Black Spirituality Religion : We will NOT accept the story of Esau and Jacob. Because it is unacceptable.

Honestly, let's get this out in the open. The crux of our differences has all of its origin in our varying theology/religious orientation(s). As a believer in Islam, you have a religious justification at stake to argue that the Hebrews were Black and unlike their neighbors; on the hand, myself, as a follower of West African and indigenous First Nation belief systems, I have interest in the argument that they were not Black and that they were cultural interlopers and religious parasites.

Certainly, it behooves you to find the linkage and sustain it because Abraham is the fountain of the major 3 beliefs. Me, Abraham is nothing more than a piecemeal figure created to establish a historical link and validity for otherwise illegimate forms of religious thought.

Blackbird (bowing before the clan mothers and reverently passing the talking stick across the council fire to my esteemed brother)
 
Blackbird

Hmmm..... Referred to an Egyptian? Notwithstanding culture and dress.... Wow a superlative estimation... Egyptian by ethnicity and not by citizenship, right? Could you provide those moments of mistaken identity among the ancients....
I could.

But I'm not going to right now because I don't want to loose track of my point that the Canaanites were not Black/African.

So let us finish THIS meal first........


Now this is a picture that although is taken from a Biblical websit was an ancient painting BY Egyptians of themselves, Nubians, and Canaanites (bearded):

http://www.biblepicturegallery.com/free/Pics/Ham.gif

As you can see, they didn't see the Canaanites as the same race as themsevles.



This is another Egyptian picture of Canaanites:

http://www.hope.edu/academic/religion/bandstra/RTOT/CH6/CH6_TC.JPG

As you can see again, they aren't white, but they certainly aren't Black either.








Honestly, let's get this out in the open.
????
I thought we were already being honest and out in the open....I know I was.



The crux of our differences has all of its origin in our varying theology/religious orientation(s). As a believer in Islam, you have a religious justification at stake to argue that the Hebrews were Black and unlike their neighbors;
Not really, there are plenty of Muslims who believe that the Hebrews were white.
The race of the Hebrews and Canaanites isn't a fundamental belief in Islam.

I think our main difference is that you believe...as slaves were taught....that the Hebrews and Jews were historically white while the Canaanites and other "wicked" people of the Bible were inherently Black.

But I know this is false, so I no longer ascribe to it.




on the hand, myself, as a follower of West African and indigenous First Nation belief systems, I have interest in the argument that they were not Black and that they were cultural interlopers and religious parasites.
Why?
How does that promote or justify your belief systems?

And without straying too far off topic, out of the MANY West African and Native American beliefs systems....some of which oppose eachother....which one are you?



Certainly, it behooves you to find the linkage and sustain it because Abraham is the fountain of the major 3 beliefs. Me, Abraham is nothing more than a piecemeal figure created to establish a historical link and validity for otherwise illegimate forms of religious thought.
If his existance doesn't matter...much less his race...then why would you start a thread asking as many questions?

http://destee.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39701

Lol.........
 
Thanks for the pics...

Certainly, the four nations painting is very infamous often used by Eurocentric Egyptologists, although it was used by Diop. We have the Kamau (Egyptians), Kenensu "Nahasi " (Nubians), Namou (Asiatics) and Tamahou (Libyans). It's a very generic breakdown and it provides us with near-by ethnic environment.

However, it never specifies the Tchaas Ka'aniny (Canaanites) and more detailed descriptions of the Asiatics show a nomad associated with animal husbandry, which is more consistent to another group of Asiatics, the Habiru (Abraham's people), than the Tchaas.

Surely, we can deduce that the Egyptians were detailing people in lands of close proximity, but far as the Libyans were concerned, there were two known groups -one black and the other white. The Tehennu were a dark brown hue and were by most accounts Africoid in appearance. The Tamahou were those Libyans thought to have descended from the Sea Peoples that invaded the southern Mediterranean regions were domociled in Libya and Palestine. Understanding this is relevant for more clarity in regards to the Asiatics . Could it be the "Semitic" person(s) represent a more recent ever-increasing element into the already Black social stratum, which was diminshing due to wars and therefore were worthy of mention?

Very compelling visual but given the circumstances needs to much clarification and cultural understanding to be submitted as face-value evidence.. Good try, but not quite the aim.

Blackbird (shaking the turtle rattle and feeling orenda surging thru body)
 
Nsala malecum Dual Karnayan,

You wrote, "I think our main difference is that you believe...as slaves were taught....that the Hebrews and Jews were historically white while the Canaanites and other "wicked" people of the Bible were inherently Black.

But I know this is false, so I no longer ascribe to it."

Yes, as most slaves do, I do believe. However, it is by taking into light the cultural and historical evidence, not just a knee-jerk reflex based on Christian catechism.

You wrote: "If his existance doesn't matter...much less his race...then why would you start a thread asking as many questions?"

Namely, I love to hear people's opinion as well as their own research into the matter. Call it curiosity. It was thread that motivated the other one actually.

Blackbird
 
What I always find interesting about these arguments is, who is really being described exactly. The white anthropology and archeology community has put a lot preconceived ideas into the fray. It is impossible to use terms like Semitic, Hebrew or Canaanite alone to understand the complete racial and cultural complexity in that part of the world. It’s like digging in America 2000 years from now and trying to clearly distinguish what were or who were the New Yorkers, let alone an actual American of 2006. We know that we are intrinsically an African people in exile. But exoterically we speak a German derived language (English), we dress in European attire and are denoted as Black Americans in many text. Unless you had all of the evidence, our actual story could baffle an archeologist in the year, 4000 AD. I’m sure their scholarly analysis of the American ethnology and culture would be very different than what we presently know is true.

Though any people can adopt a culture, but Caucasians or Indo Europeans especially, have been historically known to either envelope, subjugate, or better yet become immersed and emulsified into the cultures of others, especially in their early development; and are also notorious for all-out cultural hegemonism, especially if they are conquering. It’s like they take your glory and give you their dirt.

When you look at the woks of many different scholars, it’s not what they discover and forensically surmise alone that is important, but it is their complete understanding of the story and their openness to certain variances, interpretations and possibilities that must be also considered.

It’s like when Diop commented on Andalusian Moors of Spain, he had very little interest in their African connections and it seemed he thought it was somewhat convoluted for so many Black scholars to adopt them into the greater African story, because he said, they had for the most part claimed Arabian ancestry in their genealogical records. But when you listen to Professor Ali Mazuri's explanation for why East African Muslims embraced their implied Arabic genealogy and historical connections, he digs deeper into the Arabization of the African minds of these Muslim’s who adopted the Islamic religion and Arabic language (which is in part an bastardized African Himyaritic language). Which eventually in turn, made them give all of the credit for the great cities of Eastern African, such as Zanzibar, to the glory of the Arabs (which we know is misleading, if not absolutely a lie).

It’s like when before Black pride, you could find Negroes upholding their Scottish, Irish or French heritage and genealogy as if they didn’t have an African gene in their whole body.

Even in scholarship there is a lot of room for interpretation and a lot to be readdressd. That which I mentioned about Diop pales, when comes to what the racist European scholars have hypothesize, which is then usually "set in scholarly stone" and not to be challenged!

Israel has made archeology in the Levant like digging for rare metals. There are still many questions to be definitively answered, by scholars who are not prejudiced by politics, religion or racism.
 

Donate

Support destee.com, the oldest, most respectful, online black community in the world - PayPal or CashApp

Latest profile posts

HODEE wrote on Etophil's profile.
Welcome to Destee
@Etophil
Destee wrote on SleezyBigSlim's profile.
Hi @SleezyBigSlim ... Welcome Welcome Welcome ... :flowers: ... please make yourself at home ... :swings:
Back
Top