Comments on: AFRICAN WOMEN IN AFRICAN CIVILIZATION

By: meuw

meuw — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 00:04:21 +0000

Hello!
I don’t have a link to the info that I want to share with you, but I will get it from my coworker. It is a piece on Lucy! It appears that the people have pulled the wool over the eyes of the world again. When I first heard of Lucy, I thought of the first Black African Woman, the first woman in the world. Then my coworker showed me the link with the pictures of Lucy! It was basically a primate. All of the bones were never found and the people, AKA THE MAN, mixed human bones of hands and feet and other parts to complete Lucy in the image of man/woman. It was and ape. But when everyone looks at it, men, women, and kids alike, they all say, “Look at the APE WOMAN!” The people are trying to put the image of MAN coming from APE into the brains of everyone. There were others who studied Lucy and saw that the bone parts added were human and the original bones were APE bones. They even had an APE pelvis and it was broken. They showed the original peoples notes and noted that when the original people were putting Lucy together, that they thought it was strange that Lucy’s broken pelvis looked like and APE pelvis. The Pelvis was shattered into many jagged unrecognizable pieces. The original people said that Lucy’s pelvis was stepped on by a deer. They showed the shattered APE pelvis and then magically, they showed the pieced together pelvis that had been manipulated to resemble a human pelvis. We did not come from primates! Lucy was a Primate. I will get the link for you at another time.

By: TuffRoc

TuffRoc — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 11:50:18 +0000

Greetings, how are you feeling this good day? What a joy it is to come across this blog. At last the black women is given what is due to her; RESPECT and HONOR. In’I as a nation of black kings and queens wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t for In’I mothers,aunts, grandmothers and sisters. When their husbands, brothers, uncles and fathers were lost for a solution to a particular problem they knew that the wo(mb)man was (hu)man enough to come up with a perfect solution to that problem. So big up to all Afrikan Empresses(wo[mb]men) who are proud of that sun-burnt face and dread crown. This Afrikan son is proud to be an offspring of such an honorable soul. Big Up Afrikan eye for uplifting our sisters and educating our some what ignorrant brothers on the power their sisters have as equal partners in life. Keep up the good work because if Afrikans are to reclaim our former glory we must first uplift the wo(mb)men of Afrika then In’I would see a way forward in eradicating the poverty, wars and diseases on Gracious Mama Afrika; In’I birth ground…. once more again Big Up to Afrikan Eye, In’I need more people like you; to rejuvinate the Afrikan spirit once and for all

Signing off wid seven words of love;

JAH(God) is Love so let Us Love

By: Roshan

Roshan — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 19:10:58 +0000

i love this i like to learn about my people it makes me happy to learn that women are the main roots of this world

By: Anita

Anita — Sun, 30 Sep 2007 21:44:23 +0000

THANK YOU for this enlightening article!
Delighted to learn that just like Native American societies in the traditional pre-colonial form, African tradition includes systems of Matriarchy and matrilineal kingship/chiefdom. This knowledge should be advanced in mainstream education!

By: Aviah

Aviah — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 21:08:58 +0000

I love it all, my mind is wirling now.And i cherish the images,i am looking for moore.

By: Christine S Brown

Christine S Brown — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 20:34:57 +0000

Enjoyed both your article AND the banter with “Chris” — you both have some valid observations. My question for you Afrikan Eye is basically “who are you?” Don’t mean to sound disrespectful, it’s just that I might want to use some of your essay in a paper that I am writing myself for a doctoral history class–especially since you have some excellent references. I need a real name for the Bibliography. (:

Christine

By: Chris

Chris — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 10:35:17 +0000

“”"It SHOULDN’T matter what sex God is but it DOES matter.”"”

Well yes of course it matters in the scheme of things. I just said it didnt matter to me, as an individual.

“”"You’re a man so you probably don’t REALLY get how disempowering it is to continually be told that God is a Man.”"”

Its true, there is no way I could know exactly what thats like. I know that. Wasnt trying to say that I did. Men often feel the same way when they are told god is a woman. So, while I dont and never will understand exactly what that is like, I do have some idea.

“”So although of course The Divine One has no sex,”"

Of course? Maybe you and I both agree on that point but most people do not. The idea of a sexless god is rather revolutionary at this time. And as a man, who has the idea of god as a man all around him, I would hope to be commended for my out-of-the-box and open minded thinking. : )

“”have you ever seen GOD portrayed as a woman”"

Yes I have actually. When I was a young man I read a graphic novel series called Spawn. It was very popular. Awhile into the story god is portrayed to the main character as an elderly african woman. And yes god, not goddess. This portrayel continues throughout the the series.

“”if Satan is Black then Black is Satan”"

I have never in my life seen satan portrayed as black. Or even being black in color. Usually satan is portrayed as Red, with cloven hooves, horns and a spikey tail. Also I have seen satan as an attractive woman, a man, various monsters, a beautiful angel, and a demonic avatar. These in cartoons, movies, and paintings.

Satan is portrayed as black in africa then? Not so here. Thats interesting. I had no idea.

By: Chris

Chris — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 10:09:15 +0000

I wasnt saying you were arguing against fossil proof, Only anticipating that you might. However you went another way.

I’m going to have to call this one a draw. What you have said is true but it is all theory. As you have said the issue is still hotly debated. Perhaps in the future the answer will be more certain but for now I think it is simply a matter of point of view.

Do you accept the new evidence as proving the new theory, or do you believe in the older theory which has its own supportive evidence and its own merit against the new?

Maybe in the future you will be proven absolutely correct but for now it is a matter of debate.

And of course some new evidence or argument might arise that discounts either of the two current popular theories.

“”"Well NO. A Black Afrikan is not a homo sapien with dark skin. There are the Aborigines of Australia whom, although they are dark skinned homo sapiens, they are less closely related to Black Afrikans genetically than white Europeans.”"”

I only said that Black Africans are Homo sapiens with dark skin. Which they are. Other Homo sapiens also having dark skin doesnt matter. I didnt mention others, or say that Black Africans were the only dark skinned homo sapiens. So at least that one sentance of mine was completely correct.

Read the rest of your essay. Enjoyed it.

By: Afrikan Eye

Afrikan Eye — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 09:47:41 +0000

One more thing…
It SHOULDN’T matter what sex God is but it DOES matter because males in history as evidenced through the creation of patriarchy which is premised on the glorification of males and the depreciation of all female, seem to think that if God is Man then Man is God. You’re a man so you probably don’t REALLY get how disempowering it is to continually be told that God is a Man. As a woman, I can assure you, it makes a difference, because when God has a male image, the attributes of ‘Godliness’ are associated with ‘manileness’, males are given higher positions in society because ‘they closer to God’ etc etc…So although of course The Divine One has no sex, it does matter that God tends to be portrayed almost exclusively as a man…have you ever seen GOD portrayed as a woman…and I mean GOD not GODESS (because that’s tends to have diminutive connotations itself).
Its like when folk say.. ‘it doesn’t matter that Jesus is always depicted as a white man’ Never mind the fact that depicting Jesus as white is a historical inaccuracy and fallacy, my bone of contention is that when white colonialists came to Afrika they USED the image of a WHITE Jesus and WHITE God and a BLACK devil to entrench racism and the straight LIE that whites are closer to God and that the white God gave the white man the job to ‘civilise’ the Black Native(never mind that one of the Most Holy spiritual pieces of the Catholic church is a BLACK Madonna). So as long as Blacks, Afrikans in particular, still see God as white, there is an extent to which we will fail to relate to God and a subconscious manner in which we will think if God is white then White is God…if Satan is Black then Black is Satan…these subconscious messages affect and guide our thinking and behaviour.

By: Afrikan Eye

Afrikan Eye — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 09:03:43 +0000

You said: “”Africans were the first to inhabit the earth.””
This statement is nonsensical. Africans were not the first to inhabit the earth. Those who you are erroneously referring to as Africans were actually a different species called Homo Erectus. And they were the only humans (beings of the genus Homo) to EXIST on the earth… anywhere…for a while.

I say: Why is this statement nonsensical? As far as we know so far the first homo sapiens were in Afrika and thus were Afrikans. National Geographic alongside a bunch of institute and universities actually did this research recently to find the ‘original Adam’ if you will, the first homonoid from which all humans evolved and they found that ‘he’ lived in Afrika so he was an Afrikan…they even went as far as constructing what this ‘original Adam’ looked like’ and he looks like a modern day sub Saharan Afrikan. So I don’t really see how that statement is nonsensical…

You said: But all races of Homo sapiens evolved from Homo Erectus at the same time and so all first began to inhabit the earth simultaneously.

I said: Aha but DID all homo sapaiens evolve from homo eructus?!! That’s what folks USED to think…but now there is emerging evidence stating that homo erectus may have been a branch in the homoid tree like homo habilis…that flourished for a while and then died out…this is still a raging debate with many feeling that in order to really get to the root of where modern humans came from. Look here (http://www.articlesbase.com/news-and-society-articles/is-homo-erectus-in-our-family-tree-179891.html and http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/12/1212_021213_journeyofman_2.html)
And even if you’re right that homo erectus was the precursor to humans STILL:
’ Today, there is general agreement that Homo erectus, the precursor to modern humans, evolved in Africa and gradually expanded to Eurasia beginning about 1.7 million years ago.’
So Black Afrikans are STILL the original ones.

You said: ””Therefore, the first woman to give birth was a Black African woman.”””
Again, nonsensical. A “Black African” woman is a Homo sapiens, evolved from Homo erectus, evolved from Australopithecus.

I said: Again, why nonsensical…see my comments above. There is general consensus that the first homo sapiens came from Black Africa…yes you may find some Homo habilis/ erectus, Cro Magnon, Neanderthelis in other continents but OLDERST REMAINS of homo sapiens are in Afrika…so it doesn’t take rocket science to extrapolate that s propagation of the species happened, the first person to give birth was a Black Afrikan woman. If ‘Original Adam’ looks like a Black Afrikan why do you suddenly doubt that ‘Original Eve’ is not a Black Afrikan woman?

Homo erectus evolved from Australopithecus in what is now Africa. So at first Homo erectus existed only in Africa. Then later Homo erectus migrated from Africa to Europe and Asia, then beyond. Homo erectus then evolved into Homo sapiens. This evolution occured wherever Homo erectus lived. Not just in Africa but also in all the other places of the earth. So Homo sapiens women gave birth all over the world basically simultaneously. Homo erectus evolved into Homo sapiens all over the world at about the same time.
THAT’S SIMPLY INCORRECT. You’re assuming that homo sapiens arose from Homo erectus, this is infact in dispute. Moreover if you track the human genome (you really should read up on the human genome project), the oldest ‘bits of DNA’ are found in Black Afrikans…that’s how thet finally traced the ‘Original Adam’ to East Afrika in Tanzania…a certain community there had the ‘oldest DNA’. You’re still stuck in the ‘multi regional model and in the words of experts(Chris Stringer, director of the Human Origins Program at the Natural History Museum in London):
“The multi-regional model of Homo sapiens evolving globally over a long time scale is certainly dead.”

‘”African populations have the most ancient alleles [gene pairs that code for specific traits] and the greatest genetic diversity, which means they’re the oldest,” Hedges explained. “Our species probably had arisen by 150,000 years ago, with a population of perhaps 10,000 individuals.”

‘By around 100,000 years ago, several species of hominids populated the Earth, including H. sapiens in Africa, H. erectus in Southeast Asia and China, and Neandertals in Europe. By around 30,000 years ago, the only surviving hominid species was H. sapiens. ‘

So ummm you’re wrong… Homo sapien women WERE NOT simultaneously giving birth all over the world. You’re wrong on this one : )

You said: “””It is from us that all humans have come. The other races of humankind all evolved from Black Africans.”””
No. I mean no insult, but no they didnt. All races of mankind evolved from Homo erectus. You could say that Homo erectus WAS “Black Africans” but that would be incorrect. A “Black African” is a Homo sapiens with dark skin, as is common to the Homo sapiens that evolved from Homo erectus in Africa.

I said: Well NO. A Black Afrikan is not a homo sapien with dark skin. There are the Aborigines of Australia whom, although they are dark skinned homo sapiens, they are less closely related to Black Afrikans genetically than white Europeans. Its only due to similar historical struggles and the ‘demonising’ of Blackness, that Black Afrikans and Aboriginal Australians have been lumped together. And on the whole homo erectus tip…PLEASE SEE ABOVE.

You said: “Black Africans” and Homo erectus are two completely different species. All races as they are today came from Homo erectus evolving in different climates…and so creating slight variations in the species Homo sapiens. This is all knowledge gained by fossil records and DNA analysis. As you cited for your statement. Since you used those very things as proof of the correctness of your statement, I dont see how you can argue against it. If you DO argue against it then you will also be arguing against the very validity of your statement in the first place- is grinning widely- I can be a tricky son of a gun cant I? I am beginning to greatly enjoy our mental fencing. Though in this one I think I have you.

I said: Haha! No no I think I have YOU on this one. Homo sapiens did not necessarily come from homo erectus. Your entire argument seems to be pinned on a erroneous assumption that homo sapiens came from homo erectus. And who said I’m arguing against fossil proof…I’m using it in support of my arguments…I think I have YOU on this one:)