Mr Punch

02-21-2006, 04:54 AM

I have a major distrust of the Western approach to corroborating subjects through so-called textual sources (as major sources of research material given the level of erroneous ideas birthed thru this methodology). This approach begs a certain degree of trust that, frankly, given the West's rather twisted approach to recording Western and non-Western "history" and culture, I cannot give unreservedly.Agreed on the biases. As a kid in the UK I learned about the world through its relationship with the UK. Fortunately, most of the world has had a relationship with the UK however exploitative and disgusting my countrymen's attitude was (although I am a reluctant apologist: most cultures are as bad as each other - and in this respect future conduct holds more interest to me) so I could learn quite a bit about some aspects. It's strange: we studied in our first history books about biases and differences in evidence, and yet we still only studied UK-biased history! It's like nobody really gave a **** about teaching different opinions/opposing evidence. Though it did help me to develop a very critical eye. Anyway, my schooling is pretty much ancient history too!:D

On the other hand, because I challenged a couple of your historical statements (lightly! - you know a lot more about this subject than I do!) doesn't mean I subscribe to the Western models completely. I challenge everything that seems to have a shakey foundation, only that.

However, through textual sources we have some very useful accounts of many countries and situations. This is not only from for example, a British officer's experience in the Afghan Campaign in 1815, but his relating of the locals' versions of history too. Although this is of course through a Western Imperialist's eye, in some cases it's still one of the most reliable sources we're likely to get. What's the alternative?

The vast majority of people "denying" African history has more to do with white supremist agendas/interests, etc., then to any legitimate reason to do so. It is as though expressing the idea that Africans have their own histories, cultures and traditions, which are worthy of respect, is some how an affront to white histories, cultures and traditions.Yes, but in many cases, even over and above white supremacist agendas is a basic human laziness in establishing accuracy. And even originally in the colonial days, I don't believe, having read countless first-hand accounts of officers and enlisted men in British Army, plus missionaries, doctors, teachers etc, I don't believe that the 'white supremacy' back then was the same as the term bandied about now.

Most of the actions of the British Empire were based on trade and its inherent greed, extreme ignorance, and in some cases a (naturally completely) misplaced belief that they were actually doing some good. There was no white supremacist agenda, as in a plan, they just 'knew' that whites were superior! Do you see the distinction? I think there was little malice. Of course that doesn't make their actions any better.

Also, I would agree with you that nowadays some historians are driven by white supremacist agenda, but usually still historians are just lazy and ignorant.

What do you mean by "most African traditions are oral?" The French deliberately destroyed the African script, from older African writing traditions, known as the Bamum script of the Cameroon. The Bassa script was discouraged by the "Colonial" usurpers of Sierra Leone. The Nsibidi script of Nigeria/Cameroon is the origins of the African derived Abakua script in Cuba. It is a gross distortion by Western propaganda to paint such an erroneous picture of traditional African societies.Sorry, I wasn't meaning that Africans inherently follow an oral tradition. Your post has just informed me of several African scripts which I didn't know existed, and you are no doubt at all, much better versed in African history than I am. But regardless, correct me if I'm wrong, most African societies didn't note historical stories and opinions down with their scripts, no? That's the distinction I was referring to about oral history. Not that they couldn't write! And again, I'm not necessarily saying that a written historical perspective is at all superior: we've already agreed that Western writing can be very dubious, but again, I'd like to know of any more reliable alternatives extant...

"Eddie" referenced the idea of whether or not Capoeira was African. What is interesting is that no one ever assumes the opposite until "proven otherwise." That it was created by persons of African descent is one bit of evidence that should be looked at before assumptions to the contrary are ever mentioned. He also mentioned a Tae Kwon Do instructor who noted Ladja's supposed "similarity" to Tae Kyon. Why mention this, since, clearly, beyond a superficial manner, the two are not related at all? One is African, the other is Korean. Since there were no known Koreans sent to Martinique, nor Africans known to have been sent to Korea (who may have practiced such African derived martial skills), why enter into a discussion with such a premise? What is the motive?That was Mickey, not Eddie! I've no idea what he's burbling on about, so ask him what his motive is!:D You've just mistaken Mickey for Eddie and asked me a question regarding his thinking! Be careful: don't lump us in together!;):o

And as to assumptions, why should we assume that something was African? On the other thread you've already laid claim to swastika, which are found throughout the world carved on rocks by the first people to carve anything, as are crosses, spirals, lozenges etc. You believe they are African in origin because I suspect you believe a lot of civilisation started in Africa. Fair enough. I believe they are part of human world culture which no-one can lay claim to. I don't really think you have any evidence claiming swastika as an African 'invention' yet you assume that people who disagree with that assumption are the 'bad guys' twisted by Western historical bias?

As to the rest of your post, it's great history and well-researched, I can see, and thank you for taking the time to write it up. But again, evidence that many African fighting arts use ducking and weaving type motion is not evidence that Western boxing is heavily influenced by any African arts.

I'll have a dig around to find descriptions by contemporaries complaining about the new-fangled fancy boxing styles after the boxing rule changes were introduced. Don't know what I'll find on the web.

And as you said, apologies if any of this seems at all heated. Please accept my assurances that they are not intended to be at all.

Cheers!:)

Mickey

02-21-2006, 07:10 AM

Hi Mat,

The Korean Japanese thing is old news:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_people

By the way Mat, I was responding to danmyete's post about the Taekyon/Capoeria question. He took down his post while I was responding to it and then reposted it; so, it is out of sequence.

With regard to the religious link between West African religions and Shinto yes, I do agree that what you stated can be said of the other earlier religions. When you start research the origins of anything you start to find connectives and truths: largely because you are truly dealing with consciousness.

I see much of danmyete's comments to be a very positive step against the view put forth by Toynbee who wrote that Africans have NEVER contributed anything of value to civilization. Though he wrote that so long ago, those statements still shape the minds of historians who would rather contribute findings to extraterrestrial sources than to the people and civilization that happened to be there.

mickey

Дата добавления: 2015-07-15