Rasta TimesCHAT ROOMArticles/ArchiveRaceAndHistory RootsWomen Trinicenter
Africa Speaks.com Africa Speaks HomepageAfrica Speaks.comAfrica Speaks.comAfrica Speaks.com
InteractiveLeslie VibesAyanna RootsRas TyehimbaTriniView.comGeneral Forums
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
May 26, 2024, 08:54:59 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
25912 Posts in 9968 Topics by 982 Members Latest Member: - Ferguson Most online today: 139 (July 03, 2005, 06:25:30 PM)
+  Africa Speaks Reasoning Forum
| |-+  Books & Reviews (Moderators: Tyehimba, leslie)
| | |-+  Reviews of Cheikh Anta Diop, African Civ. Book
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Reviews of Cheikh Anta Diop, African Civ. Book  (Read 14181 times)
Junior Member
Posts: 592

Higher Reasoning

« on: August 26, 2003, 01:08:08 PM »


This is the tide of opinion based deeply in the hearts and minds of the people. These are strong points that are raised, the question is now, can you give satisfactory responses to them?  I am posting this for discussion, this is serious.

from The African Origin of Civilization: Myth or Reality by Cheikh Anta Diop

The following was posted about Cheikh Anta Diop's book, "The African Origin of Civilization: Myth or Reality" :

"No matter how much the very title of this book may be sugestive of new and challenging with regard to historic dogma,nevertheless,no matter how much liberal a person one may be,within the content there is truly nothing that is worth as an annex to subject of ancient egypt's history.How could somebody even argue with massive burden of evidence that has been insofar scrutinized from various aspect of sociological and exact sciencies?There are simply to many obstacles with regard to spectacularity of such a thesis,and this could easily leave impression that motives behind such a book are political,rather than scientifical. Ancient Egypt was a Civilisation,therefore a cultural system capable of providing self-reflection in form that is transcedental towards future.Certain pecuilarities of Egyptian civilisation are today almost universaly accepted icons-Pyramids with their treasures,Sphing,Hyerogliphes... Therefore it is indeed a cultural legacy that is worth to be cherished as "one's own",however all arguments are against those used within this book. Fact is that in Egypt there is a large population that is made from descedants of Ancient Egyptians-namely the Copts.They are for the most part offspring of pre-arabic population that has survived previous collonisation by Ptolemy's and Romans and have manage,trough customary endogamy to preserve their ethos,and although they lost the language-nevertheless they kept their identity.To assert that this people have no ethnoenetic ties with African Blacks,seems almost like exclaiming self-evident truth.In physique they represent variant of caucasoid stock,although darker in complexion than for example in Europe,a type populary known as 'oriental' or 'midlle eastern'.With regard to peopling of ancient Egypt,prodiguos efforts of anthropologigist,only reafirm that ancient Egyptians were caucasoids.Affiliations with Black Africa seem to have existed only in south-western parts.There is no evidence within anthropologic material that is against this. No one who have seen byst of Queen Noffretete,now in Berlin,as well as numerious masterpieces of ancient art-as well as more lesser known works-would gain an impression that they represent physical characteristic of African Blacks. To this may be added some other aspects-like Linguistic(Ancient Egyptian was semitic language-semites are known to be caucasoids)-and also archaeologic,but even without them one can understand that there is simply no case for claims that ancient Egyptians were African Blacks. Of course,some contacts may have existed-and that should be more emphasised in scientific works-but such claim is unacceptable by the virtue of massive evidence that already exists. Who needs such gross violations of History?History is ended chapter-but it seem that revisionism,under auspices of "New,Fresh Interpretation" is more and more fashionable these days.With regard to studies about Black Africa,claims have been made that all ancient Greeks and Izraelis in Biblical times were Blacks,in some other books-and such trend is remiscent of some kind of "contracultural science".Nobody will improve social situation with claims on foreign civilisations-it is better to invest energy in exploration that is more retrospective.Only when such spectacularistic and sensacionalistic aproach to historic matters is dismissed in favor of more synthetic methodology,results will be more satisfactory."

"1. Egypt is not the cradle of civilization - Mesopotamia is.

2. Herodotus was writing in the 400s BC, after Nubians (i.e., blacks) had overan the decayed Egyptian empire. Believing that Herodotus-era Egyptians were the same peoples as the golden age of Egypt is like believing that white people were Aztecs, Mayans & Incas.

3. Look at statues made in the 2000sBC - Pharoah Khafre (after whom the Sphinx was modelled) is obviously white.

4. Rameses II had red hair - Nordic racial type. Look in the museum that holds him if you doubt me (mausoleum in Cairo). Pharoah of the last peak of Egyptian civilisation (lived 1304 -1237BC). Also see the statue of him in Turin - this man is white.


Conclusion: Egypt was an increasingly polygot civilisation (indeed since its very conception), the pharoahs of which were mostly white until the last dynasties, 1085BC-Greek conquest in 300sBC, from thence they were Libyans, Ethiopians, Assyrians. and Persians."


The African Origin of Civilization: Myth or Reality by Cheikh Anta Diop

Posts: 43

RastafariSpeaks .com

« Reply #1 on: November 17, 2003, 09:36:44 AM »


Yes, iyah, this is a serious issue worth reasoning on.

I just started reading Diop, and have only read his last book "Civilization or Barbarism".

My impression is that Diop presents strong evidence for his arguments, and that he is a very convincing scholar.

Some of his points disturb me, though, but that, I think, is more because of their truth than the opposite. I am going to make a separate post on this issue later.

There were a lot of reviews of this book at Amazon similar to the one you quoted. Several people found the book laughable, accusing Diop of revisionism.

There is now so much evidence for the European falsification of African history, that the reverse claims made by these reviewers lose much of their credibility. In my opinion, they are just reactionary and outright racist.

On the other hand, I also found this review, by Merlin Robinson from Queens, NY:  
"Dr. Diop has carefully researched his thesis, and the evidence is compelling. But most interesting to me is the quite emotional reaction many have to the thesis itself. Few of western thought seem to be able to get past the title, much less read the research, which was methodically executed. Who could call herself scholarly and not at least entertain the idea?"

I agree with this reviewer that the emotional reactions of white people are quite interesting. I will make another post on Diop's thesis on race and social class, opening for a discussion starting with my own reaction to his points.


Senior Member
Posts: 610


« Reply #2 on: November 17, 2003, 05:59:17 PM »

I think the most important point to be made about Egypt is the one Dr. Ben makes: what is Egyptian about Egypt, whether we are talking about Old, Middle, or New Kingdom up to the Indo-Aryan invasions was there from the BEGINNING. To say that Egypt is not African is simply an absurdity. Look at the map.

Speaking of which, what is Europe anyway but West Asia?

The Mesopotamian 'cradle of civilization' hypothesis is being challenged all over the place. The beginnings of historical Egypt and Mesopotamia are nearly concurrent, but one thing that is clear is that the roots of Egypt are FAR older than 3500 BC.

Everyone should read Gerald Massey. Look at africawithin.com for some of his lectures. Hie "Egypt Light of the World" is also online.

Unfortunately, a contribution whites can make right now is to write scholarly works on this issue. Great scholars like Diop, Dr. Ben, and Dr. Clarke are ignored because they are black.

Ras Mandingo
Full Member
Posts: 460

« Reply #3 on: December 08, 2003, 07:01:12 PM »

I've read "Civilization or Barbarism" and have found Diop's arguments very strong and plausible.

I agree they may be disconsider or not accepted by some for pure racism and fear of admiting how Europe is not the cradle of civilization.


Wisdom, Knowledge, Strenght & Power!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Copyright © 2001-2005 AfricaSpeaks.com and RastafariSpeaks.com
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!