quote:Originally posted by Oshun Auset:quote:Originally posted by LieDecrypter:quote:Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
They make this distinction themselves, and so do the Africans they distinguish themselves from. It's hard for us to see this when we are outside the African fishbowl, but honestly, the Ethiopian/Somali ect. people don't have much of a better attitude towards their fellow Africans than the Northern Sudanese and Janjaweed you mentioned... The Northern Sudanese are just the most recent epoch of Asiatic admixture and subsequent patriarchal cultural proclivity, but it's been happenning for millenia. The Ethiopian and Somali people CLEARLY identify with their patrilineal culture/worldview.
You are confusing the 'Ethiopian Hebrews' with the Arabic admixed Ethiopians and Sudanese who's hatred for Africans we are all familar with.
No I'm not. The Beta Israel are of the same admixed phenotype as their Arab and Orthodox X-ian brethren... They do not look like the Oromo, the indigenous Nilots that are the makority in Ethiopia, and that scientists have proven are the people the Asiatics mixed with creating the other populations of Ethiopia.
[IMG]C:\Documents and Settings\Owner\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.IE5\WDYNCLAJ[/IMG]
I believe we are talking about two different time lines here, maybe this will help clarify....The Beta Israel are admixed with Arabs along with their Orthodox X-ian brethren because when Ethiopia was invaded by Arabs (particularly in the 6th century A.D. with the spread of Islam) The Arab invaders intermixed with MANY Ethiopians including the ones who considered themselves to be Hebrew. Some Beta believe that as expressed in the Kebra Nagast they are descended from King Solomon which dates back to 950 B.C. over 1500 years before the Arab invasions.
The whole reason this belief system of the Beta Israel came about was because it's based on their historic record of Queen Makeda'si.e., the Queen of Sheba's interaction with King Solomon. Which also happens to be recorded in the Bible (you know the book you keep blowing off as a fairytale with no accurate historical accounts in it) They believe That Queen Makeda after hearing of Solomon's vast wisdom and wealth wanted to see it for herself. Upon meeting him she was so impressed that she declared "From this moment I will not worship the sun, but will worship the Creator of the sun, the God of Israel."[i] They also believe that she had a son with Solomon by the name of [i]Menelik who allegelly brought the Ark of the covenant with him back to Ethiopia.
Other Beta Israel accounts of how they became Hebrews state that they are descendants of the tribe of Dan (one of the twelve tribes of Israel) who settled in Ethiopia after leaving Israel. There are other accounts as well....what they all have in common is that NONE describe becoming Hebrews because of some "Asiatic Invasion".
The original Ethiopians during the time of the Kingdom of Kush were BLACK just like the ancient Hebrews...the "admixture" that you are referring to came MUCH later most notably during the Arab invasions of the 6th century A.D. as I mentioned...this is the reason why they look mixed with 'Asiatic peoples' with lighter skin and curly hair today...as you mentioned.
quote:Originally posted by Oshun Auset:quote:Moreover, you seem to be describing patriarchal cultural proclivity as something intrinsically bad what's up with that?...
Cuz it is... particuarly when it comes to religious doctrine. Any spiritual system/religion that demonizes, demotes, or removes the devine/sacred feminine is imbalanced. I'll have to direct you to other threads where this has been discussed because it deserves a seperate convo...
Not all societies with a patriarchal cultural and spiritual proclivity demonizes or removes the feminine. I believe you are extrapolating only the most extreme examples of patriarchal cultures (such as radical Islamist/Talaban /Sharia law type regimes)onto the concept patriarchy itself.
In many patriarchal societies women had prominent roles and I can prove this... although I agree that this should be discussed in a separtate conversation.
quote:Originally posted by Oshun Auset:quote:when it's not. The reason things are the way they are in eastern Africa is because the Arabic invaders and enslavers (Solely Men) allowed the children they produced with African women to be free. So of course they are going side with them over their mothers people....similar to how many mulatto AA's chose to identify with the dominate white culture here.
That's part of it, but their were many invasions prior to the Arabs. That's historic fact.
No one is disputing that but were those prior invaders Semites? By the way the Arabs are ONLY 'Semitic' because they come from the Abrahamic line of Ismael who was BLACK The ancient Arabs were too... but only changed due to the "Asiatic admixture" that you keep referring to. Although they kept the original Semetic culture just what the Ashkenazi Jews did with Hebrew culture.
Besides as I said above the question is with respect to TIME FRAME did Africans develop the Semitic culture FIRST which was later only hijacked by Ashkenazis and Asiatics who currently call themselves "Jews" and "Arabs". Or did the Ashkenazis and Asiatics develop these cultures independent of Africans and then turn around and impose it on Africans. If you believe that the Africans were the first civilized people then there should be no question that the answer is the former.
quote:Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
The 'Semetic' Beta Israel, like other Semetic and more recently Arabized Africans are the product of intermixing with Asiatic foreigners... It is OBVIOUS in their appearance, and in their attitudes towards other Africans...
This is incorrect how can the 'Semetic Beta Israel' be a product of intermixing with Asiatic foreigners when both Arabs and Asians mutated from the Prototypical Black of which the FIRST Semite (Shem) who was one.
You are literalizing Biblical myth, so you can see where we would not agree on this. This is simply not accurate. The Beta Israel admit to their admixture with no problem... Inf act, they and most Ethiopians 'brag' about it, and use it as a differentiating marker from other Bantu and Nilotic Africans. Dr. Ben has spoken to this, and I have witnessed it firts hand. The Beta Israel ware called Falasha because of their religion, not phenotype/ethnicity.[/QUOTE]
Let me clarify...The Beta Israel I was referring to in this answer were the ORIGINAL ones. Those Ethiopians who FIRST began to identify as Hebrew they were BLACK and not 'admixed'. Of course the Beta Israel of today are admixed just like many of their Ethiopian brethren due to Arab invasions POST their initial Hebrew tradition. Of course the admixed Beta Israel of TODAY will 'brag' about their admixture today...Because they live under the opressors standards it's no different than the negroes that 'play up' the fact they 'mixed' right here in the states.
Regarding this "literalizing Biblical myth" accusation you keep throwing out...how can you write off Biblical history as purely myth yet quote Dr. Ben (if it's indeed the same Dr. Ben I think you are talking about) who not only acknowledges people from the Bible actually existed... but that they were also BLACK...Like he did with Moses in this excerpt....
As we look back into the history of the Holy Bible, or "HOLY SCRIPTURE AS WRITTEN BY GOD INSPIRED SCRIBES," we seem to forget that all of the BIBLES we use were the works of various writers, both men and women; but mostly men. And that all of the WORKS or BOOKS were compiled into what is today our various VERSIONS of "HOLY BIBLES" or "HOLY SCROLLS." We have also failed to realize that the BIBLES we use today are the result of a period of hundreds of REVISIONS and TRANSLATIONS that cover approximately two thousand four-hundred and ninety-five [2,495] years—from ca. 700 B.C. [BCE] to 1973 A.D. [CE]. Yet all in this period was preceded by much more earlier fundamentals created and developed by indigenous African People. These later on became the basic teachings of Judaism, and then Christianity. For even Moses, the father of the OLD TESTAMENT, was an African who used much of the ancient teachings of his fellow Africans of the Nile River [BLUE and WHITE] and Great Lakes regions Mysteries System of Northeast and Central-East Africa he allegedly passed down to other African Jews that converted them into what later became the PENTATEUCH or OLD TESTAMENT [Five Books Of Moses or Holy Torah].
The very first "BIBLE" or "SCROLL" on record produced by man, with regards to paying honour and divine respect to a "CREATOR OF ALL MANKIND," was that of the African People of the Nile Valley and Great Lakes regions of Central, East and Northeast Africa. They were no different than the Africans we see today in the Harlems and Timbuctoos of the entire world we erroneously call: "NEGROES, COLORED FOLKS" and "BLACK PEOPLE" today. It was called by its African creators and developers...
http://www.africawithin.com/jo...bible_chronology.htm
More on this later...
quote:Originally posted by Oshun Auset:quote:If you don't believe the proof that I provided that shows that 'Semite' is derived from Shem...because you deem it to be 'mythology' then where praytell do you reckon semites hail from?
Earlier invasions from Asia... You seem to only be referencing the Arab invasion, as if the Hyksos and Persians were never invaders at a much earlier epoch... I believe I already explained this in my last post below...
The 'Semetic' African and their myths/culture(Kemetic Root, patriarchal twist from their raping daddies), comes on the scene post Asiatic invasion. Of course they are still phenotypically African(in todays worldview), but the patriarchal monotheistic religion that was birthed by the Habiru, isn't the same type of panentheistic, nature based 'spiritual system' you see in the rest of Africa.
I keep referencing the Arab invasion because they are the only invaders considered to be 'Semitic' and that's what matters within the context of this discussion. I asked you before if you were sure here.....
quote:Are you sure about this? because the last time I checked king [i]Akhenaten introduced a patriarchal monotheistic religion to Africa long before any "Asiatic invasion"[/i].
You responded by saying "yes" but you never addressed what I said regarding Akhenaten introducing a patriarchal monotheistic religion to Africa. This means it was HOMEGROWN and not the result of an "Asiatic Invasion"....Moreover, you posted this link....
quote:Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
Uhhmmm, the Hyksos? Expelled by Amose 100 yeears after Akenaten's rule(fact), 'Exodus' by Moses... 100 years after Ankenaten's rule. The mythical 'twist' making the Hyksos invaders the Hebrew victims.... hhhmmmm...
Which had NOTHING to do with what I said about Akhenaten starting a monotheistic religion in Africa....Furthermore, you try to claim that the Hyksos and the Hebrews were the same people when it can easily be proven they were NOT...Even your claim that the Hyksos "invaded" Egypt is dubious and I will post an excerpt from the link YOU posted to back me up....
Was there a Hyksos invasion?
Invasion is probably the wrong word. Manetho's account of the appearance of the Hyksos in Egypt describes it as an armed invasion by a horde of foreign barbarians who met little resistance and who subdued the country by military force. A better explanatio is that after the explosion of thera c 1621 BC the number of Mycenean and Minoan refugees increased dramatically. With them came their trading partners, various proto sea peoples who were loosely organized at the level of gene, oinkos and phratre and really incapable of any organized warfare beyond the level of family, crew or tribe. With them came a number of traders, professionals, including professional warriors looking to work for the Egyptians as mercenaries, skilled craftsmen, laborers, accountants, agricultural workers and horsemen.
The main account of this alleged "invasion" came from Manetho's who was a historian who lived during the Ptolemaic era, ca. 3rd century BC over 1300 years after the fact. There is also a good chance that he may have even been of Greek ancestry instead of Egyptian. Yet you are holding his account up to be "historic fact" while dismissing Biblical writting as fairytales.
quote:Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
Literalizing ANYONE'S myth destroys not just the function/purpose of the myth, it makes people literalists idiots and dumbs down the population, creating religious fenaticism, and people who can't think symbolically. Instead of learning the lesson a myth is treaching, be it essoteric, or astrotheological symbolism ect. They go on 'faith' that bush's burned, mwn can live in the stomache of whales, godesses turn into birds, and babies don't 'have to' come from a an egg and sperm...
Are you suggesting that any historic records that contains what some consider 'myths' renders it completely void of any factual events whatsoever?
quote:Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
I agree, and why is it that only a certain people's myth is historically literalized? You honestly don't find this much outside of the big three Semetic/Abrahamic crowd(and those in the mystic traditions don't literalize).
Would you like to see more of Egypts myth's literalized?...honestly, I think many already are.
I'm not sure why you asked this question. No, I would like to see NO cultures myths literalized... Cuz their function is not to be 'history'... They serve many other wonderful purposes. Please point out a spiritual myth of the Kamau that is taught as literal history in the KeMeTic spiritual teachings... All the practitioners I know despise literalism and historization. Plus KMT kept great historical records seperate from mythos. [/QUOTE]
I asked rhetorically partially because many of the myths of Ancient Egypt have already been recycled and are in heavy rotation...For example the whole christian literalized story about 'Jesus' and 'Mary' is just a rehash of the Egytpian story of Horace, Isis and Osiris. which further underscores my point that African's inspired the worlds religions and not the other way around.
quote:[QUOTE]Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
I'll put it this way....
"And if one does not INVOCATE from their sacred lips an acknowledgment of the feminine divine how can you say concretely that there is balance?"
Patriarchal god concepts demonize, demote, and/or remove the devine feminine... That is a reflection of patriarchal culture because as Dr. Ben says, "Religion is the deification of culture." You don't see the AMSSIVE difference in cultures who have goddesses and those that onle have 1 exclusively male god? Venerating Expansion(male energy) with no contraction to counter balance it(female energy)... the perfect cultural recipe for empire.
Oh really?, so only Monotheic culures who have male gods created empires? That's funny because the last time I checked most of the ancient worlds empires were formed by civilizations who had 'goddeses' to such as the Babylonians, Persians, Greeks and Romans.
quote:Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
Because the Semite is the offspring of the Asian male and the African women. They 1st Hebrew were the Asiatic Hyksos invaders who later were expelled from KeMiT after they had intermixed with the Africans for awhile, borrowing some of their myths to create their 'new' religion, but keeping the invaders cultural proclivity.
From what historical reference are you drawing this statement? cite a credible verifiable source of information to support your claim
quote:Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
Already did. I guess you don't agree with Dr. Ben and other Afro-centric scholars that Biblical scribes INVENTED Hebrew history. I don't overstand why you think it is accurate or logical to base any historical fact on Biblical(read mythical) psuedo lineages.
What you have commited here is a logical fallacy known as an 'appeal to authority' agrument....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority ...
Saying something is true just because Dr. Ben said so is not good enough....As I said before unless you can cite a source that is as ancient and detailed as the Biblical account that also has as much corroborating and circumstanstial evidence. I can only deem these statements as conjecture which gives me no reason to disregard the Biblical account.
If you cannot cite your OWN sources then cite the good doctors sources (which may still be the Bible if like I said it's the same Dr)...but simply saying "because he said so" is not good enough.
quote:[QUOTE]Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
Have you read this book?
101 Myths of the Bible:How Ancient Scribes Invented Biblical History
I read throught it and many books like it...
quote:By the way since we have hi jacked this topic (like these false Jews have done our Hebrew culture) I'm going to leave you with a couple reference books that will help break this down further for you. You should first read "The Hebrew Heritage of Black Africa" by Moses Farrar & Steven Jacobs then read "The Truth About Black Biblical Hebrew Israelites" by Ella J. Hughley.
quote:Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
Been there done that. Literalists they are.
Does this mean you've read the books? because if so you would know that they base most of their research on showing the correlations between current African tribes and the Hebrews....such as the fact that many practices and words in the Ashanti culture are strikingly simlar to Hebrew.
For example the word Obayifo means "witch" and is derived from Obayen and the name for God is pronounced Yame similar to Hebrew Yawe. They show ultimately that the Hebrew were actually the parent stock from which the Ashanti emerged.
quote:This will help you broaden your perspective a little more about this. I know you mean well which is why I feel compelled to share this information plus I know that there are those reading this thread that are highly interested in this subject. Although, like I said this may not be the thread to do it so either I will touch on this in my other thread or I may create a new one on this topic. You are welcome to continue this discussion with me at that point although I would prefer if you read the books first if you don't mind.
quote:Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
I'd have to review them... but I won't cuz it's literalism. I won't deal with literalism period. I suggest you read the book I provided. I will make a list of others.
Mighty courteous of you to write off the books I refered you to as "literalism" without even having seen them...Yet you want me to read the book you suggested with the promise of more to come...