this reaction is that we, as a people, have been told for centuries that we owe our existence to someone else. It gets old. First it was the Brahmins (my people share the blame), next the Mughals, then the British. Now it's the African community. It gets frustrating. And it's all because we're brown - neither white nor black - that everyone seems to think they're entitled to a piece of our nation. Regardless of race, we are our own people, no better or worse than any other. But we will stand, eventually, regardless, get rid of this petty squabbling and refuse to be carved into pieces again. It's this carving that has destroyed us, and when anyone asserts that we owe them something, even my response (and I consider myself more than liberal) is no, we owe nothing. We may be a hybrid people, but we will not permit further division in our society, simply because it fits someone else's world view.
Whatever happened to Indo-centric history?
I'm out of the discussion.
| By now on Thursday, November 02, 2000 - 01:26 am: |
To RSK, November 1, 2000 - 09:33 am
"Ok i get it, textbooks are not a good indicator of popular history and educational institutions aren't a good place for objective information BUT the books you list here are?? and saying that blacks are genetically inferior is wrong but saying that blacks are genetically superior is ok ("...the brilliance of African and African American newborns when compared to all other children.") Thanks for clearing all that up!"
My reply:
Why, for example, have all of the American media uniformly ignored numerous tests given newborn infants? A number of White scientists have been literally astonished at the brilliance of African and African American newborns when compared to all other children. Predictably, to minimize the significance of this precocity, several scientists have insisted that the Black infants have only demonstrated physical prowess. In truth, however, the Black babies have also exceeded all other groups on special intelligence tests formulated for infants."5 This clearly reflects the potential of Black children before the onset of cultural bias, poor education and racism.
**Posted by me on 10/23/2000**
I nor the sources ever said that blacks are genetically superior. The author, Dr. Amos N. Wilson, said, "A number of White scientists have been literally astonished at the brilliance of African and African American newborns when compared to all other children." White scientists being astonished at the brilliance has nothing to do with suggesting that that blacks are genetically superior. Nor was that statement stated explicitly. If you thought that the author was saying indirectly that blacks genetically superior, then I believe you might not have understood the intent of the article. It was simply parroting back what white writers have written about black intelligence. Remember the title of the article:
WHAT ANCIENT WHITE WRITERS
SAID ABOUT BLACK INTELLIGENCE
It did not say, what white writers said about black genetic superiority.
http://www.headstartbooks.com/
http://www.headstartbooks.com/blackchild.htm
main.htm
| By RSK on Thursday, November 02, 2000 - 05:37 am: |
adr - you can rely on Cavalli-Sforza's team's own analysis if you want. The notion of dravidians being African moreso then other Indians isn't supported by it either. I'm not dravidian myself, I responded to your post because it's genetic linkages didn't tell the whole story only what it wanted to bring accross. I noted the Stanford Human Genome Var. database incase people thought Cavalli-Sforza was a nobody.
Why is asking now questions concerning those links not logical?? I wanted to know whether he believed it or not and he answered he didn't know. Now himself even said, "I do know that Africans had been planted at various points in Asia from the middle east probably as far as China since the first or second century AD, if not earlier" although he didn't know what to make of the whole articles themselves.
now - well if white (or any other color) scientists actually, truthfully were astonished at the brilliance of infants from one particular race wouldn't that suggest genetic superiority??
Either way this wasn't the original topic I was arguing. My main point was against exagerations like the one i noted on "Tuesday, October 31, 2000 - 09:31 pm".
| By now on Thursday, November 02, 2000 - 05:43 am: |
To Arvind, DesiandProud, Saurabh, Vinod, Gaurav
"Ten Myths About Africa, Africans, and African History"
http://jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu/~plarson/myths.html
Written by Dr. Pier M. Larson, Assistant Professor, Department of History, The Johns Hopkins University
http://jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu/~plarson/
SAMPLE:
Myth #1: Africa has no ancient cultures, histories or civilizations and has therefore made no meaningful contributions to world history. Subsidiary to this, the values which we hold dear today like political freedom and democracy have no history in Africa.
This is probably the most fundamental of all the myths and is so strong because slaves and devalued people are stripped of their history and the dignity and pride which accompanies it. Africans not only built so many ancient cultures, kingdoms, civilizations, and empires that one person can scarcely remember let alone adequately study them but Africa was the center of one of the oldest of all civilizations. Finally, democracy, autonomy, freedom and local decision-making are a hallmark of African history, particularly until the 19th century. The Western world and ancient Greece have neither a monopoly nor a patent on democratic forms of government.
| By DesiandProud on Thursday, November 02, 2000 - 11:36 pm: |
now, all your internet sites and tom thumb publications are nice, but unless you can show some solid educational syllabus that support your stories you have no credibility.
| By now on Friday, November 03, 2000 - 12:50 am: |
To DesiandProud on November 2, 2000-10:06 pm and other readers
"now, all your internet sites and tom thumb publications are nice, but unless you can show some solid educational syllabus
that support your stories you have no credibility."
- Desi&Proud
Look at the messages under the board:
The African Diaspora of the Indian Sub-continent
| By RSK on Friday, November 03, 2000 - 03:22 am: |
desiandproud what this guy's saying, or posting now isn't any different then what's known already. That some african slaves were used in India, mostly in the peripheral areas like Bengal. The Andre Wink article from African Diaspora isn't anything new, it says basically just that. I don't know what this guy (now) himself believes but this recent material from African Diaspora topic and his educational syllabies say what pretty much everyone on here agreed with. He mixed this in with posts saying this was largely significant in India's history or that it had some notable impact and that's what got people (including me) into this argument.
| By now on Friday, November 03, 2000 - 07:07 am: |
now - well if white (or any other color) scientists actually, truthfully were astonished at the brilliance of infants from one particular
race wouldn't that suggest genetic superiority??
Either way this wasn't the original topic I was arguing. My main point was against exagerations like the one i noted on "Tuesday,
October 31, 2000 - 09:31 pm". -RSK 11/2/00 4:07am
------------------------------------------------------
No, I don't think it suggests genetic superiority because, Wilson, did not make conclusions saying in fact that black babies are genetically superior to babies of other races. Also, it would be difficult to make a judgement on that since it did not mention how many scientists were surprised at black babies brilliance. But, if it said MANY scientists were surprised, then maybe there would be a suggestion of genetic superiority.
Getting back to
"It's against statements like,
"Ethiopian industry, skill and statesmanship helped greatly in making India rich and prosperous country which the Portuguese, English and French later found it". If you look at Indian history as a whole instead of just where african slaves were at any one point you'll see how hilarious saying
anything along those lines is. You'll also see that most major nationalities in history were in India at one point or another (usually not
as slaves either) but majority of them had little to no impact." -RSK 10/31/00
For me to say that the statement or others like that one along the lines of it are an exagerration within the context of medieval india without first reviewing the sources used by the various writers on the post(s) by me are not possible by me to comment on right now to make a judgement on that since I am not very familiar with the primary sources during that particular time period of medieval india. However, you are Indian and I assume your knowledge of Indian history are much more vast than mine; I would say that looking at Indian history as a whole most of the other major nationalities in history were in India at one point or another (usually not
as slaves either) and that the majority of them had little to no impact-just as you said. In reviewing that statment again:
"Ethiopian industry, skill and statesmanship helped greatly in making India rich and prosperous country which the Portuguese,
English and French later found it. The principal regions in which they settled were Bombay, Gujarat and the Deccan to the West and
Bengal to the East."
It is certanly true that Ethiopians were involved with industry, contributed their skills to India(whatever type of skills they had), and they were statesmen at one time or another in varying capacities.
When the author mentioned helped greatly in making India a rich and prosperous country, I read it to mean with respect to medieval India and in the principal regions in which they settled (Bombay, Gujarat and the Deccan to the West and Bengal to the East). Of course there were many other nationalities that existed in Indian during that time also and in different regions of India, but I think the author made that statement in the context of highlighting the Ethiopian/Habshi contribution to India-but not at the expense of other ethnic groups(nonnatives), religions, and groups(i.e. Punjabis).
| By DesiandProud on Friday, November 03, 2000 - 10:41 am: |
ya we know Africans were slaves in India and some went up in rank to become royal valets, but the now's theory of South Indians being of African origins is largely nonsense. Check out the discussion under Origins of Indians.
| By A on Saturday, November 04, 2000 - 09:56 am: |
Why cant Blacks go out and acheive something?( something other than rap .. lol). Why this need to piggyback on somebody else's acheivements ?
| By anon on Sunday, November 05, 2000 - 03:26 am: |
Cuz blacks r pathetic and they know they dont have much to offer. they are also obsessed with integrating their community with the indian community. Morons like dexter will brag about his education and try to defend blacks all the while showing how much he wants to be indian and how he would wish to marry an indian girl. Of any other race, y r blacks the most frequent non-indian posters here? Y not chinese people, or mexican people? Y only blacks. cuz they love indians, and wish they were like us. Again they r obsessed with integrating the indian community with the black community. Under the guise of "new age" liberalism they preach interracial marriages etc. They try to divide indians, by saying SOuth Indians r africans, and other nonsense like africans were a big part of indian history, to somehow justify their obsession with indians and to try and encourage indian/black marriages. Just go to the colleges here, u will see this nonsense perpetuated. Black girls chasing desi guys, black guys chasing desi girls,etc. Its shameless, and the poor nieve ones fall for the tricks of these people, but let the truth be heard about them. we arent interested in your ghetto lifestyle of gangsta rapping buck tooth thugs who eat greasy fried chicken and drink gravy by the bucket. Or fly ridden black barbeques and cornbread with other assorted soul food. NOt to mention black church singing and their obsession with the gospel or islam. Our people r not cheap and classless we r in a class of our own and we would never trade our ancient culture for your worthless 200 yr culture of filth. I prefer my beautiful brown skinned, straight haired, doe-eyed indian beauty over some 300 pound black "mamma" who speaks ebonics and eats buckets of chicken and is as filthy as a yard animal. Nor would i care for their giant afros, or blunt features. My sharp featured indian princess is all that me and other desi guys want. Let the flaming of desperate black posters begin on their tirade of equality,intermarriage,etc. Dont fall for it desis, we r too smart for that, our culture will never be tainted with their ghetto "culture".
| By PunjabiMunda on Sunday, November 05, 2000 - 02:36 pm: |
anon, u fool, if you're south indian, that means you're genetically an African. Africans migrated to South India thousands of years ago and even today south Indians often have African features. The few film stars you name are actually Aryans settled in South India. Look at other south indians like Veerapan(the thug inefficent madrasis can never catch), actor mohanlal and of course the average software engineer here...they all look of African ancestry.
So stop calling your own people names and critising their eating habits....if they eat a lot of gravy, remember you eat a lot of sambar...see!! you'll are alike even in dietary habits.
| By anon on Monday, November 06, 2000 - 10:38 am: |
Punjabi mundam(idiot) since when were punjabis known for their intelligence? See what u just said about southies is a damn stereotype u fool, go read something about south india and then open your trap. THere is not one scholar yet who will say that south indians are africans. There has been a genetic study and a linguistic study done in Stanford which attests to the fact that dravidian speaking south indians are caucasoids from Central asia. Yea we do eat lots of sambar, as u eat lots of chenna,roti, and gharam masala. As for your pathetic example of veerapan. lemme tell u something punjabi •••••, he's a tamil bandit who is damn good, leave it at that. SInce when was law enforcement good in ANY indian state? U north indian •••••, your so dumb u refer to all of us south indians as madrasis, when u know fully well not all of us are from madras. South india is no longer under the madras presidency, r u trying to get a cheap joke out of it u pathetic •••••••? u fool you punjabis are goddamn laborers over here, working in restaurants and owning quickie marts, how do u have the dil to talk? I have met many good north indians, FEW good punjabis, so i wont start generalizing. Learn something first dummy, before u challenge me. ANd yes, im pissed off at the nonsense posted by blacks here, so thats y i posted the way i did. ITs what most desis think and what i said is really no different than what Arvind, or any of the other desi posters have said. maybe i was a little more blunt, thats all.
| By Rajesh on Tuesday, November 07, 2000 - 12:55 am: |
Good day you all.
I would like to stir the pot with you all,sounds like fun.
The name Yasmeen is pure Ismali,born and raised in Kenya ,Tanzania or Ugand,am i right?so guys we can eliminate her,because the muslims Quest for the truth dose not exist,either you are muslim or a Kafir,so Yasmeen this is a discussion between Kafirs.
The oldest fossils of Homoerectus have been referred to as LUCY,found in Yasmeens back yard,east Africa,there is also a fossil finding in China which is still in debate,about its origin.
So as it stands today we are all African,now we can go even farther back and argue that India was attatched to Africa,and that it was India that broke away and not Africa.
Where do we draw the line,because as far as i am concerned i come from PANGEA and my ancestors were ALGAE and they were Green.I read someone reffering to someone as a Greenie,well now you know.
| By now on Tuesday, November 07, 2000 - 11:18 pm: |
anon=11/5/2000
"...Morons like dexter will brag about his education and try to defend blacks all the while showing how much he wants to be indian and how he would wish to marry an indian girl. Of any other race, y r blacks the most frequent non-indian posters here? Y not chinese people, or mexican people? Y only blacks. cuz they love indians, and wish they were like us."
By this statement, you again have shown you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Of course, it would make sense statiscally that there would be more Black posters at hindustan.net, b/c Blacks (12%) are the second largest ethnic group in the United States after Whites (70%).
Chinese, Mexican, Indian, Pakistani, or whatever type of ppl. form only a small portion of the US population after Blacks.
| By now on Thursday, November 09, 2000 - 04:29 am: |
To anon
my gosh!!! you are much more hostile towards North Indians than you are towards Blacks. I'm not surprised!
As you say, Indians are the superior race, do you mean to say that only the S.Indians are?
| By anon on Friday, November 10, 2000 - 10:13 am: |
Now, that punjabi fool insulted us first, which is y i retaliated, and u have absolutely no idea what many northies think of us ok? so shut the hell up. as for your other pathetic post, buddy there r more desperate black posters here than even whites ok? ALl of the black posts have a bunch of whining pathetic people trying to find out y indians dont like them, and y indians dont want to marry with blacks. Basically all the black posters here want to integrate their worthless community with the indian community, every1 of your posters from you to dexter r trying someway to "convince"indians to marry blacks. YOu by trying to prove south indians r blacks, and dexter who pretends he's the reverend jessie high jackson and preaches equality and justice. Gimme a break. And to answer your questions, no all indians r the same, no one is greater than the other, but....indians r the best.
| By now on Friday, November 10, 2000 - 07:35 pm: |
To anon,
I hope this does not upset you.
South Asian Indians in the Colonial Chesapeake
http://www.towson.edu/~tabrown/eastindians.html
Some passages quoted:
"The story of South Asian immigration into the North American colonies is a little-known chapter in American ethnic history. People arriving in 17th and 18th century America from the nations ringing the Indian Ocean would eventually assimilate into the black and "mulatto" populations. Their descendants forgot not only their ancestors' culture, but also usually forgot their South Asian provenance altogether. In fact, there are strong suggestions that some descendants of these early South Asian immigrants transmuted their ancestors' identity from "East India Indian" into native American Indian. Most descendants of South Asians, however, eventually formed part of the African American population."
"...By the time these young South Asians arrived in the colonies, they had already experienced a significant amount of socialization
into English culture, having adopted English given names and surnames and become Christianized. Some of them appear to
have been quite cosmopolitan. For example, Jean, an "East Indian negro man ...a slave born", who ran away in 1786 in
Yorktown, Virginia, spoke French as well as English, and was thought to be headed for the West Indies. These South Asians
-- and most were men -- were commonly described by other colonists as "East India Indians", a category that seems to have
included a variety of people from South Asia and the Indian Ocean archipelago. Madagascarians may also have been eligible
for inclusion.3"
"... Ultimately, the descendants of the East Indian immigrants did assimilate into the black and
mulatto population, and over the course of the nineteenth century they seem to have forgotten their families' provenance in
South Asia."
| By now on Friday, November 10, 2000 - 08:53 pm: |
oh, i forgot to ask anon
what ethnic group comes next and follows afterwards in your racial hierarchy:
1. Indians (East)
2. ???
3. ???
4. ???
and so on
| By Proud Punju on Saturday, November 11, 2000 - 06:29 am: |
Oh My God!! This means anon's greatgrandma was hammered by a brotha! maybe......Charlie Samba(short for sambhar)
| By anon on Saturday, November 11, 2000 - 09:10 am: |
Hey punju, lemme ask u this. Who HASNT hammered your slutty great grandma? Everyone from brothas,arabs,afghans,iranians,etc. But you •••••••• are shameless anyways. Yea we eat sambar you chapati munching fool. We dont heap gharam masala with every goddamn thing and mix everything with chenna like u ••••••••. But then again i wouldnt expect u to understand since when were punjabis ever known for their intelligence? O wait...in terms of chivalry u guys are great. Thats y u guys served as the muslims personal bootlicker for a thousand years. Poda madaiya, u have the dil to talk with a south indian whos light years ahead of your worthless punjabi ass. Of all northies, punjabis r the dumbest thats y when they come to US they become cabbies and janitors while we become engineers and doctors.
NOw: LIsten chump, u can quote from all kinds of worthless sources but until u get Actual proof, dont waste our time ok? There have been linguistic studies done on the dravidian language tracing it to iran and there has been a detailed genetic study of indians and south indians all coming to the conclusion that indians r essentially racially similar and that both north and south fit into the mediterranean caucasoid group. These studies are from Stanford University, not something written by unemployed afrocentric fiction writers. I told u i would pray for you to become indian in your next life, and NO you wont get any indian woman by posting garbage on this forum about how africans influenced india's culture,etc.
| By now on Sunday, November 12, 2000 - 10:30 pm: |
Anon
Why do you allow other people other than Indians to define who and what you are?
Why do think that only goras are the source for truth? This is just one example of psychological slavery-you and some Indians always looking up to whites for psychological security.
You have the psychological of a slave. A slave allows others to dictate to them who they are, where they came from, and where they are going.
This is the problem with you and some Indians; over 400 years experienced in colonialism's brutality and unnaturalness constituted a severe psychological and social shock in the minds of Indians.
For now what I can do are recommend you peruse these books, I think you will like them very much:
The Karma of Brown Folk
by Vijay Prashad
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0816634386/o/qid=974054579/sr=8-1/ref=aps_sr_b_1_1/102-7118359-3540141
and
Chains and Images of Psychological Slavery
by Na'Im Akbar
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/093382100X/qid=974054795/sr=1-2/102-7118359-3540141
**note: when you see the racial term Black, substitute with the word Indian-this book also applies to people like you!**
| By now on Sunday, November 12, 2000 - 10:38 pm: |
Anon one more thing...
Additionally, however, I would add that modern ideas of race are of fairly recent vintage (late 17th century to 19th).
Maybe you may want to read adr's post again. 'race' is only a social construct
| By now on Sunday, November 12, 2000 - 10:51 pm: |
Hey Rajesh
"The oldest fossils of Homoerectus have been referred to as LUCY,found in Yasmeens back yard,east Africa,there is also a fossil finding in China which is still in debate,about its origin.
So as it stands today we are all African,now we can go even farther back and argue that India was attatched to Africa,and that it was India that broke away and not Africa." by rajesh
Did you look at the comment by Mrs. Shah under
"Are we Indians racist?" under race relations board:
*** *** ***
By Mrs. Shah on Sunday, November 12, 2000 - 01:41 am:
Hi! I read several of the above postings and I am
surprised there is such an Indian (India) and African-American divide. Remember in college Geology about plate tectonics the country of India was at one time
attached to southeast Africa hence that is why you will find some wildlife in only India/Africa.
*** *** ***
I agree with you on that point Rajesh.
To Yasmeen
Why aren't you a muslim?
| By now on Monday, November 13, 2000 - 12:02 am: |
To Proud Punju
Did you check out the role Africans played in Indian history under the race relations board:
The African Diaspora of the Indian Sub-continent
**Have you ever heard about the Habshis before?
Do you know anything about the Habshis history in India?**
| By now on Monday, November 13, 2000 - 02:07 am: |
You see, anon, look at what your own Indian brothers and sisters are saying about the origins of S.Indians under the post:
CASTE SYSTEM AND ARYAVARTA
By mukul on Monday, November 13, 2000 - 12:27 am:
"you are correct. dravidians are negroes. one thing that went in their favor was that south india was
insulated from invasions. invasions from huns, greeks,
persians, turks, afghans, mollas, moguls. think about this...anon you negro like satya
says i have seen dravidians secluding north indians
from their group so you negro annon it is not only north indians that you mistakenly think are biased but it is you negroes who are more so."
| By now on Monday, November 13, 2000 - 02:40 am: |
anon...
I live in Washington, DC and I see a number of relationship b/n black men and indian women. I don't know where you live, but you have the most f****d up view of black americans than any other indians i have seen at this board.
as a matter of fact...a friend of mine who is s.indian(speaks telugu) told me that the indian girls want to marry the black men, but the guys just use them for sex and leave.
moreover, most of these relationships b/n black men and indian women are of the s.indian kind. these s.indian girls are more black than black ppl. themselves sometimes in terms of culture. they speak ebonics and listen to rap music, music i do not even listen to.
you are right in your views of the other indians- most of the taxi drivers in Wash,DC tend to be sikhs, punjabis, and pakistanis...the doctors, dentists, professionals tend to be hindus=>gujus, and s.indians.
i see very little indian men/black women relationships at all-i don't know why???
I am now granting you the status and title of a "South Indian Black Man", as shown by your knowledge of Black culture, traditions, activities, etc.
Why are you so angry...the blacks have welcomed you with open arms and warmth-while the n.indians have shunned you and called you a n*****! just accept the fact that you are black and pray to krishna(A black god) that maybe one day the n.indian community will accept you.
| By now on Monday, November 13, 2000 - 04:27 am: |
To Vinod
Thought I'd just let you know...
"Nearly 40 percent of those the US government defines as "poor" own their own homes-homes that have more living space than that enjoyed by most middle class Europeans. 'Poor' ought to retain its earlier definitions: the lack of food, shelter, or clothing"
Source:
Michael Bauman
Professor of Theology and Culture, Hillsdale College
Imprimis. Jan 1994. Vol 23, No. 1
***
Unlike others at this post, when I write something I show proof with a reference that cannot be doubted.
| By Rajesh on Monday, November 13, 2000 - 12:12 pm: |
NOW,NOW.
I am happy that you agree with me ,but please refrain from such abusive finger pointing,NO a big NO,i'm not a SULLAH.
Good day.
NOW,sounds,kinda like Paddy(Irish + Pathanish),if you're from UK,you'll know.
| By now on Monday, November 13, 2000 - 08:13 pm: |
To RSK
"Most of the population of modern China--one fifth of all people living today--owes it genetic origins to Africa."
--Los Angeles Times, Sep 29, 1998
| By now on Monday, November 13, 2000 - 08:18 pm: |
let's face it, anon, you are Black
Black man from India
http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/classification.html
| By now on Tuesday, November 14, 2000 - 12:42 am: |
anon
so you say the punjabis are not the brightest ppl. in india, but I hear that the men measure up in bed quite well as compared with other indians.
it looks like many s.indian women have a lusting for n.indian men, in particular, punjabi men. why are they so much in demand anon?
| By now on Tuesday, November 14, 2000 - 12:55 am: |
Dravidians
The peninsula south of the Indus and Ganges was relatively isolated, and had been occupied by ancient peoples whose linkages
are not clear. In physical appearance, they resemble many African and indigenous Australians. Their language is also distinctive,
and southern India has four major Dravidian languages: Telugu, Tamil, Kanarese, and Malayalam. Today, nearly one fifths of
India's 967 million people speak Telugu and Tamil.
Source:
http://webhost.bridgew.edu/baten/fall99/gs160f/lectures/sasia.htm
| By now on Tuesday, November 14, 2000 - 08:14 pm: |
To RSK, anon, and others who doubt the significance of Habshis in Indian History:
One historical account out of many:
"According to oral testimonies in Hyderbad in 1968, Malik Ambar is still regarded as a great figure in Deccani history, best remembered and most revered by the Muslims. His accomplishments unquestionably established him as an outstanding figure in Indian history."
Source: Joseph E. Harris. The African Presence in Asia: Consequences of the East African Slave Trade. Northwestern Univ. Press: Evanston, 1971.
*Joseph E. Harris, Ph.D., is an outstanding historian of his generation and a pioneer in the important field of the African diaspora. Following in the footsteps of such well-known African American scholars as Professors Alain Locke and E. Franklin Frazier, who studied race and culture contact in the New World and Africans in Brazil, Joseph Harris concentrated on the African diaspora in the Americas and Asia, and is the foremost diasporan scholar in the United States, if not the world. Thanks to his efforts, the African diaspora has become the subject of increasing scholarship at major universities in this country, in the Caribbean, in North and South America, in Europe and in Africa itself.
An alumnus of Howard University, having
received from that institution both the Bachelor and Master of Arts degrees. He pursued
graduate studies in African history at Northwestern University from which he received
the Ph.D. degree. Having served as chairman of the Department of History at Howard
University from 1975 until 1981, Harris was elevated in 1992 by the Board of Trustees
at Howard to Distinguished Professor of History. The author of eight books and many
scholarly articles and a recipient of many honors and awards, Harris is presently a
member of the executive committee of the International Scientific Committee for the
Slave Route Project to Promote Intercultural Cooperation—a project sponsored by
UNESCO. As a member of that committee, Harris coordinates the Northern American
region of the Slave Route Project, a research project on global African Diaspora.
Given his scholarship and service, Harris is well known in the academic world and to television audiences the world over, involved in momentous events in the African Studies Association and the African Heritage Studies Association. He was honored by UNESCO for his work on many projects, and his other awards include the James Kwegir Aggrey Medal of the Phelps Strokes Fund, lectureships in Durban and Cape Town, South Africa, and the Service Award of the Movimento de Cultura Negra en Colombia. He has received grants from the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Department of Education, the Ford Foundation, and the International Communication Agency.
*Again, Dr. Joseph E. Harris work on the habshis substantiates the passages on the habshis beginning with my first post on October 8, 2000 - 8:51 pm and afterwards.
*And yes, his book are included on numerous collegiate and university educational syllabi that offer courses on the African Diaspora.
| By now on Tuesday, November 14, 2000 - 08:40 pm: |
To RSK, Anon, Arvind, International Punjabi, Saurabh, Desi
It's one thing to become emotional and irrational just because you cannot change historical facts, then try to use the techniques of a propagandists by labeling the sources and authors I have presented as afrocentric. And even go say far as to say that the historians wrote these books for personal gain-without showing proof! Your argument would not have any grounds in a court of law(at least in the United States)
It's another to show proof and documents which would prove your allegations of afrocentric writers. I think the people here at hindustan would not fall for such propaganda.
It's really simple, if you cannot rationally and logically prove to the readers that these postings by me are fables, you have no case. But of course, you are entitled to your opinions. But the facts tell a different story-the true story.
I am quoting, XXX, from the board at History of India who said:
"Words are cheap, the evidence is priceless!"
| By anon on Thursday, November 16, 2000 - 01:23 am: |
OK now, heres my simple rebuttal to all the posts u hav made in many other threads. First and foremost, judging by the way in which u post, i detect a deep insecurity on your part and the need to somehow attach yourself to indian civilization. HOW would you know anything about south indian women running after north indian guys? Can you even accurately say who is south and who is a north indian? NO skin color is quite decieving. I have seen many north indian girls with south indian guys, the thing is here, nobody cares, the new generation has absolutely no idea about who is south and who is a north indian, all they know is that your indian. Thats all they care. THey dont have the prejudice of their parents, many of the north/south people in my college mingle, so its no big deal. Your getting the wrong idea from a few prejudiced northies posting here. Plus the reason i said punjabis r dumb is because it is as much a stereotype as south indians being africans. UC, i TRUST HARD FACTS. WE have genetic studies and linguistic studies done FROM A WORLD famous college. Namely Stanford. Not one but 2 studies all done recently. All have come to the same conclusion. IF south indians were indeed africans, then y didnt the studies contradict each other? Y is the dravidian language traced to eastern european languages and the ancient elamite language of IRan? Y dont south indians have afros? Y do so many south indians have sharp features and fair skin? Just because they have dark skin their african? So by your theory, all orientals must be africans because although they have fair skin and straight hair, they have blunt features so they must be african rite? Cmon man, lets face it u want south indians to be africans, and you keep telling me im a black man and for me to run to the african community and identify with them? What?! I have brown skin, sharp features, and straight hair. BEsides my brown skin, there isnt anything about me thats african. My mom is as fair as a kashmiri, my dad is brown skinned with blue/brown eyes,both of their features r full sharp, we are tamils, what r u trying to say? DO u know that the closer u r to the equator the darker your skin becomes due to the radiation? Have you ever seen the upper caste south indians, who look no different from a north indian? Have you seen the average north indian from middle india, they look hardly different from us. The same features, maybe a bit fairer than some of us, but the same. Go to bombay, u will c what i mean. i have seen sikhs and punjabis with fair skin and blunt features or some as dark as me, so spare me this nonsense. Plus if southies were indeed africans, do u think that they would not have intermingled with the northies considering that both have been in the indian subcontinent for thousands of years? What is my conclusion? The dravidian language is a european language and that racially south and north r more or less similar. I think we are a mixed race with australoid,caucasoid, and mongoloid blood in us. However, the upper castes of both south and north india, tend to exhibit mainly caucasoid looks, remember skin is a poor indicator of race, the features of a person are a better indicator.
| By anon on Thursday, November 16, 2000 - 05:30 am: |
btw, the theory what everyone believes rite now is that humans originated in africa. SO now r u going to say that Germans are also blacks too? GImme a break man, we may all have come from africa, but we all r a seperate race, quit trying to connect yourself to us.
| By anon on Thursday, November 16, 2000 - 05:48 am: |
Oh yes, one other thing, both dravidian and aryan speakers were believed to be caucasoid in race, however dravidians were from the first migration of aryans from Central Asia. Indo-aryan speakers were the second. The original population of india were believed to be people of australoid racial stock. There must have been some intermarriage between all, but those groups have remained largely isolated in Indian society. In fact u can see those tribes largely undisturbed in various parts of India. Btw, now how would u know anything about how punjabi men are in bed? Were you with one of them? Or do u wish u had one of them? I think your obsession with south indians or indians for that matter is because of your deep attraction for us. ITs ok, most blacks have it. Its laughable that now your trying to lay claim to the chinese race as an african race.hahah, that really is funny. Btw, most of the pages u have linked to have VERY QUESTIONABLE sources, so please, i will not believe it unless there is hard genetic proof, in any case, i dont look like a black, and neither does my family, so...basically quit boring us with this bullshit. The retards here will believe it, but the educated people know different. ITs pathetic how u keep taking the word of flamers over other posters as if to vindicate your pathetic claims. As for us being under psychological slavery, sorry...but yes many of us do have the white skin fetish but...remind us again exactly y would whites knowingly want to say that indians are caucasians in this day and age unless it was true. Chinese are doing as well as us, y dont the whites say that chinese are caucasians as well, hell they have fair skin rite? Now your weak arguments are worthless, we try to tell u the facts and u keep saying we are under psychological slavery or some other bullshit and you keep ignoring that we have reputable and valid sources to back up our arguments unlike u. Get over your inferiority complex and dont try to take your frustrations at being rejected repeatedly by indian men and women on us.
| By Yasmeen on Friday, November 17, 2000 - 03:23 am: |
Now - do black men go after indian women with the intention of having sex with them ? You wrote "but the guys just use them for sex and leave." Is that true ? Is that why they pursue indian women the way they do since they seem to be attracted to them sexually in the first place ?
| By 100%desi and proud of it on Friday, November 17, 2000 - 11:46 am: |
Yasmeen of course they do girl havent you worked it out yet ????!!!!!! ALL black guys are only after ONE THING fom Indian women and it definitely does not involve staying round in the morning know what im saying ? so if you're involved with a black guy dump him if youre not then stay clear of those oversexed gangsta listening Soul/R &B gravy loving bball nig guys. Yasmeen if youre really into culture and protecting your "dignity" ( you know what i mean )you wouldnt ever go out with a black guy. Here in the UK any Indian woman seen with a black guy loses all her respect from the community and no indian guy would ever want to marry her after since we know that any woman who goes out with a black guy or goes down that low cant be a virgin. Why on earth do these indian women go out with black guys i just cant understand it ?? What do women see in black men that any Indian man doesnt have except the fact that these nig guys are darker ?? One of my female cousins was getting so much stick from this black guy who lived a few streets from us. It was disgusting the way he was trying to come on to her with comments and being everywhere where she was or went. I bet he probably had a hard on under those oversized rapper shorts and was trying to cover it up. I would protect my female cousins, sisters and any female relatives from these oversexed sexually active perverts as long as i live.They are a threat to any womans dignity not just Indian women.
| By Vicky on Friday, November 17, 2000 - 01:43 pm: |
Lol now is full of ••••!!!! No Indian chick would throw herself on and want to marry a black man. Atleast not in the numbers now is talking about!
Hahaha , now I know what're u upto, you're trying to make us feel bad like, " Oh No! Thats our women those guys are taking"!!! Not falling for that one, now,its an old one, it may work on white guys but not on Indian guys cause we KNOW the truth. Indian women have better taste than that!
| By Desi on Friday, November 17, 2000 - 01:47 pm: |
Hey Yasmeen, atleast dont buy this crap now is dishing out. I mean place y'self in the shoes of a normal, cultured Indian girl. Great, now tell us, would you like to marry Mike Tyson or one of his brothas??
| By anon on Friday, November 17, 2000 - 11:51 pm: |
Black men could never get sex from anyone, let alone an indian person. Thats y now is so pissed off and is trying to cook up some bullshit story of south indians being africans so that he will somehow convince us to marry with blacks.hahahaha...The fact and truth of the matter is that blacks are enormously attracted to indians and in a way to justify it are cooking up incredibly lame stories of how indians r africans or how they influenced our culture in a pathetic attempt to encourage more intermarriage between the 2 communities. However what's blatantly obvious is their deep attraction for the indian community and their obsession with integrating their community with ours. Pathetic, and it aint happening cuz most of the indians who marry outside, marry whites anyways.hahahaha
| By now on Friday, November 17, 2000 - 11:58 pm: |
anon
truth is relative
yasmeen
no, not all black men do not go after indian women with the intention of having sex with them(if they go after them at all).
in some instances, yes that is true. not only black men, but especially arab and spanish men as well.
i can't say if they persue indian women or not as I cannot speak for all black men. i think it really works both ways though...some indian women may be attracted to black men, and some black men may be attracted to indian women-this goes for any group of people. this is from my personal experience.
if you are saying that indian women don't chase after men, that would be inaccurate.
i don't know where you live yasmeen...but i see two types of indian women-the ones who respect their parents and are honest, religious, and consertive. the other types are wild, very americanized, sex crazed. again, this goes for all races and are the same everywhere, even back in india.
| By now on Saturday, November 18, 2000 - 12:01 am: |
but yes many of us do have the white skin fetish but...remind us again
exactly y would whites knowingly want to say that indians are caucasians in this day and age unless it was true. Chinese are doing
as well as us, y dont the whites say that chinese are caucasians as well, hell they have fair skin rite?
- anon
i suggest you read some history books to answer your own questions. my friend, it's really simple.
| By now on Saturday, November 18, 2000 - 12:14 am: |
anon
...one more thing, the respectable white school you attend would most likely have this book:
Harris, Joseph E. 1971. The African Presence in Asia: Consequences of the East-African Slave Trade. Evanston: Northwestern
University Press.
Check it out and read it. You will see how stupid you are after saying some of the things you have said about the habshis role in indian history.
ps-i don't know why you are so angry towards the world, i have met a lot of s.indians who were very humble, religious, and hospitable towards me?
i think you should try to get around more and learn to think more critically about other people. you are only showing how much of an ass you are and what u learned at home from your parents.
i don't have an inferiority complex, unlike you and others, as i don't have to feel i'm superior to other races and cultures to make me feel good about myself. ppl. who usually have a need to feel superior to others, often have low self esteem and feelings of low self worth. studies indicate that women more likely than men suffer from bouts of low self esteem. low self esteem manifests itself in abusive behavior, namecalling, rage, hate, etc.
| By damon on Saturday, November 18, 2000 - 01:25 am: |
BRAVO NOW: couldn`t have said it better myself.
| By now on Saturday, November 18, 2000 - 03:30 am: |
yes anon...and a lot of those marriages end in divorce. why is the divorce rate so high among Indian Americans?
the only ppl. you are fooling are yourselves if you think that indian girls give the impression of being conservative.
You all would have to be fooling yourself if you think that Indian girls and women are all innocent and trustworthy.
they are just like any other type of woman(black, french, italian, arab, etc.)
the worst ones are the ones who pretend to be shy and religious, but at the same time they are going out with men behind their parents back. i find that punjabis are the most liberal of all.
all you have to the is spend some time on a college campus and try to find out what goes on in the dorms-you will be very surprised.
i know of so many instances where women pretend to be virgins at marriage, it's a shame.
maybe i see these things since i live in a cosmopolitan city.
yes, indian men/women do cheat on each other just like any other group of ppl.
just be realistic and stop living in a fantasy world of make believe-OPEN YOUR EYES TO THE WORLD
| By Yasmeen on Saturday, November 18, 2000 - 04:26 am: |
Desi - if i ever got together with Mike Tyson i would take out insurance on both my ears and make sure hes never hungry - lol. just a thought :)
to 100%desi and proud of it - no i am not dating a black guy and never have and never will lose my "dignity" to a black man or any man without affirming that step. I think im intelligent enough to look after myself but thankyou for the concern. Now - i live in an area where there are not many people of African origin and i personally have never met or known anyone of that background. So i guess it is ignorance about their culture that makes me interested in wanting to know more about them in the first place and in their own right. NOw - you also mentioned that black men and Indian women may be attracted to each other. That may be true but people from one cultural background may be attracted to someone from another just because of the fact that they are different do you know what i mean ? I guess its like the 'forbidden fruit tastes better' and rebellion against the norm. Sometimes it may be physical or you may be attracted to their intellect. However to all the "desis and proud of it" out there just because you want to know more about their culture doesnt mean that you want or have to be romantically or sexually involved its a learning experience and one that would create better relations and healthy respect for another. Ignorance is the basis of hate, fear,intolerance and disrespect so i'd rather say that i am ignorant about African peoples in general and learn something than make a fool of myself and be narrow minded.
my $0.02 and extra change -
| By now on Saturday, November 18, 2000 - 05:38 am: |
yasmeen
if you want to email me i'd be happy to discuss this issue or any other issue in more detail with you any time. there is certainly no problem in wanting to learn more a/b a group of ppl. or culture, it's only to your advantage.
that's one reason why i'm here at hindustan.net in the first place :)
| By now on Saturday, November 18, 2000 - 05:55 am: |
Ignorance is the basis of hate, fear,intolerance and disrespect so i'd rather say that i am ignorant about African peoples in general and learn something than make a fool of myself and be narrow minded. -yazzy
well said yasmeen...yes i also agree with you about ppl being attracted to each other from different backgrounds because of curiosity and wanting something different for a change.
here n wash, dc i see all types of combos-from very wealthy indian muslim girls with low income black guys to middle class black guys with indian girls just new to america(FOB) to old korean men with young indian women. these might sound extreme, but yes these cases are true, it's even very surprising to me.
relations are shaky between the indians born in america and the indians who are newcomers. they look down on each other. also, there are a bunch of caste and class probs. between rich indians/pakistanis and middle/poor class indian/pakistanis. but of course, each comm. has their own type of problems that manifest itself in different ways.
pakistanis tend to live in n.virginia, while indians tend to live in prince georges county(by the way, the wealthiest black american commmunities in the US live here) in the dc area.
| By adr on Saturday, November 18, 2000 - 06:14 am: |
Point of amusement: For those of you who were wondering what would happen if an Indian went and posted something critical on a white site, I just did. I'll keep you posted on the outcome. I just couldn't resist mentioning it, or from encouraging more Indians to do the same. (I'm not quite brave or foolish enough to do it on Stormfront or the Church of the Creator (white supremacist) sites.)
There's this really disgusting site, www.tantra.com, devoted to a bunch of white people talking about Indian sex. It's the type of Western people to stereotype Indian culture, making it seem like the only good thing to come out of our nation is the Kama Sutra. I ran across it running a search on 'Devadasi' for a paper, and it made me sick. Bunch of weird people talking about how much they'd like to be Devadasis and how 'erotic' it is. I'm sure forced prostitution and >50% HIV infection rate is real desirable. I think I'm beginning to understand the wholesale irritation with the white community.
And you should check out the Vijay Prashad book 'now' referenced, it's quite good. (The Karma of Brown Folk)
As to the Indian women chasing after men theory, I can't speak to that since everyone I know has been ragingly asexual lately (finals) and cooped up at home. (self included - this is my study break, so sad)
RSK, if you're still there, I stand by my genetic studies. The papers themselves are from reliable sources (Jin Li is part of the Crick/Human Genome Project team), I just didn't have time to find a direct link.
On an unrelated note, if any of you are in the NY area, a group of my friends have formed a South Asian acting troupe (wanted to increase opportunities for meaningful desi exposure in the media), and it's doing quite well. The only problem is that the audiences are pretty much white, and we'd all like to see more Indian faces in the audience (after all, that's the purpose). If you're interested in attending any performances (they're all quite accomplished), I'll be posting that info on the Cities: NY page once my finals are over and I actually start speaking to people again.
Lastly, the term 'nigger' should *never* be used, and (to the Editor), I suggest that the word and all forms thereof (ex. 'nig') be blocked as you block all other obscenities.
| By Chris on Saturday, November 18, 2000 - 07:17 am: |
You Indian men are pathetic lame •••••! I'm an African American male in NYC and have had many great relationships with Indian women both born here and those from India. I'd be a liar if I said that I used to chase them, but the truth is that it was usually the other way around. Of course, they kept it a secret from their families and we usually had short but intense relationships.
These women were not "sluts" or "sellouts" or anything they were beautiful women and great people who had the same feelings and desires as other people and just wanted to experiment before marriage.
So, you guys can chill and start facing reality. With time the cultural and social stigmas attached with marrying a black man will fall and you'll see a lot of your women with black men.
| By anon on Saturday, November 18, 2000 - 07:23 am: |
NOw, your ploy is all to obvious. First u came saying bullshit that africans were an integral part of indian culture and every1 rejected it. Then u said southies r africans,every1 rejected that as well. AFter that u tried to use the old divide and conquer method by pitting southies against northies, tamil vs. punjabi, dont u understand u kalu monkey, we r just too educated and intelligent to believe your nonsense? To this date u hav not produced an iota of hard genetic/linguistic proof to back up your claims. U keep posting links to sources who r probably second hand truck driving brothas. Please, we know u love and admire indians deeply and wish to god that u could get an indian woman or man. OBviously it aint happening, so spare us your pathetic post-rejection attacks. then you side with obvious flamers and try to use them as proof to your argument. Maan your pathetic. Listen ok, i dont know of ANY indian girls with black guys, however i know that •••• happens, usually the girl is fuckin stupid or something else. Next, we know the indian community has its fair share of sluts,every community has that, we dont care cuz those girls usually dont marry within the community anyways. I know of a punjabi slut who married some tamil guy who thought she was a virgin, he was an idiot and every1 warned him but he still married her. if some1 is that stupid, then its their prob, yes they do put on a shy facade cuz most of the indian guys prefer virgin wives. AS for punjabis being the most liberated of all indians, yes your right, but they also have some very conservative people who dont screw around so u cant generalize. Other indians,esp.southies, who mess around like that r def. in the minority. Yes im in a college campus and im seeing whats going on, yes there r some easy desi girs, however not compared to the amount of easy american girls,esp. the black ones. But the black ones end up being virgins cuz not even their own men want to sleep with them.hahahaha
| By anon on Saturday, November 18, 2000 - 07:25 am: |
O yes, your community def. has more virgins than ours, u know y? Cuz nobody, not even your black brothas want to sleep with black women.hahahaha
| By Yasmeen on Saturday, November 18, 2000 - 09:03 am: |
now on Saturday, November 18, 2000 - 02:00 am:
You have always been impartial Now - what was that last post about ?? Yes not all Indian girls at college are virgins and innocent but at the same time that doesnt mean that they are ALL sluts/ho's either. And another thing there is a difference between being 'physically virginal' and 'mentally virginal.' Im sure that none of us are virgins by intellect since we know exactly what the act is and what happens through the media/movies/songs/ads and maybe even fantasised about it. However knowing 'what to do and how to do it' and having already 'done it' are two separate categories. i didnt think of all the people on this board that you would start to generalise as well. Dont stoop to Saurabh's and other 'desiandprouds' level, Now. And one more correction i do know a guy whos of African origin but i just havent met him so thats what i meant by not personally knowing someone. I have more respect for him as a person than i have for some of the "Indians" on this board and i hope that i can learn more about African culture from him first hand. This board is becoming slightly addictive.
| By Yasmeen on Saturday, November 18, 2000 - 09:07 am: |
now on Saturday, November 18, 2000 - 02:00 am:
You have always been impartial Now - what was that last post about ?? Yes not all Indian girls at college are virgins and innocent but at the same time that doesnt mean that they are ALL sluts/ho's either. And another thing there is a difference between being 'physically virginal' and 'mentally virginal.' Im sure that none of us are virgins by intellect since we know exactly what the act is and what happens through the media/movies/songs/ads and maybe even fantasised about it. However knowing 'what to do and how to do it' and having already 'done it' are two separate categories. i didnt think of all the people on this board that you would start to generalise as well. Dont stoop to Saurabh's and other 'desiandprouds' level, Now. And one more correction i do know a guy whos of African origin but i just havent met him so thats what i meant by not personally knowing someone. I have more respect for him as a person than i have for some of the "Indians" on this board and i hope that i can learn more about African culture from him first hand. This board is becoming slightly addictive.
| By Dhummruh on Saturday, November 18, 2000 - 10:50 am: |
Chris.
HAHAHA,Indian girls chasing you,HAHAHA,that was only because you knocked her down and snatsched her purse.If any Desi kurri(girl),that goes out with pimp,she's gotta be a slut.
| By Anonymous on Saturday, November 18, 2000 - 12:46 pm: |
Yasmeen to Yazzy ?? Now - lay off our Indian chicks ok i think youre getting a little too friendly - go get yourself your own kind.
| By Saurabh on Saturday, November 18, 2000 - 02:52 pm: |
Leave me alone yasmeen, by talking about me all the time you're showing a kind of obsession with me. I dont know u personally(dont think I'd like u if I did) so dont make personal slurs about me.
| By anon on Sunday, November 19, 2000 - 04:38 am: |
You see now, blood is thicker than water. Between indians we have our petty squabbles, but when a foreign fool like you tries to disgrace our community with all sorts of ludicrous "facts" and try to divide us, you will always lose. Now go back to fantasizing about getting an indian wife someday and leave us alone damnit. no indian girl would run after some kalu, considering indian gals have class and culture. THe ones that stray out r sluts anyways, and of no bother to the rest of us.
Chris:hahahahhaha thats biggest load of bullshit ive ever heard man. You guys walk the streets as beggars and rappers or bank robbers, with your 10 foot tall afros and baggy ghetto pants,hahaha. Go after your skanky beastly women and leave ours alone, i doubt their interested in pursuing relations with purse snatchers like u.
| By Yasmeen on Sunday, November 19, 2000 - 10:06 am: |
NOw i must say i was a little surprised with "yazzy." Is blood thicker than water ? i hope so or at least would like to think so despite our differences. Saurabh youre the funniest thing next to Paul Vautin :). I wish you all well. Im out.
| By Raga on Monday, November 20, 2000 - 05:41 pm: |
Yo,Chris,Wutz up maaan.
Chris,where are you maaan?
Anybody know where Chris is?
AaaaH,there you are,why are you pointing that gun,at the old lady?,and what are those hub caps under your arm,for?
Did you get into a fight?,cause your lips are swollen,oh sorry maaan,they are naturelly like that.
Say,thats a nice ghetto blaster,where did you "BUY"(chuckle,chuckle) that from?
By the way Chris are you celebrating,"FATHERs DAY"?
Oooh you dont know who your fatherS are,what about Mothers day?,no,not even that,you dont know your real mother.
Any way,Chris,whats the latest INVENTION that your race has come up with,lately?
Ooooh, a crow bar,eh!!and FURRY DICE to hang in your car,wow thats awesome,maaan,oh and a new type of syringe,execellent,so you want to help develop medical equipment,NO!!,oooooh it's for shooting drugs.
Well you're off to work,it's 11.30pm,everyone is sleeping,hey maaan,should'nt that pantyhose,you're wearing on your face be on your legs?
Anwway have a nice NIGHT.
| By Saurabh on Monday, November 20, 2000 - 08:03 pm: |
Paul who?
| By now on Monday, November 20, 2000 - 09:08 pm: |
"...africans were an integral part of indian culture and every1 rejected it..."
- anon
i never said that africans were a integral part of indian culture.
| By now on Monday, November 20, 2000 - 09:17 pm: |
anon...this is what i am saying:
Africans made a significant contribution to the social, political, historical and cultural history of india.
if you don't believe me, read the books i have already listed above in this post.
there have been books, jounal articles, compilations, biographies, etc devoted solely to famous africans in indian history such as malik ambar that were written in hindi and urdu by the most respected historians in india.
if anyone here at hindustan has been to the state of gujarat's capital-there is a world famous mosque in the city called the "Siddi Sayeed" mosque that was built by a habshi(african).
there is a portrait of malik ambar that is shown in the museum of fine arts in boston.
| By now on Monday, November 20, 2000 - 09:33 pm: |
anon...
please reread my post on:
By Anonymous on Sunday, October 8, 2000 - 08:51 pm
excerpt=>Other Prominent Habshis
Other prominent Habshis of this time included Said Safar Salami, who, after Bahadur's death in 1537, became governor of Surat with the title of Khudavand Khan; Bilal Falah Khani Habshi, vizier to Muhammad Ulugh Khan, who subsequently became an independent chieftain with the title of Khayrat Khan and died in 1563-3; and Fulad Khan Sandal, who ruled the town of Jamud, until his death in 1569-70.
Yet another important Habshi of Gujarat was Shaik Said al-Habshi Sultani. Originally a slave of Rumi Khan, he later entered the service of Sultan Mahmud III. On the latter's death in 1554 he joined the great Habshi captain Jhujhar Khan, and, after a long and distinguished military career, received valuable fiefdoms from the latter, who reportedly regarded him as a brother. Shaik Said managed his land efficiently, and acquired great wealth. He collected a fine library, and had over a hundred slaves, probably mainly or entirely Habshis, as well as numerous horses and camels. Until Emperor Akbar's conquest of Ahmadabad, he dined daily in the company of many nobles and divines, and maintained a public kitchen, which distributed food daily to nearly a thousand destitute persons. He died in 1576; and is perhaps best remembered as the builder of a famous mosque, known by his name, in Ahmadabad.
------------------------------------------------------
these books by inter. punjabi:
Ali, M. Athar, Mughal India Oxford University Press
Basham, A. L., A Cultural History of India Oxford University Press
Stanley Wolpert, A New History of India, 4th ed Oxford University Press
Columbia Chronologies of Asian History and Culture Columbia University Press
these books are not specialized books, but are general books of indian history. it's only a quick summary of indian history. only 3 of them are texts; these books do not go into great detail a/b indian history. she did not know what she was talking about, otherwise how was i able to provide educ. syllabi and professors to back up my claims?
nobody here has not refuted anything about the habshis role in indian history.
i challenge anyone to do so!!!
| By now on Monday, November 20, 2000 - 09:52 pm: |
this is just one example out of others regarding the habshi contributions to india:
ARCHITECTURAL
Mosque of Sidi Saiyed
http://www.ahmedabad.com/incity/archi.htm
"The Mosque of Sidi Saiyad, near Lal Darwaja has earned worldwide fame for its magnificent stone tracery."
| By anon on Tuesday, November 21, 2000 - 03:20 am: |
Raga, awesome post yaar.hahahahah
| By cooljat on Tuesday, November 21, 2000 - 04:43 pm: |
ALL Hindoo's are sellouts
they have layers upon layers of CASTEISM - the highest
caste are the only ones allowed to look at religious
data, they label others and see them below themselves.
But when they see the whiteman - they can't stop
kissing his ass, they sold INDIA to the British &
cause grief in the whole region.
Hindoo's are like RATS, they are the most deceiving
race on this Planet, they idol worship so many
goddesses, as opposed to worshipping the 1 lord.
I can truly say as an outside observer, for the past
500 years - this is one of the WORLDs most VILE
disgusting RACES.
| By now on Tuesday, November 21, 2000 - 10:15 pm: |
But when they see the whiteman - they can't stop
kissing his ass, they sold INDIA to the British &
cause grief in the whole region.
- cooljat
i agree with you on this part. i can't think of any other group of ppl. who do these kinds of things. it's so sick and disgusting. they seem to trust and respect white ppl. more than they trust and respect each other. no other races look up to whites as some Indians do. It's really embarrassing!
| By anon on Wednesday, November 22, 2000 - 07:25 am: |
Now, again just because you cant be indian doesnt mean you have to start going into denial again. You sound like the fox who couldnt reach the grapes. As soon as the indians rejected the garbage u spewed, u immediately start dissing us and siding with pakis,etc. You arent going to get an indian woman NOW, nor ever i presume. Same goes for an indian man if your into that sort of thing. you already expressed your desire for a punjabi man. Cooljat u fool, your ancestors were hindus before they became sikhs. Your the same race as us, when u make fun of us, u make fun of yourself. Btw, Now, i like your holier than thou attitude. Who the •••• sold africans into slavery to the white man? Your dumb ass african tribal leaders who were drooling and frothing at the mouth with the very sight of the white man.
| By now on Wednesday, November 22, 2000 - 04:38 pm: |
anon...yes they drooled at the sight of the wm because of greed, not because of love of white skin. the africans did not •••• up to him because of awe and reverence.
| By Bandit on Thursday, November 23, 2000 - 05:19 pm: |
Cool Jat.
Yes we Hindus Worship,in our own ways,like Guru Nanak ji,he to was Hindu,to you he is a fool too.
WE are what we are,but you scum headed tight turbaned,wife battering,drunk piece of S.H.I.T,wifeless(because she has run off with a Sullah).
I've seen your Gurdwaras,you people fight and over tables and chairs,every word you uneducated taxi driving goon,that you utter has an additional Bainchaud attatched to it,your kids are the worst,all they know is,Balleh o Balleh and all that stupid Bhangra S.H.I.T,they are failures in school.
U must be proud of them!!!!
The mullahs must be pondering,hey this guy is talking about us.
U.r both alike,USELESS.USELESS.
| By Phudu Siyon on Thursday, November 23, 2000 - 05:31 pm: |
Cool Jat...
You forget the proud SIKH REGIMENT,that the Britts used,to kill their own brotherly SIKHS and us Hindus.
Funny how we forget things.
Now he's gonna say that the Sikh Regiment was that work of RSS and RAW,and that they were really Hindus disguised as Sikhs.
I seen you proud Jaats,in Vancouver,you bring your Babeh & Babba over,dump them in the basement,order them to baby sit,cook and clean and than take their WELFARE cheques,so you can buy some booze for the whole family.
U.R a proud pathetic Jaat,with AKAL KAAT.
| By now on Thursday, November 30, 2000 - 12:52 am: |
This was written by international punjabi:
"Simply because all the CREDIBLE (credible entailing that it is something which is not ONLY held by various Internet sites, or people on the fringes of their profession) logic deems that such a statement is obviously wrong. How credible do you think your sources are?...Almost everything you posted above is refuted by accredited academia, and accepted by fringe elements of society (as is the case with my white supremicist example above)." -10/08/00 11:14 pm
"Now I am not doing my studies in history nor have I ever completed any formal studies in the area however thanks to a well placed contact here are some textbooks, or just books in general which do
not signify as black or African many of the empires, dynasties, ruler's, etc. that you have listed in your various posts. I trust we can agree that the credibility of the Oxford University Press or that of Columbia is not at question:
...
...
Columbia Chronologies of Asian History and Culture Columbia University Press" - 10/09/00 8:59 am
My reply:
Source: Columbia Chronologies of Asian History and Culture Columbia University Press
Page 277
"1626: Death of Malik Ambar, chief minister of Ahmadnagar and one of the greatest statesmen of medieval india."
Page 281
"1621: Mughals annex much southern territory after defeating confederacy of Ahmadnagar, Bijapur, and Golconda. Malik Amabar, Abyssinian slave general and chief minister and virtual ruler of Ahmadnagar. remains an irritant to Mughals, against whom he wages a long guerilla war(1610-1629)."
"1629-1636: ...Annexation of Ahmadnagar after the death of its great statesmen Malik Ambar ends Nizam Shahi dynasty (1633)..."
Are you still around? Can you refute the presentation I have given of the role the habshis played in Indian history? Or do you just want to take up space with your unsubstantiated claims which is based upon your own incoherent logic and unbelievably prejudiced rantings?
| By now on Friday, December 01, 2000 - 08:19 pm: |
Are you still there RSK? I wanted to discuss some other issues regarding the habshis in india?
| By ElleP on Saturday, December 02, 2000 - 01:15 am: |
I've just read this entire thread and much of what I've read makes me feel sick inside...the reality that such ignorance and hatred continues to exist between people is astounding. And that's what we are talking about aren't we? People, fellow human beings. I don't like everyone I know, but I respect them for that commonality. While I may not agree with every opinion that is generated, I respect the fact that all are entitled to opinions. But my goodness where is the decency? I thought that as an evolved people we could and would at least exercise a degree of decorum. Let your yeas be yeas and your nays be nays. Just make your point and stop with the name calling, the finger pointing and the scape goating. Your point never even gets heard when wrapped in up in all that garbage, so if you want to be heard than just say it.
As far as the topic-- race, culture, environment, history, all the differences...I don't see why we are so adverse to them. Yeah, a lot of things about different cultures puzzle me, sometimes frighten me, hell they even turn me off. At times I ask myself, do people really eat that? Do people really believe in that? Do people really dress like that, etc. But does that mean that someone is lower than me? No, just different. There are things that my "race" has done and that they do that I'd rather ignore and pretend hasn't happened. And there are things they have done and that they do that I take pride in and want to scream from the rooftops. If you look at any group of people no matter how you choose to divide them, whether it be by race, environment, religion, or whether or not they like plain or peanut M & M's, there will achievers and underachievers, people that put their emphasis in some areas, and others that choose to focus elsewhere. But who gives us the right to judge what is better? And by what standard are we using to measure? And if one is "superior" why not make a difference by lending a helping hand instead of throwing stones. ( Which those in glass houses should not do) Does someone start yelling at a cat and making fun of it because it doesn't talk and share ideas. (only a maniac) For the record, I don't buy into one race being superior over another, or any other hierarchy nonsense but if that idea does exist in peoples heads I still don't understand the attitude, the venom. I mean like I said, why should one ridicule one that is "less fortunate"? It seems counter intuitive. On the flip side I've witnessed those that are condescending to an "inferior" race, treating them as pets, and that is sickening as well. If people weren't so frightened to look in the mirror, see what needs to be done, and live life, I doubt that folks would be so obsessed about this. I
don't know about the claims of Africans in India and I really don't care. History isn't the side of this conflict that needs to be dissected and examined rather it is our attitudes that need to be analyzed and adjusted.
I'm new to the boards, don't mean to offend, just want to express.
Peace to all.
| By now on Saturday, December 02, 2000 - 03:13 am: |
"claims of Africans in India" -elle p
what do you mean by that? are you saying that there were no africans that existed throughout indian history?
| By ElleP on Monday, December 04, 2000 - 06:17 pm: |
Now,
No, I'm not saying that there were no Africans in Indian history. I was talking more about the claims of the kingdoms, etc. established by Africans, and I'm not even disputing that neither am I confirming it because I do not know. My point was that whether Africans were there making significant contribution is fact or fantasy, it has little impact with the relations that exist today. I'm not not niave enough to believe that our yesterdays do not effect our todays, but like I said before what we need are attitude adjustments, not history lessons.
| By Bandit on Monday, December 04, 2000 - 11:52 pm: |
ELLeP...
It seems very obvious that you belong to a first world order of thinking,you just have'nt faced the onslaught of the Muslims and Christian,forced conversions,they've been at it for 2000 yrs,so HATE has been forced down the throats of non followers,and now you expect us to lie down and have no opinion.
You must be that frozen Iceman that was found in the Austrian Alps,results showed that he had been frozen for about 2000 yrs.
| By ElleP on Friday, December 08, 2000 - 01:06 am: |
Yea, I'm the frozen Iceman. That explains my point of view exactly.
| By Bandit on Friday, December 08, 2000 - 05:32 pm: |
ELLeP..
Than you have no opinion,because most of the crimes were commited during that time,and my point is that you have not felt the pain.PS...request the scientists to defrost your brain.
Good day.
| By drs on Sunday, December 10, 2000 - 08:38 pm: |
ElleP- As a sometimes visitor of this board (mostly a reader, not a message poster) I have noticed that anytime someone posts a message that promotes harmony & intelligent discussion they are "shot down" and usually in the most ignorant manor, ex." have the scientist defrost your brain". I come to this site strictly for amusement now. I can get a good laugh every now and then when I'm bored. But also when I see posters like yourself who try to put things into perspective I am once again reminded that there are intelligent minded individuals out there. Thank you for your honest words~sadly they fall on alot of deaf ears.
ANON- You have become quite the comedian on this board. Of all the ignorant, racist rantings you do, it's very hard at this point to take you seriously. Your last response to Chris was the most idiotic of messages I've read so far. I don't believe you're a college student. How can someone with such an uneducated thought process be actually attending structured classes? I know it's possible, but if you are a student, you can't have many friends and virtually no life (you're always on this board!) I guess the world has to have people like you to remind others what can happen if you're mind stays idle. I have let several of my friends read your "writings", many whom are indian, and they all pretty much have the same responses, "What an ignorant SOB". Mostly they laugh. I guess I'd like to thank you for being somewhat of a comic relief for me & my friends when we're bored. So, RANT ON!
P.S. I do hope that you NEVER decide to procreate. You will ruin a poor child's life such as your parents obviously ruined yours!
| By |