Talk:Afrocentrism/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Argument removed from talk page

That's because there's absolutely no merit whatsoever to the afrocentrist movement; they're a bunch of racists who make up stories and then claim their claims are being rejected for racist reasons rather than the fact that their claims have absolutely no merit whatsoever. This seems to be a pervasive problem with the article; it isn't made clear just how racist this idealogy is, nor how without support among anyone reputable it is. Titanium Dragon 09:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL. READ IT!!

Sounds to me that goes the other way. Those who are trying to disprove afrocentrism, have no merit themselves; they are a bunch of eurocentric racist including you, "who make up stories and then claim their claims are being rejected for racist(Afrocentrist) reasons rather than the fact that their claims have absolutely no merit whatsoever." Here is looking at you Mr. Titanium Dragon. For the record sir, I have yet to see anyone of your ilk completely disprove the Afrocentric paradigm. I don't think a North American simpleton country bumpkin like you could disprove or discredit Afrocentrism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.186.65.143 (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

Hey, I'm a dragon. We dragons have been around for a long time. I have watched petty humans bicker for many years from my aerie, and let me tell you, much as they complain, they all taste the same, so I see no reason to support one skin color over the others.

Quite simply put, Afrocentrism was made up by some racist blacks in the United States who have no knowledge of population dynamics, Ancient Egypt, or history in general. They try and attribute every meaningful discovery to blacks. It is racist and quite simply put, wrong; it's exactly the same as claiming white people made up all culture. For instance, they claim Africans brought culture to the Toltecs, when it is obvious that they did not do anything of the sort. Quite simply put, Sub-Saharran Africa hasn't contributed much to the world due to reasons of isolation. Eygpt had an impact, as did the Moors, but for most of human history Sub-Saharran Africa was well outside the realms of China and Europe. It is not to say there weren't meaningful African civilizations, because that's untrue. Its simply that unlike the Europeans and the southeast Asians, they basically sat in their part of the world for the better part of the common era, thus meaning they had less of an impact on the powerful civilizations which have defined so much of the world's culture today. Sure, Egypt did have an impact on the world, but it wasn't primarily black - it was a mixed-race culture like the US, with a wide variety of skin tones present.

Afrocentrism emphasizes race because it is a racist idealogy. There's no evidence for their claims of widespread African cultural influence, especially in North America pre-Columbus. Titanium Dragon 00:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

--Hey, I'm a dragon. We dragons have been around for a long time. I have watched petty humans bicker for many years from my aerie, and let me tell you, much as they complain, they all taste the same, so I see no reason to support one skin color over the others.---

With a pseudonym like dragon and being a country bumpkin, you sure you are not Grand Dragon of Amerikkka. One can infer whose color you would chose.

WP:CIVIL. Read it. Titanium Dragon 03:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

--Quite simply put, Afrocentrism was made up by some racist blacks in the United States who have no knowledge of population dynamics, Ancient Egypt, or history in general. --

Again, you display your ignorance and great stupidity. Cheik Anta Diop was from Senegal. If you don’t know where that is,it is in West Africa. It’s a French speaking country. He was a trained nuclear physicist, anthropologist, Egyptologist. He was married to a white woman. His son was mullato. I don’t think you can class him as a racist.

He also wasn't the founder of it. Titanium Dragon 03:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

No he wasn’t , but he is probably the most influential thinker.216.186.65.143 23:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Theophile Obenga is a “polyvalent scholar with a threefold training as a philosopher, historian and linguist and knowing Greek, Latin, French. English, Italian, and practicing Arabic and Syriac. More importantly, he is the first Black African of his generation able to read the pharaonic language in the texts: he holds a degree in Egyptology and is a member of the Societe Francaise d'Egyptologie”

And this is relevant how? Also, the first black african of his generation? That seems like a highly dubious distinction. Titanium Dragon 03:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

You stated, “Afrocentrism was made up by some racist blacks in the United States who have no knowledge of population dynamics, Ancient Egypt, or history in general.” You question the ability/ scholarly credibility of Afrocentrism and the geography of afrocentrist. If you can’t piece things together ,let me put it together for you. It was to show you Afrocentrism Its material is not produced by mental lightweights and not just from “racist blacks in the United States.”216.186.65.143 23:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have issues with comprehension let me complete the phrase, “the first Black African of his generation able to read the pharaonic language in the texts: he holds a degree in Egyptology and

is a member of the Societe Francaise d'Egyptologie”Being invited to a to a major international conference among your peers and to participate is hardly "dubious"216.186.65.143 23:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The claim is dubious. Titanium Dragon 06:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ivan Van Sertima was from Guyana. That is a country in south America,if you don’t know. Van Sertima is a literary critic, a linguist, and an anthropologist, and has made a name for himself in all three fields. As a linguist, he is the compiler of the Swahili Dictionary of Legal Terms, based on his field word in Tanzania, East Africa in 1967. As a literary critic, he is the author of Caribbean Writers, a collection of critical essays on the Caribbean novel. He is also the author of several major literary reviews published in Denmark, India, Britain, and the United States. He was recognized for his work in this field by being requested by the Nobel Committee of the Swedish Academy to nominate candidates for the Nobel Prize in Literature from 1976 to 1980

All these men have influenced Afrocentrism. Diop is probably the most influential. They are not American. If you read the intro of the Afrocentism article. Its says,” Afrocentrism also has connections to Black civil rights movements and anti-imperialist ideologies in the United States and the Caribbean.”

That they're influential doesn't mean they're founders. It doesn't mean they're not racist either; how many slave owners had mulatto children? Also, being racist doesn't just mean you hate whites or blacks. Titanium Dragon 03:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

If you are influential like Diop. People use you as a reference. They look to you for answers. They are one with you. The founders are Diop.216.186.65.143 23:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

"It doesn't mean they're not racist either; how many slave owners had mulatto children?" You make very silly statements. Slave owners raped women. Very few acknowledge their progeny. Treated their offspring like common chattel. They were worse than racist. They were human abominations and degenerates.

Not really; people are pretty evil. Titanium Dragon 06:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

TD--"Also, being racist doesn't just mean you hate whites or blacks". I define racist as the third meaning of the first entry on dictionary.com. You can define it how you want. 216.186.65.143 23:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

--They try and attribute every meaningful discovery to blacks.

In your latter comments you have proven that you don’t know what Afrocentrism is. You make statements that are ignorant and stupid. And your ilk try to prove that blacks did not discover anything meaningful. You hint at that. You don’t even know it.

No, I'm pretty sure I have a good grasp of it. They try and claim racial credit for Egypt, Greek ideas, Toltec technology, ect. Seems very silly (and racist) to me. Titanium Dragon 03:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

No you don’t have a good grasp. You are quite laughable and amusing. Afrocentrist don’t try and claim racial credit for Egypt. Ancient Egyptians credited it themselves, they called their country kmt

( “black” land). Afrocentrist did not try and claim racial credit for Greek ideas. The Greeks credited kmt (black land)themselves. Again you have issues with comprehension, not all afrocentrist will accept racial credit for “Toltec Technology”, but like I said before, there is proof of African presence in Pre-Columbian America that needs to be further research and what I mean by pre-Columbian America is Meso America. North America maybe not. Ivan Van Sertima has provided an outline. 216.186.65.143 23:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. And I suppose goths are African too, because they wear black clothing. Lots of things are black, including fertile topsoil (which is why it was called "black land", incidentally - the fertile soil of the Nile floodplain). There isn't proof of pre-columbian black contact, there's lots of people who claim there was pre-Columbian contact but apart from the Vikings, none have left any trace at all. Its mostly racism anyway; a lot of it comes from people trying to claim their race brought culture to the Americas, when it is clear the cultures of the Old World had no impact on the new world until after Columbus. Titanium Dragon 06:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

--It is racist and quite simply put, wrong; it's exactly the same as claiming white people made up all culture.

A country bumpkin calling himself dragon accuses another of being racist.

Do you understand what sarcasm is? I was making what is known as "a joke", to poke fun at your assumption of my race. Titanium Dragon 03:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL READ IT!!!Its lame!!!! 216.186.65.143 23:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

--- For instance, they claim Africans brought culture to the Toltecs, when it is obvious that they did not do anything of the sort.

As an Afrocentrist I would not make the claim”Africans brought culture to the Toltecs.” Van Sertima has made a credible argument for the presence of Africans in pre-Columbian America. He has provided a framework, grounds for the aggressive study of that presence by students of Africa.

No, he hasn't. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for trans-Atlantic contact between prehistoric times and when the Vikings found Canada. There'd be evidence if it had occured, but there simply isn't. No genetic, no species, nothing. Titanium Dragon 03:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I am always cautious in using superlatives like “nothing”, "absolutely no". It usually gets one in trouble and displays great stupidity. Let me throw very small amounts of data at you of a larger stream. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

• the large body of eyewitness accounts of the earlier European explorer. Example Historia de Mexico by Lopez de Gomara in 1554, writings of Peter Martyr d'Aghera who documented early spanish conquest
• In 1992 Svetla Balabanova a toxicologist of Munich University found samples of cocaine and nicotine in 9 Egyptian mummies dating 1070 BC to 395 AD. Cocaine comes from the coca plant and nicotine from tobacco

which could only have come from the Americas.

• In 1975 two skeleton were unearthed at Hull Bay in the US Virgin Island dating 1250 AD with pre Columbian wristband. There has been findings of other black remains in pre-columbian sites.
• In 1974 Andrzej Wiercinski, a polish craniologist revealed that at least 13.5 percent of the skeletons from the Olmec cemetary of Tlatilco were Negroid
• Norwegian Thor Heyerdahl in 1969 and 1970 built Ra and RaII,based on Egyptian reed boats, crossed the atlantic showing the Egyptians boat were capable of such a voyage. Lot of data. Ivan Van Sertima has establish the outline for aggressive research for all students of Africa.

Keep in mind the Viking discovery theory was not easily accepted. There was alot of controversy too. 216.186.65.143 23:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The drugs in the mummies has since been explained to my satisfaction as not actually being what they were claimed to be. The rest is just not true, other than the Egyptian boat thing. Its worth noting, though, that while it is entirely POSSIBLE to sail across the Atlantic ocean with very primitive equipment, it is not plausible that they did so. The reason is, quite simply, that they had no reason to do so. You don't randomly sail off to open seas. Also, had they done so, they would have left their genetic imprint in the Americas. They did not. Titanium Dragon 06:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

--Quite simply put, Sub-Saharran Africa hasn't contributed much to the world due to reasons of isolation. Eygpt had an impact, as did the Moors, but for most of human history Sub-Saharran Africa was well outside the realms of China and Europe. It is not to say there weren't meaningful African civilizations, because that's untrue. Its simply that unlike the Europeans and the southeast Asians, they basically sat in their part of the world for the better part of the common era, thus meaning they had less of an impact on the powerful civilizations which have defined so much of the world's culture today.

It seems we have been reading Jared Diamond. Sub-Saharran Africa is a geographic designation. People and Societies contribute to the World. What you are really trying to say is black Africa hasn’t contributed much to the World due to reasons of isolation. You are using coded lingo. Again you show great ignorance and stupidity. When Europe was in her Dark Ages, Islamic civilization was far more advance than Europe. It was Islamic civilization that made the advances in science and technology, not Europe.

Not really greatly more advanced; they were busy killing the Jews much like the Europeans were, and its not like Mohammad was a very nice guy. Islam, like Christianity, was spread by the sword. It also ignores the far east, which was in quite good shape at the time. It is true that the Middle East was not as badly off as Europe during the Dark Ages, but the Dark Ages weren't as bad as many people think they were, either. Europe did come up with innovations and new ideas during the Dark Ages. Titanium Dragon 03:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Some of the major centers of learning was in Sub-saharan Africa. Timbuktu and Djenne contributed to the Islamic Golden Age. The language of the world religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism)Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic all semitic belong to the Afro-Asiatic language family originate from Sub-Saharan Africa.

Timbuktu wasn't an important city until after what is generally defined as the Dark Ages was over. Moreover, Timbuktu was a major center of learning and dissemination of middle eastern culture to Africa, not of African culture to the Middle East. Djenne served as a similar conduit of culture to, not from, Africa. Titanium Dragon 03:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

What I meant was the entire Middle Age. Middle Age was from the fall of the Roman Empire to the fall of Constantinople(1000-1453). Here is quote about the University of Sankore(founded 989 AD) in Timbucktu

“The primary focus of these schools was the teaching of the Qur'an,although broader instruction in fields such as logic, astronomy, and history also took place. Scholars wrote their own books as part of a socioeconomic model based on scholarship. The profit made by buying and selling of books was only second to the gold-salt trade. Among the most formidable scholars, professors and lecturers was Ahmed Baba – a highly distinguished historian frequently quoted in the Tarikh-es-Sudan and other works.” I have no problem with Timbuktu and Djenne serving as a dissemination of middle eastern culture to Africa. You seem to imply that Sub Saharan Africa only imports. You have a problem with connecting things. One of the second contribution was the Afroasiatic language which originates in Sub Saharan Africa. Semitic is one of the family. Most of the middle speak arabic and hebrew semitic tongues. We have a major example of Subsaharan African export216.186.65.143 23:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is that there's some point at which EVERYTHING is sub-Saharan, because all humans, black, white, ect. originally came from Africa. However, what Afrocentrists propose is that what modern people think of as blacks were the major innovators of a lot of important things, but it isn't at all clear that the afroasiatic languages came from what we'd think of as "blacks" at all. The Egyptian and Semetic languages were dominant among groups which were not what we'd define as black at all, and there is no real agreement on where it came from. It could have come from Ethiopia, it could have come from the Middle East, it could have come from Egypt... we just don't know, and because language predates history, we don't actually know the origins of many languages because they simply weren't written.

What major impact did sub-Saharan African thought have on the Middle East? Titanium Dragon 06:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

the slaves that was taken to North America and the Caribbean provided the capital for western industrialization

I suppose one could argue the idea of slaves as was applied in North America came from Africa, but that "culturual contribution" was pretty much stamped out by Western culture in the 1800s. Africa still practices it though, in some places. This was one of the significant contributions of Africa to the rest of the world. Not really a positive one though. Titanium Dragon 03:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Slave labor, the profits from it provided the CAPITAL for western INDUSTRIALIZATION. If cultural contributions was stamped out, America would be a twin of European culture. It is not entirely. Her music. Her language tells otherwise.216.186.65.143 23:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

World music Rock&Roll, Rap, Jazz, Salsa, Reaggae, all have a sub-saharan musical sensibility Cubism Art

I never said they didn't contribute nothing at all; in fact, I said exactly the opposite. I said they didn't contribute very much. Music is one field they have had an impact in, though its worth noting that a lot of the styles you've listed (all save Rock & Roll, really) are mostly popular among blacks, not whites, and that the one which is the most popular among whites, Rock & Roll, took a lot less from African music than the others. But claiming Cubism to be Africian in origin is, quite frankly, silly; its origins lay in France, not in Africa. Titanium Dragon 03:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

"I never said they didn't contribute nothing at all; in fact, I said exactly the opposite. I said they didn't contribute very much."

You are hilarious!!!! The opposite would be they contributed everything. You are laughable!! You are not a racist? You are neutral observer. I mention Rap(Hip/Hop). I don’t think MTV is playing Rap because black youths in America is listening to MTV. The largest consumer of Rap music is not black youth, its white youth. Hip Hop is global. All over Europe, Asia, and Africa. Salsa is big all over Latin America . Its biggest performers/partiers are white Hispanics. Jazz was America’s first major musical export. Its most cutting edge performers are now white, they are the ones that is keeping it alive. Your rock n Roll is just a continum of African American derivative of all the spawns of rhythm and blues, notice all your rock history book they allways reference "race music" and "rhythm and blues". Allan Fred coined the word and all he did was play R&B. It was the style of R&B espoused by chuck berry, little Richard that was called rock & roll. After Rock&Roll, African American created Soul, then funk, then Disco, then Rap/Hip Hop. Why is it the British Rock groups give credit to R&B groups/Blues artist but in America your historiographers say otherwise. Clapton always give credit to the great blues artist. The Beatles always given credit to the great R&B/Soul bands.

The Black Entertainment Channel is far more racist than any white person could ever be, and the fact that it does well is pretty damning as far as I'm concerned. In any event, yes, rap is more popular among blacks than it is among whites, and Eminem capitalized on the white rap market quite effectively. Rock n' Roll has a lot of different elements, and has evolved significantly from its origins. R&B was important in its evolution, but claiming it is entirely African is comical - it has a lot of influence from European music, and a lot of innovation. And hispanics are hybrid populations of blacks, native americans, and whites. Titanium Dragon 06:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Sub –Saharran Africa was not “well outside the realms of China and Europe.”

In fact she was well ahead of Europe in trade with the East. Again you reveal great ignorance and stupidity.

It is not to say there weren't meaningful African civilizations, because that's untrue. Its simply that unlike the Europeans and the southeast Asians, they basically sat in their part of the world for the better part of the common era, thus meaning they had less of an impact on the powerful civilizations which have defined so much of the world's culture today. Here are a few quotes:

To India “Swahili merchant ships operated along the East African coast all the way from Madagascar to southern Arabia.4 Merchants from East Africa were active in India at least by the 11th century

During the European colonial era, Portuguese encountered Swahili merchants from Mogadishu, Malindi, Mombasa and Kilwa in Gujarati (Indian) ships in the harbor of Malacca (in modern Malaysia).5

To China The Sung Shi (History of the Sung Dynasty) record visits to China in 1071 CE and 1081-3 CE of the embassy of Zenjistan. Zenjistan is the Persian form of the Arabic Zenjibar for the East African Coast.6 The leader of the embassy, whose name is recorded in Chinese as Zengjiani, made a considerable impression at the imperial court. On his 2nd visit, he received a large amount of "white gold" in exchange for tribute, and was given treatment due an honored guest. He is said to have taken 160 days to reach China, passing through Sohar in Oman, Kulam-Malay in South India and Palembang in Sumatra.7 Marco Polo of Europe only got to China in 1275 CE, 2 centuries after the Africans. African envoys were also active in India during this period. One regional system, centered on Mapungubwe, a site located south of the Limpopo River in modern South Africa, maintained trade contacts between the Indian Ocean coast, where Mapungubwe obtained glass beads and other Asian products, and pastoral communities of the eastern Kalahari Desert, where it found the products of cattle-keepers.

Between 1000 and 1500 AD, as the trading networks of southern Africa began to send their products to the Indian Ocean coast, the Swahili towns grew larger and much more wealthy. They served as commercial entrepots, attracting products (especially gold and ivory) which would then be sold to Arabian merchants for a variety of prized imports, including cotton cloth, Persian glass beads, and Chinese porcelain. In this way, the Swahili cities became the linchpin between eastern and southern Africa and the Asian trade networks which extended from the Mediterranean to China.

--Sure, Egypt did have an impact on the world, but it wasn't primarily black - it was a mixed-race culture like the US, with a wide variety of skin tones present. 

Its culture was African(black), that is not debatable same culture complex as Nubia(the African Nilo Saharran complex). Her phenotype and genotype is debatable. Her people evolved in Africa. The people who originally colonized Egypt came from the south, Ethiopia, Somalia(mythical land of Punt). There DNA reveals that. You use a horible comparison.”it was a mixed-race culture like the US, with a wide variety of skin tones present.” Not like the US. There was no East Asian, Indians, Native Americans in Egypt. There was Nubians, Southwest Asians, libyans, mainly blacks and white phenotypes. If Egypt was like the US, then all of Egypt would be classed as black. Egypt was essentially African. Its influence on the Western high culture is significant , your Greek high culture.

Saying its culture was black is silly; its culture doesn't bear much resemblance to any sub-Saharan culture, and really, to any modern culture at all. Egypt had its own culture, and claiming it belonged to some random (and modern) race is silly. Its culture was very distinct from that of sub-Saharan Africa. It did export its culture to Nubia (and to a lesser degree, vice-versa), but its culture wasn't "black" in any meaningful sense, because "black" doesn't mean anything. If you mean "sub-Saharan African" (which you do), then no. Indeed, part of the reason people MAKE that distinction is cultural differences. It did have some impact on Greek culture, but it didn't spawn it. Indeed, in the end, Greek culture came to dominate in Egypt. Titanium Dragon 03:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

"Saying its culture was black is silly; its culture doesn't bear much resemblance to any sub-Saharan culture, and really, to any modern culture at all."

Sir you are cracking me up. hillarious!!!We agree now that Sub-saharan means black. I don't know what you mean by "modern" but i will make some assumptions. If you mean as western in the present,no other culture in the past not even western societies resembled modern. If you mean sub-saharan Africa was primitive had no complex political structure and architectural marvels, you are showing great laughable ignorance. Look at some architectural structures in Timbuktu, Aksum, Swahili states, Great Zimbabwe. The terracota/iron sculptures of Nok culture. African clothing. African style of clothing Identifies ethnicities. The copper sculptures of Benin, and some of the weapons. Nubia produced far more pyramids than Egypt in the hundreds (smaller in size but more numerous). Africa learned to smelt iron on her own, that is one of the reason the Bantu migration was so succesful.216.186.65.143 23:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

"Egypt had its own culture, and claiming it belonged to some random (and modern) race is silly. Its culture was very distinct from that of sub-Saharan Africa. It did export its culture to Nubia (and to a lesser degree, vice-

versa), but its culture wasn't "black" in any meaningful sense, because "black" doesn't mean anything." Most Egyptologist “mainstream” and other will beg to differ. In the UNESCO summit of the peopling of Egypt, held in 1970, with numerous Egytologist, the majority concluded Egyptian culture was predominantly African. The race was questionable. There are cultural traits that you find in Egypt that is shared with other Sub-saharan African societies, that could not be found in the middle east and surrounding area. The notion of Divine Kingship, Matrilineal society, mummification of the dead, ancestor worship, plethora of animal gods and spirits, circumcision--female in particular, her language Hamitic part of the Afro-asiatic family which comes from Sub-saharan Africa...etc etc. etc. That is why most Egyptologist "mainstream" or other would not deny Egypt's African Sub-saharan "black" culture.216.186.65.143 23:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

They're African by definition; they lived in Africa. The question is whether they meant the same thing by African as Afrocentrists (who are really, let's face it, focused on claiming important accomplishes for what the modern world things of as "blacks", not on Africans in general). I'd say no. The reason I distinguished between sub-Saharan Africa and the rest of Africa is that it is distinct; the Middle East and North Africa were linked, and it was easy to cross the mediterranean to places such as Carthage. However, it was and is quite distinct from sub-Saharan Africa.

The other problem here is that the Egyptians probably exported their culture throughout the region. A lot of those ideas, though, are hardly unique. The idea of divine kingship is certainly something rulers like to exploit. It isn't as if the southeast asian leadership and the kings of Europe haven't claimed to rule by divine right before, and some have even claimed to be gods. Heck, the Pope of the Catholic Church is basically a divine king. Matrilineal society - I can sort of see that, but there's at least some evidence that a lot of societies were matrilineal at some point, and the Egyptian rulers were almost entirely male, with only a smattering of females - indeed, most of the Egyptians we know a lot about were male, which probably indicates that males had a considerable amount of power, and the pharohs are mostly descended from one another directly. Mummification of the dead exists in a lot of places, and most likely the African mummification comes from the Egyptians. Ancestor worship is pretty much universal; very few religions don't have an aspect of ancestor worship, and almost certainly predates the initial immigration out of Africa. And having lots of animal gods seems pretty common really; it'd be more telling if they had the same gods or similar ones. I'm not aware of an Anansi equivalent in Egyptian mythology, for instance. All of this is hardly unique.

Even all that aside, the problem is that the Egyptians exported their culture to Africa via the Nubians (among others), and being pretty much the most awesome society in ancient Africa, and the first really strong one, they were in the position to be very influential. I'd expect some of their ideas to have found their way to sub-Saharan Africa. Titanium Dragon 06:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You are laughable. You stated,"Egypt had its own culture, and claiming it belonged to some random (and modern) race is silly. Its culture was very distinct from that of sub-Saharan Africa".

You are defining black as sub-sabaran right now. Most nubiologist "mainstream or otherwise would class nubian culture as black and sub-saharan. Nubia and Egypt belonged to the same culture techno complex, you seem to imply that Nubia was the first receiver and Egypt was the giver and somehow Nubia was always the inferior. This is wrong thinking. When Egyt was first being settled around 6000 B.C. all the figurines, pottery, artifacts was similiar to the Khartoum Mesolithic. Egypt was doing the borrowing from Nubia, not the other way round. The discovery of Bruce William Qustul incense burners proves that Egypt and Nubia were coexisting states of the same cultural techno complex.216.186.65.143 23:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

You say:"If you mean "sub-Saharan African" (which you do), then no. Indeed, part of the reason people MAKE that distinction is cultural differences. It did have some impact on Greek culture, but it didn't

spawn it." I will say Greek culture was strongly influenced by Egypt, I will not say she spawned Greek culture.216.186.65.143 23:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

"Indeed, in the end, Greek culture came to dominate in Egypt."

Before the Greeks the Assyrians, Hittites, Persians, Kush(nubian). After the Greeks , Romans and Arabs.. It did not end with the Greeks. They are not a special invader. 216.186.65.143 23:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

---Afrocentrism emphasizes race because it is a racist idealogy.

I think you are the racist sir. You yourself are emphasizing race. You are using coded lingo.

I'm not the one who called a culture black (a racial term). You did. Titanium Dragon 03:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

---There's no evidence for their claims of widespread African cultural influence, especially in North America pre-Columbus.

Not definitively, but there is proof of presence.

No, there isn't. There's people who claim space aliens built the pyramids too, or that they date from 10,500 BCE, and there's more evidence of that than of widespread African cultural influence in pre-columbian North America.

There is proof of Africans in Meso America--how widespread their cultural influence is, is debatable. 216.186.65.143 23:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, you should sign your posts. Titanium Dragon 03:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

"For the record sir, I have yet to see anyone of your ilk completely disprove the Afrocentric paradigm." I've not yet met a person who can disprove that classical knowledge wasn't obtained by trading with Atlantis but that doesn't make it true. It's also pretty difficult to disprove a theory as vague as this. It says the Eurocentric ideology is false as it doesn't recognise Africa's contribution, but it fails to mention what this contribution was! Could someone please enlighten us. Everytime 06:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Mr. everytime and your ilk Could enlighten us as to why the claim Greeks are the sole originators of science. I could care less as to whether eurocentrist acknowledge African contributions. You need to enlighten us that the Greeks are the originators of science and all their wonderful acomplishments.

216.186.65.143 I never claimed that the Greeks were the sole originators of science. I simply asked what it was that they stole? I'd be perfectly willing to admit that they are unduly credited with something, if I knew what that something was! Everytime 00:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Its kind of arguable who came up with "science". The ancient Egyptians had at least some knowledge of it, but the Greeks were the first who really had what we'd recognize as science. However, the modern scientific method only arose in the last few centuries, and a lot of what transpired before the renaissance was a lot more questionable than what appeared after. However, it was a progression, and its hard to say the Greeks didn't have "science", but conversely what they had isn't precisely science either. The modern scientific methodology is European though.

As far as scientific innovations exported from sub-Saharan Africa, I have a hard time of coming up with any. Titanium Dragon 06:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have issues with comprehension let me complete the phrase, “the first Black African of his generation able to read the pharaonic language in the texts: he holds a degree in Egyptology and is a member of the Societe Francaise d'Egyptologie”Being invited to a to a major international conference among your peers and to participate is hardly "dubious"216.186.65.143 23:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC) The claim is dubious. Titanium Dragon 06:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Since you made the claim. Can you prove it is dubious, if you know what "dubious" means.Omniposcent 04:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"Yeah. And I suppose goths are African too, because they wear black clothing."

You make silly statemensts. I have met African American who are goths. I am sure there are African emigrants who grew up in america who have become goths.Omniposcent 04:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"Lots of things are black, including fertile topsoil (which is why it was called "black land", incidentally - the fertile soil of the Nile floodplain)."

If it was for the fertile soil of the nile floodplain it would be Rmt kmt=the men of the country of the black- men or the men of the black country "In the Egyptian language, a word of assembly is formed from an adjective or a noun by putting it in the feminine singular. 'kmt' from the adjective [hieroglyphics] =km=black; it therefore means strictly ....at the very least black men. The term is a collective noun which thus described the whole people of Pharaonic Egypt as a black people."Omniposcent 04:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You apparently neither understand nor speak Ancient Egyptian nor English very well. Suffice it to say that any response to this with more than "You don't know what you're talking about" would be flaming, and I don't know how much of it is simply lack of education on your part. There's no other real response, as you're just plain wrong. Titanium Dragon 07:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"There isn't proof of pre-columbian black contact,...."

Let me repaste

-the large body of eyewitness accounts of the earlier European explorer. Example Historia de Mexico by Lopez de Gomara in 1554, writings of Peter Martyr d'Aghera who documented early spanish conquest -In 1992 Svetla Balabanova a toxicologist of Munich University found samples of cocaine and nicotine in 9 Egyptian mummies dating 1070 BC to 395 AD. Cocaine comes from the coca plant and nicotine from tobacco which could only have come from the Americas. -In 1975 two skeleton were unearthed at Hull Bay in the US Virgin Island dating 1250 AD with pre Columbian wristband. There has been findings of other black remains in pre-columbian sites. -In 1974 Andrzej Wiercinski, a polish craniologist revealed that at least 13.5 percent of the skeletons from the Olmec cemetary of Tlatilco were Negroid Norwegian Thor Heyerdahl in 1969 and 1970 built Ra and RaII,based on Egyptian reed boats, crossed the atlantic showing the Egyptians boat were capable of such a voyage. Lot of data. Ivan Van Sertima has establish the outline for aggressive research for all students of Africa. Keep in -MORE --BOTANICAL The botanists have provided further corroborative evidence. The Portuguese were in West Africa, since about 1450, in fact before. The Portuguese found a cotton growing plentifully in West Africa and they took this cotton and planted it into the Cape Verde Islands in 1462. 30 years before Columbus. They assumed it to be indigenously African. When it was studied in the 20th century, they found it was not African at all. It was gossypium hirsutum var punctatum, which was grown in pre-Columbian C’bbean and in parts of South American. It is not African, yet it was transplanted to Africa and was growing plentifully there before Columbus. Not only that we’ve found zea mays in pre-Columbian Africa. American zea mays! Prof. MDW Jeffreys of Witwatersrand University,

a brilliant South African linguist, showed how American maize had travelled to Africa. 

It is distinct from African sorghum. It had moved across the African continent and he traced it down meticulously through linguistic footprints. And the Russians picked it up as it moved from Africa into Asia…..They showed that American zea mays had entered Asia before the time of the Columbus voyages. All this we ignore.Omniposcent 04:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Repeating yourself is silly. To put it simply:

• The drug studies were discredited.
• The skeletons at Hull Bay were not pre-Columbian; one of them was associated with a colonial coffin.
• The skeletons at the Olmec cemetary weren't African in origin.
• No one disputes the ability to sail across the Atlantic in ancient times, but that doesn't mean that they did.

Moreover, these supposed Africans who supposedly made up a large percentage of the Toltecs somehow managed to pass on 0 of their genes to the other Native Americans. This is wildly implausible, and pretty conclusively proves that at the very best, African contact was minimal.

The cotton was not from the Americas, you're simply wrong about that. Sorry. Its a common point of confusion which Afrocentrists promote.

People love making wild claims, but when they don't pan out after 30 years you have to think about why. The reason has nothing to do with racism. The reason is that Afrocentrists are racists and made up various myths, then cling to early reports which later are overturned because they were flawed, and the flaws show up after further analysis. Fundamentally, there's absolutely no evidence that the Africans went across the Atlantic, and if they did, they somehow managed to leave absolutely no genetic fingerprint within the Native American population. This has to be explained somehow. Additionally, there's no evidence of the introduction of African diseases to the Americas in pre-Columbian times, which is again very strong evidence against Africans visiting the Americas.

Sorry, but the evidence you've cited has simply not held up under scrutiny. The boats are nice, but they don't prove trans-Atlantic contact. Titanium Dragon 07:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Take the banana! The banana is not African. It is an Asian cultigen. However, we do not find the banana on the Pacific coast, the “Asiatic” side of South America. It is found in east Peru and along the Amazon – the “Atlantic” side. We found the medieval Peruvians digging up bodies and reburying them, feeding them symbolically with certain fruit. In the graves of the reburied dead, in late pre-Columbian strata in South America, we find the banana….. All the African, as well as the Arab-African words for the banana run through the South American languages in recognisable form….There is also the plantain variety, the sister of the banana…..One thing is clear. There was no native South American banana. That has been clearly established. Its appearance in pre-Spanish Peruvian graves and the ubiquity of its sister, the plantain, along the Amazon in 1513, cannot be explained by an introduction after ColumbusOmniposcent 04:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"there's lots of people who claim there was pre-Columbian contact but apart from the Vikings, none have left any trace at all."

1.Rober Marx founded a Roman ship and Roman amphorae in Brazil's Bay of Guanabra.

2.Read 1421: The Year China Discovered America. The Viking theory was very controversal. It was not easily accepted.Omniposcent 04:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Rober Marx was not a trained archeologist, and it seems likely it was a hoax or simply him screwing up, given that no further information on the subject has come out. Its no real surprise, people make wild claims all the time, then shut up when its realized/revealed they were wrong/making it up. Fact of the matter is, no, he almost certainly didn't find roman wrecks. A lot of pseudoarcheologists claim otherwise.

As for 1421... 1421 is entirely made up. The book has no basis in reality. The main character was real, but the Chinese did not visit the Americas. Every reputable archeologist knows this. 1421 is a trashy piece of pseudoarcheology, and this is well known. Doesn't stop people who have no idea what they're talking about from claiming otherwise, but such is the way of the world. Titanium Dragon 08:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"The drugs in the mummies has since been explained to my satisfaction as not actually being what they were claimed to be."

You are hillarious!!! Prove it "not actually being what they were claimed to be"!!Omniposcent 04:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Apparently you've never read the follow ups; this is fairly typical of pseudoarcheologists. If you actually had done research into the subject you'd know better than to bring it up as evidence. It was discredited. Titanium Dragon 08:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The rest is just not true, other than the Egyptian boat thing.

Prove "the rest is just not true". Here is the rest:

• In 1975 two skeleton were unearthed at Hull Bay in the US Virgin Island dating 1250 AD with pre Columbian wristband. There has been findings of other black remains in pre-columbian sites. • In 1974 Andrzej Wiercinski, a polish craniologist revealed that at least 13.5 percent of the skeletons from the Olmec cemetary of Tlatilco were Negroid Omniposcent 04:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"Its worth noting, though, that while it is entirely POSSIBLE to sail across the Atlantic ocean with very primitive equipment, it is not plausible that they did so."

First of all it was models of Egyptian reed boats. Hayerdahl sailed across

the Atlantic with one. It is not plausible that Egyptians did it? More silly statemenst.Omniposcent 04:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"The reason is, quite simply, that they had no reason to do so. You don't randomly sail off to open seas. Also, had they done so, they would have left their genetic imprint in the Americas. They did not" Titanium Dragon 06:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This might be the reason:

-In 1992 Svetla Balabanova a toxicologist of Munich University found samples of cocaine and nicotine in 9 Egyptian mummies dating 1070 BC to 395 AD. Cocaine comes from the coca plant and nicotine from tobacco which could only have come from the Americas.Omniposcent 04:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This was discredited. Titanium Dragon 08:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Where is the beef--proof please!!!!!

Its not DNA but physical:

-In 1974 Andrzej Wiercinski, a polish craniologist revealed that at least 13.5 percent of the skeletons from the Olmec cemetary of Tlatilco were Negroid Omniposcent 04:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This was discredited. Titanium Dragon 08:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Technical errors, no follow up 71.112.201.228 16:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

"Its mostly racism anyway; a lot of it comes from people trying to claim their race brought culture to the Americas, when it is clear the cultures of the Old World had no impact on the new world until after Columbus. Titanium Dragon 06:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)"

From Ivan Van Sertima --

"As far back as 1976, I made my position on this matter very clear. I never said that Africans created or founded American civilization. I said they made contact and all significant contact between two peoples lead to influences. "I think it is necessary to make it clear - since partisan and ethnocentric scholarship seems to be the order of the day - that the emergence of the Negroid face, which the archeological and cultural data overwhelmingly confirm, in no way presupposes the lack of a native originality, the absence of other influences or the automatic eclipse of other faces"-p. 147 of "They Came Before Columbus." See also Journal of African Civilizations, Vol 8, No. 2, 1986 "I cannot subscribe to the notion that civilization suddenly dropped onto the American earth from the Egyptian heaven" Omniposcent 04:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is that there's some point at which EVERYTHING is sub-Saharan, because all humans, black, white, ect. originally came from Africa.

The ultimate contribution, you got another one!!Omniposcent 04:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Except its meaningless, as Afrocentrists aren't talking about that. They focus on what are seen as "blacks", as shown from the article. Titanium Dragon 08:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

However, what Afrocentrists propose is that what modern people think of as blacks were the major innovators of a lot of important things, but it isn't at all clear that the afroasiatic languages came from what we'd think of as "blacks" at all . The Egyptian and Semetic languages were dominant among groups which were not what we'd define as black at all, and there is no real agreement on where it came from. It could have come from Ethiopia, it could have come from the Middle East, it could have come from Egypt...

I wonder how you would define "what we'd think of as "blacks" at all"? The science of linguistic would most logically put it there. Ethiopia has all version of the tongue in close proximity. Those who claim it is from the middle east are in the minority. The Monogenisis theory of humanity has been accepted because its most logical. There are those who still hold on to the polygenisis theory of man's origins.Omniposcent 04:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you not understand English, or do you simply build straw men for fun? In either event, its not constructive. Titanium Dragon 08:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"we just don't know, and because"

Ethiopia, based on linguistic science, its the most logical.

Those who claim the middle east are in the minority.Omniposcent 04:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

language predates history, we don't actually know the origins of many languages because they simply weren't written.

More silly comments--almost all of the bantu languages are not written but

its origins is certainly known.Omniposcent 04:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Uh, no. The reason is that human populations are migratory, thus we don't know where a lot of languages originated. We make educated guesses, but in this case, we don't know for sure, hence the dispute. Titanium Dragon 08:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

What major impact did sub-Saharan African thought have on the Middle East? Titanium Dragon 06:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Many of the prophet Muhammed's early companions were sub-saharan African, like

Bilal Ibn Raba, the first muezzin and Abu Bakra. Umar the second caliphate, his his paternal grandmother was Ethiopian.

"The other problem here is that the Egyptians probably exported their culture throughout the region."

So they are now connected to sub-saharan Africa. It is classical Africa.

Though the diffusion most likely was from south to north. When Egyt was first being settled around 6000 B.C. all the figurines, pottery, artifacts was similiar to the Khartoum Mesolithic. Egypt was doing the borrowing from Nubia, not the other way round. The discovery of Bruce William Qustul incense burners proves that Egypt and Nubia were coexisting states of the same cultural techno complex.Omniposcent 04:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"A lot of those ideas, though, are hardly unique. The idea of divine kingship is certainly something rulers like to exploit. It isn't as if the southeast asian leadership and the kings of Europe haven't claimed to rule by divine right before, and some have even claimed to be gods. Heck, the Pope of the Catholic Church is basically a divine king."

You show great stupidity/ignorance. Only south of Egypt displayed that

cultural trait. Southeast asia was not close to Egypt. Divine right of European Kings was not the same concept. Divine kingship means the kings physical body was the society. If the kings body was ill the society became ill. In Sub-saharan Africa when a monarch got ill he was put to death. In prehistoric time the pharoah would be put to death when he got ill or turned old.Omniposcent 04:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Matrilineal society - I can sort of see that, but there's at least some evidence that a lot of societies were matrilineal at some point, and the Egyptian rulers were almost entirely male, with only a smattering of females - indeed, most of the Egyptians we know a lot about were male, which probably indicates that males had a considerable amount of power, and the pharohs are mostly descended from one another directly.

You are sounding silly. Europe and the Middle East were never matrilineal. Only sub-saharan

Africa had matrilineal societies in the area. You are confusing matriarchy with matrilinealOmniposcent 04:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Europe and the Middle East weren't matrilineal in historic times, but it is difficult to make such assertations about prehistoric times. Titanium Dragon 08:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

If Egypt and her Southern neighbors were in historic times, but her European and Middle Eastern neigbnnors were not who is more linked culturally?71.112.201.228 16:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

"Mummification of the dead exists in a lot of places, and most likely the African mummification comes from the Egyptians.

lots of places yes but not places in proximity to Egypt except south of Egypt."

Sub saharan is now connected to Egypt.Omniposcent 04:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"Ancestor worship is pretty much universal; very few religions don't have an aspect of ancestor worship, and almost certainly predates the initial immigration out of Africa.

lots of places yes but not places in proximity to Egypt except south of Egypt.Omniposcent 04:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Almost every religion has some ancestor worship aspect, including Christianity. How often do Christians ask their ancestors to put in a good word for them in Heaven? Believe their grandmother is watching over them from on high? Its not uncommon at all; it is a very basal form of religion. Titanium Dragon 08:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"And having lots of animal gods seems pretty common really; it'd be more telling if they had the same gods or similar ones. I'm not aware of an Anansi equivalent in Egyptian mythology, for instance. All of this is hardly unique."

Nubians imitated Egyptian pyramids but they weren't exact imitations. They were

smaller and more numerous, so they weren't culturally connected to Egypt.Omniposcent 04:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"Even all that aside, the problem is that the Egyptians exported their culture to Africa via the Nubians (among others), and being pretty much the most awesome society in ancient Africa, and the first really strong one, they were in the position to be very influential. I'd expect some of their ideas to have found their way to sub-Saharan Africa." Titanium Dragon 06:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

So now Sub-saharan culture is now connected to Egypt. Cultural traits in

this north african society is similiar to Sub-saharan Africa.Omniposcent 04:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The Black Entertainment Channel is far more racist than any white

person could ever be, and the fact that it does well is pretty damning as far as I'm concerned

MTV started playing black videos in the late 80's. Michael Jackson was the first black artist. They initially did not want to play him. CBS had to make some threats and twist arms.Omniposcent 04:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

In any event, yes, rap is more popular among blacks than it is among whites, and Eminem capitalized on the white rap market quite effectively.

"My audience has gone from being over 95 percent Black 10 years ago to over

95 percent white today," ....Boots says he first noticed the shift one night in 1995, in a concert on the outskirts of Portland, Oregon. Opening for Coolio, he stepped center stage and grabbed the mic as usual, but then saw something unusual about the audience: a standing-room-only sea of whiteness. Some were almost dressed like farmers, he recalls. Others had their heads shaved. "Damn, skinheads are out there," he thought. "They can't be here to see us." But the frantic crowd began chanting along rhyme for rhyme. Boots Riley of the Coup, whose 1994 Genocide and Juice responded to Snoop Dogg's 1993 Omniposcent 04:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This is blatently wrong. He's not a RS anyway. Titanium Dragon 08:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Rock n' Roll has a lot of different elements, and has evolved significantly from its origins.R&B was important in its evolution, but claiming it is entirely African is comical - it has a lot of influence from European music, and a lot of innovation.

I never claimed such a thing. You have issues with comprehension.

I said,"World music Rock&Roll, Rap, Jazz, Salsa, Reggae, all have a sub-saharan musical sensibility." Well Jazz, Salsa, Reggae, and Rap has a lot of European music influences too. African American are creolized people. Europe has influenced their identity, values, and ethos. Omniposcent 04:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

And hispanics are hybrid populations of blacks, native americans, and whites. Titanium Dragon 06:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

There are variations. Hispanic is not a race. Spanish culture one could argue is

what connects them. A Mexican is different as night and day from a Cuban. In Cuba and all hispanics in the Caribbean have strong African affinities. The music you affiliated most with latin culture are from the Caribbean. Mexico has had Africans in their society but they were not that numerous and did not impact the culture. In fact the deliberate policy of "whitening"/ "mejorar la raza" almost irradicated the African population. Visit Vera Cruz, Costa Chica. You will see.Omniposcent 04:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hispanic is seen as a race by many. Claiming all blacks are members of the same race is far more disingenous, as blacks IN AFRICA have much, much more distant LCAs than hispanics do. Lumping all of Africa together, all black people in general together, as the Afrocentrists are wont to do, is far more incorrect. Titanium Dragon 08:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Because they are seen as a race does not mean they are. Some might take offense to the word hispanic because of the white spanish implication. The mono racial concept has been push by the miami cubans, some would argue. It was not Afrocentrist who hurled all blacks together, it was European racial ideologies.71.112.201.228 16:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Not really greatly more advanced; they were busy killing the Jews much like the Europeans were, and its not like Mohammad was a very nice guy. Islam, like Christianity, was spread by the sword. It also ignores the far east, which was in quite good shape at the time. It is true that the Middle East was not as badly off as Europe during the Dark Ages, but the Dark Ages weren't as bad as many people think they were, either. Europe did come up with innovations and new ideas during the Dark Ages. Titanium Dragon 03:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Sound like a diatribe from Rush or Oreilly. Displays great ignorance and

stupidity. Meanwhile, in the Middle East, Greek philosophy was able to find some support by the newly created Arab Caliphate. With the spread of Islam in the 7th and 8th centuries, a period of Islamic scholarship lasted until the 14th century. This scholarship was aided by several factors. The use of a single language, Arabic, allowed communication without need of a translator. Access to Greek and Roman texts from the Byzantine Empire along with Indian sources of learning provided Islamic scholars a knowledge base to build upon. In addition, there was the Hajj, which facilitated scholarly collaboration by bringing together people and new ideas from all over the Islamic world. Islamic scientists placed far greater emphasis on experiment than had the Greeks - an important contribution to the modern scientific method, with significant progress in methodology made (especially in the works of Alhazen in the 11th century).[1] The most important development of the scientific method was the use of experiments to distinguish between competing scientific theories set within a generally empirical orientation. In mathematics, the Persian scholar Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi gave his name to the concept of the algorithm, while the term algebra is derived from al-jabr, the beginning of the title of one of his publications. Sabian mathematician Al-Batani (850-929) contributed to astronomy and mathematics and Persian scholar Al-Razi to chemistry. In astronomy, Al-Batani improved the measurements of Hipparchus, preserved in the translation of the Greek Hè Megalè Syntaxis (The great treatise) translated as Almagest. Al-Batani also improved the precision of the measurement of the precession of the earth's axis. Arab alchemy, though flawed as a science, inspired Roger Bacon (who introduced the empirical method to Europe, strongly influenced by his reading of Arabic writers), and later Isaac Newton.Omniposcent 04:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm well aware of Islamic scholarship. I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here. I know how the flow of knowledge went. However, the Dark Ages of Europe did include many innovations as well, which are largely forgotten. The Crusades helped reintroduce Greek ideas back into European thought, and the work on mathematics in the Middle East were quite interesting, and a lot of important ideas camme out of the Middle East. No one would dispute that. I think you're making straw men here, or just don't understand what I'm saying. Titanium Dragon 08:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

what was the middle age innovation. you state you don't prove.71.112.201.228 16:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)