kemet is wayyy older then china and the indian subcontient is part of africa. I didnt even mean that there was no war other places just that europe it was more concentrated. 1st of all go look at chinese history they attritbute a lot of the stuff in the beginning to the blacc headed ppl from the west which was us. U dont realize that ancient india for example had a lot of things similar to ancient kush and for most of its history has been called east ethiopia that should tell u enuff.
Europe had more tribal warfare and other shit that's proven by the fact that up till the formation of the EU there were many little or big wars going on between countries and the farther bacc u go the more it happens. My point in that was that more warlike places tend to be more patriarichal. On top of that ur saying how it racist about the asian tip. Ok lets see with that. Ancient china is younger then ancient india. kush, or kemet. South east asian ways itz already known they were heavily influenced by ancient india and one way u still see that is the prevalence of bhuddism.
The fact that you know so little and saying how we were runnin around in animal pelts while chinese were making shit? They admit that we taught them yall were running around in animal peltz cuz not us. Ethnocentric shit? na itz cuz you fail to realize 1/2 the points I been making which is evidenced by the fact that u thought that ancient china was older.
Benefit of the doubt? I told u look it up cuz my bookmarks got deleted but why would I lie? To make myself feel better in front of a bunch of white ppl? LOL Im tryna show u shit that been stolen and hidden that you deny lets look at south amerikkka for example. New digs even suggest that the 1st ppl there were african/austrial aborigine. The 1st civilization were the olmecz for example. Go read the book fro example they came before columbus. You dont realize that one huge reason for keeping a lot of history hidden is to divide and conquer ppl and keep them from making claims. Did you know for example that a lot of louisana is owned by it was either the yamasee or wichita tribe. And a yamasee-wichita women owns most of georgia cuz she inherited it from her grandfather who was a chief bacc in the dayz.
n the proper name is not egypt thats a greek name it kemet. As for age they discovered the sphinx predates the sahara in the region cuz it has weathering on it from heavy monsoon like rainfall. on top of that since itz known that shit in india started from the horn of africa (civilization I mean) and bare stuff like the river ganges being named after him. And the fact that many of the oldest cities and the vedass are 6-7k years old then it pushes the date for other shit bacc and they still discovering new stuff that even older. Also the other problem is a lot of stuff for the oldest civilization would have disappeared and possibly been replaced one theory for that is this fact.
http://forum.grasscity.com/general/63637-nuclear-weapons-ancient-world.html
http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/377/13920_stones.html
Kemet is really not waaay older then ancient China. Though I suppose it depends on how your defining aspects of 'civilization'. What's the definition? When modern forms of homo sapiens were there? When they started forming permanent settlements? Because if just evidence of modern humans and just about people there being there you're looking at 18,000 to possibly 60,000 years ago in China. The earliest signs of domestication of animals which indicates some sort of agriculture that have been found date to around 7,000 BCE. Would something like that count? In India recent findings suggest permanent settlements starting at around 7000 to possibly 9000 BCE but it was about 4000 BCE when things really started rocking in terms of ancient vedic civilizations in the Indus Valley. Kemet and Kush had people for tens of thousands of years and more then likely a lot longer then China or India because as you say it seems that modern humans migrated out of that area and spread out yet that happened long before 'civilization' as it seems to being defined here. If you're talking civilization as in permanant settlements and agriculture you're looking at around 5000-7000 BCE as well, give or take a couple thousand depending on who your talking too. As you say there might have been things around earlier then that that have been lost to time but arguing about older or younger in terms of permanent settlement as a marker it's really only a matter of a few thousand years on either side. Historically in the history of humans that's a pretty short timespan.
Even if what you say is true regarding the dating of the Sphinx and other things that suggest pushing the well established dates back further, (I know about those things as well including suggestions of earlier dates of things that occured outside of the area now known as Africa) my question is what is the main point you're trying to make here? I don't think anyone is disagreeing that humans in their modern form emerged out of that area, nor that much of what you're refering to as early civilizations formed in that area. That is becoming pretty much established and is now taught that way. There might be a debate about the exact timeline and the specific details of how it happened but anything that old is going to be full of such debate.
Jumping over the pond to both North and South America and you find evidence of agriculture and permanent settlements happening between 5000 to 7000 BCE for sure with some things suggesting earlier dates. Though people were wandering around upwards of 12,000-15,000 years ago with recent findings possibly dating back further, upwards of another ten thousand years or more, though if you follow some indigenous histories orginating on this continant there is a lot of disagreement with dates, timelines and details.
As for the area now known as Europe recent studies, primarily in areas like linguistics and etymology of myth are proving to be quite interesting as there appears to be a more direct connection with the Celtic peoples who moved all around Europe and as far as places like Ireland, with ancient Hindu culture. Linguistics points to a commonally between ancent Gaelic and Sanskrit. This is really interesting as it's causing a bit of an upheavel in what was commonly thought about the ancient european histories and it's ramfications will likely take a bit of time to filter into the historical narrative. This both supports your assertion that the area known as India today birthed some of the earliest civilizations but also doesn't support an assertion that those people were largely uncivilized and wandering in some whitish European vaccumn. It's looking like it's more connected then people thought or better, connected way differently then what has been commonly thought. Recent studies are showing commonalities in things like social structure and relgion as well as focus on arts and education which was purposely wiped out when the Romans started their thing. Quite similar to how in modern history indigenous cultures were suppressed both physically and culturally due to modern day colonialism by Europeans. Though in this case if we use the modern definition of who is considered 'white', you have white people colonizing white people. Since those cultures histories were largely oral not recorded in any great measure. Then of course there were the peoples that the Celts moved in on like the Picts and other nameless cultures who are mostlt lost to history. They do say history repeats itself over and over and there are countless examples of the oppressed evoling into an oppressor as time marched on.
Druids, in their true form and not the fantasy version created in the Victorian era of folks running around in white robes and talking to trees or if you talk to an ancient roman practicing human sacrifice, appear to have more in common with the Brahmin class of hindu culture which makes sense if at some point in the past they originated out of a common culture, which as you say is connected right back into the civilazations of Kush, Kemet and the Indus Valley. When I started school I was taught that pre-roman Europe was full of barbarians and uncivilized people. In my 30ish year lifespan that belief has been proven and is continuing to prove to be as much as imperial type myth as some of the common myths about modern day Africa's ancient peoples that you're illuminating here.
Recent scholarship doesn't say much different then the general historical timeline of what you're saying. In fact, give or take a few details and dates (like around ancient Chinese history) , it's not news or anything revolutionary to me at least. Neither is it hidden because a lot of what you've said here in your posts about origins I was actually taught in school as far back as ten years ago. I have no idea what elementary versions of history teach now but if you take course in Uni much of what you're saying is covered.
Also using Buddishm as evidence of ancient India's influence on ancient China doesn't really work when your talking as far back as you are. Buddishm is positively modern in comparison as it only came into existence around 500 BCE.
There is much debate on what actually counts as 'civilization' and you'll find oodle of definitions of what it's markers are. They've also changed over the years for one as we learn more about the past and two as it moves away from strictly a eurocentric definition. In these types of discussions it really needs to be defined on what exactly you are anyone else means by it. Some say permanent settlement, some say the advent of agriculture which tend to be more common nowadays though even that's problematic when talking about very many nomadic peoples both ancient and modern. What people do tend to agree upon is that sometime around 10,000 years ago modern humans figured out agriculture and agricultural peoples began to pop into history in numerous different areas all within a couple of thousand years of each other. You'll find debates about whether this was an independent development or not but the question remains, beyond academic talk, why is it truely relevent today? Is the person trying to put food on their families table or deal with some sort of crappy situation whether due to racism, class, misogyny or whatever really going to care about whether culture A fostered culture B some 8,000 years ago? I ask this seriously because beyond asserting that white or europeon's history is not all that and the be all and end all of human history, which to me is just so blatantedly obvious and something that I think most people who post here understand even if they don't know the specific details of how it all played out, I'm just not sure of the point. Though for me it's been interesting racking my brain for the info I filed away in the far reaches of my brain. :D
Now you brought up tribal histories a up thread as well as question about ancient India and nuclear weapons. Well according to some of the tribal histories that I've been told that originated with people here way back in the mists people indeed had forms of technology that aren't in evidence now. In this case I've been told stories about old treaties between NA peoples and what we now call Africa and the Mid-east and that people from Turtle Island travelled there to help out allies using flying machines and fought in great wars across the oceans. This long before what eurocentrically has been called the dawn of modern history which at least when I went to school way back when was when the Greeks and Roman started their thing. Though this dating has long since changed as now it's moved back into places like Kush, Kemet, Mesopotamia, Indus and China as you suggest. These 'tribal' histories talk about the 'Great Law' moving from this continent to Africa and the Mid-east again way back when after it was established with some people here. They talk about the trade treaties that ran north and south for thousands of years, long before europeans came and established it east west. One elder actually talked about South America and stated that contrary to what people say it was the people here went to places over there and vice versa. And no you're not likely to find such stories in books or on the internet. I've looked because some of it was so durn cool.
The people that told me these stories say similar things that this history is hidden as well. Can I prove any of it? No or course not. Neither will I attempt to try one way or another. I just think its important to note that such stories do exist in other places and with other peoples as well. I don't think that anyone whether white, black, red, yellow or polka-doted holds an absolute truth about ancient human history or even more modern history for that matter. Just go talk to a FN's historian and you'll find a much different history of NA then the common narrative and disagreements about 'what happened' in only the past few hundred years. There's no agreement even with modern history. Heck get 5 WWII historians in the same room and you'll have a good debate about this thing or that thing. What's important I think is to recognize that yes indeed human history is not just 'white' or based on 'white' or what white values but that very many people from all sorts of places, color and cultures have contributed both positively and negatively to where we all are globally today.
