Comments on: African Roots of Ireland – Oguejiofo Annu

By: Art D

Art D — Fri, 02 Dec 2011 05:54:19 +0000

Perhaps because you’re able to “pass” as Euro you see yourself as us, which is OK, stay on your side but remember: If they knew where would you go? It is important, I feel to mention a salient fact but I’d like to couch it with a quote from Dr. Diop:” It isn’t a matter to which anyone can use to boast, but it is the way it is”. I personally wouldn’t consider it relevant if I hadn’t been continually cajoled, misrepresented and lied to about the Presence and Contributions of Africans to Civilization. From Science, Law, Philosophy, Language, Religion… I could go on and on. So it does matter

By: Dan

Dan — Sat, 26 Nov 2011 00:26:13 +0000

If you look at the protests in Tahrir Square today, you get a very good idea of what Egyptians
must have looked like since the start. I can well imagine a number of Individuals in the Dynasties were black like Sadat, but the Egyptians are literally what they were. That place doesn’t change significantly over millenia. Just like everywhere else with a sedentary agrarian population.

By: Dan

Dan — Sat, 26 Nov 2011 00:14:56 +0000

By and large, the problems in Africa today are African problems. Post colonial discourse can’t explain away all the ills. The West African slave trade was a genocide ( one that the British/Americans and Portuguese are responsible for) however, that trade ended in 1805. The imperial scramble for Africa happened 150 years ago and Africa threw off the system 50-60 Years ago. Lots of Nigerians, Sierra Leonians and Ghanans settled in London, Senegalese in Paris. Willing Enthusiastic emigres! Not captives.

You ought to address the complicity of Africans in the slave trade though. European crews didn’t venture beyond the ports. The chattel were brought in by willing collaborators who were aggrandizing their own power already.

By: Dan

Dan — Fri, 25 Nov 2011 23:55:45 +0000

The problem with etymology is demonstrated here: Eire, Eireann is the Irish name for themselves. It sounds closely like Aryan.

Formorian, sounds closely like Phonecian.

Yet both are absolutely false eymologies. The Phoenician did not call themselves
Phoenician. Phoenician is the Greek word for The purple dye the sailors from Tyre, Sidon etc etc sold. There’s no evidence they saw themselves as a people.

Eireann has no relationship to Aryan, a people in Iran/ India.

Please stop the mythopoetic speculation.

The pseudo etymologies are apauling.

By: Dan

Dan — Fri, 25 Nov 2011 23:44:55 +0000

I’m looking a Tahrir square protests… And they look typically Middle Eastern. Populations are remarkably static. You might be on more solid ground by pointing out that Sadat was black. There’s no reason to suppose that a variety of Egyptian Dynasties were actually blacks. One thing that distinguishes Egypt is it is a boringly regular place that has been more or less the same for 5000 years. Every year it floods blah blah blah…every 500 years someone rolls in on a Tank, gunboat, horse or chariot to set up a new regime. The people there just endure the mid millenium disturbances.

By: Dan

Dan — Fri, 25 Nov 2011 23:10:15 +0000

This is something that ought to be highlighted. The Romans annhilated a perfectly adequate
Gallic civilization. In turn they annhilated the British and their Druids. It took the Romans about 100 years to subjugate from Caesar in Gaul to Nero in Britain/ a related pair of peoples. If it took that long they were clearly organized enough to resist for a century. Organization and resistance for that length of time indicates a fairly robust organized culture. Also Caesar was widely considered to be a ‘war criminal’ for invading Gaul and destroying Gergovia and Alesia. ” They have created a wasteland and call it civilization” as a cheeky Roman historian put it in the mouth of a conquered Briton.

By: Deja

Deja — Fri, 25 Nov 2011 22:59:39 +0000

You really could benefit from real education…shame on America!

By: Dan

Dan — Fri, 25 Nov 2011 22:37:22 +0000

Some good points.

One of the reasons that subsaharan Africa is is such bad shape, is that civilization is relatively new there. The turmoil is a feature of culture that is right at the edge of a dominant system. It happened to the Indians in North America. When the Horse was adopted by Sioux ( Lakota) they expanded and displaced other groups who did not adopt the horse. However when the Sioux contacted the US they were in turn destroyed. They put up a great fight, yet they were going to lose. The Iriquois federation was in part a reaction to contact with the French and English.

Take South Africa. The Dutch colonized and displaced peoples. The Zulu nation was formed at the edge of this genocide. In turn the Zulu tribe grew subjugated various disturbed tribes. But once the Regular troops of the Brirish army contacted the Zulus the Zulus were also doomed. Even though they fought very well.

That sort of turmoil always exists at the edge of a growing Empire or conquering civilization. The complexity of the one system requires that the less complex is going to be shattered.

Contrast the turmoil in Mexico with their warring Narco cartels, and the relative peace in the US.

By: therese

therese — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 23:41:06 +0000

As a personal coment as a pale skinned individual with dark wavy hair when caught out in the rain start to locks up.You should also reference the Lewis chess mrn .Found after a violent storm washed up on the lse .I attended a lecture who described the hair style as braided .I commented afterwards the haie of the chess pieces depicted locks .Avery different interpretation.

By: therese

therese — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 23:28:20 +0000

History is 90% written open to interpratation and amendment. Get digging and observe.