The Kush civilization flourished in Sudan nearly 5K years ago
smithsonianmag.com
smithsonianmag.com
This one seems to be on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X75COneJ4w8&list=PL6mz4AK-lT...
Unless of course you are referring to the other meaning of factoid, which is the opposite meaning..
I've never heard anyone actually use the original meaning, but frequently hear the "small fact" usage - except to point out the opposite meaning. (I've done some work in question answering, and the "small fact" usage is exclusively the way I've seen it used in that field)
Oh, is that what Ta-Nehesi Coates is named after? I decided to look, and apparently his name is slightly different, Ta-Nehisi. What's weird just just how often he's miscredited with the wrong name in articles online, whether they be blogs or new agencies (those might be alternate spelling tagging) or book clubs.
As I myself have an uncommon spelling of a fairly common name (with no common variations), I can only imagine how annoying this must be. It's probably self propagating at this point, since anyone that searches for it with the wrong name will find plenty of (wrong) evidence that they guessed right, depending on where their eyes land on the page.
The actual written names are "tꜣ-stj" and "nḥsj". That is, /tʔ stj/ and /nħsj/.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_language#Egyptologica...
The actual written names are "tꜣ-stj" and "nḥsj".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_language#Egyptologica...
Most of the top search results and Wikipedia entries tap out on cultures prior to ~5,000-~3,000 B.C.
Of course there are stand alone pages such as Neolithic_founder_crops https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_agriculture
Chalocolithic Period https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalcolithic
https://www.amazon.com/Origin-Consciousness-Breakdown-Bicame...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas_impact_hypothesi...
This is mostly because the evidence that links places to cultures taps out before around 5000BCE. There is of course evidence of large scale settlements prior to that time, but we have little hard evidence about how those map to peoples or cultures, living or extinct, due to lack of artifacts that definitively tie them to a particular culture. After that, we are left with things like projecting population migrations from linguistic evidence.
Perhaps the closest we might find are the remains of 10-30k year old indigenous settlements in Australia, of which we can be fairly confident of at least the set of cultures that produced them.
[1] https://www.timesofisrael.com/chief-rabbi-compares-african-a...
Hasidic singer slurs Obama at Jerusalem concert[2]
Terra incognita: Israel’s k-word: Can Holon teach us a lesson in racism?[3]
https://forward.com/opinion/361625/michael-twitty-black-jewi...
https://www.timesofisrael.com/hasidic-singer-slurs-obama-at-...
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/columnists/terra-incognita-isr...
I guess in English there are also such words that originally had no use as a slur but later "denominated" to racial slurs.
The reference to Kushi->Kof (monkey) is totally off. Doesn't sound similar at all for my native Hebrew ears.
A word is offensive in polite society because a population of people finds it hurtful, or because another population of people uses it in an intentionally hurtful way. Usually it's both. Innocent words can become slurs, and other slurs, over time, can become obscure and lose their power.
For example, the "n-word" in English obviously comes from the Spanish or Portuguese for the color black. Despite that, it's an offensive slur.
The older colloquial term in the English language for Romani people apparently comes from the word "Egyptian." There is no problem with being Egyptian. But many people find this particular word hurtful, and polite society is actively trying to retire it.
Maybe you have personal ideas about what "should" or "shouldn't" be hurtful, but I'm surprised that we don't seem to agree on how people actually use these words in reality. "Kushi" can be a slur even if your grandma's pet name for you was "my little Kushi" and you love that word to death.
I'm not aware of any societies without outgroups, are you?
I don’t think “black” “white” and “brown” can go away as descriptors like “blond” and “redhead”, but maybe someday they will stop being identity categories. America already has large non-native black populations in certain areas (West Africans, Somalis, West Indies, etc.), but I think the country still thinks of Black = African American = descendent of U.S. slaves for now, because the non-native blacks are still mostly focused regionally, like Somalis in Minnesota.
I guess this is another reason for the treadmill: distinctions that were implicit before maybe need to be made explicit as different things become salient.
Tl;dr your statement "The [euphemism] treadmill stops when you actually change public attitudes" actually means "The euphemism treadmill stops when you actually change public attitudes in such a way that I am personally comfortable with it's final state", because in reality the treadmill will never stop, someone will always push to keep it going, it's the reason why language shifts and changes over time.
>“Kushi,” or Kushite, became one of several Hebrew vernacular terms for “African” or “a black.” On its own — like shvartze, which is Yiddish — the term is not inherently offensive or derogatory, in the same way the word for “European,” in West African languages, is not at face value an epithet, but merely an implication of outsider status.
>Context, context context. When flashpoints emerge, these words take on a life far beyond being descriptors.
Same for the term shvartze in Yiddish, referenced elsewhere in this thread. I grew up with this term in my vocabulary and no harm was meant. But I wouldn't say it today, at least not if I was speaking English otherwise. In a fully Yiddish conversation I'd cut the speaker slack, though, especially if the speaker comes from a relatively secluded community that isn't experiencung the same drift in language the rest of society is.
Point is, context matters. You need to pay attention to how words change over time and how they'll be perceived by your audience.
source: I'm Israeli, fluent in Hebrew.
The Talmud speaks of an Etrog "Hakushi" to describle a black Etrog (Jewish ritual fruit). Not necessarily one that comes from "Kush".
"Kushi" is not more a slur than "Black". That is to say it is NOT a slur, although it CAN be used in a negative fashion when used in a sentence in conjunction with stereotypes associated with the black community. It all depends on the context of what is said.
It is totally not resembling "chinaman" in the context of it being used for describing negative stereotypes associated with the term. Though it is also not like "englishman" which is usually used in connotation with positive stereotypes.
Rather than trying to convince people that certain words are always ok or not ok to use, you should give reasons for others to reconsider their usage of the word and prompt them to think of the context before using the word. Then you let them make the choice of when to use it.
Never heard the connection with קוף before, though. Who are these some people that point this out? The linked article does not draw a connection between these two words because they ostensibly sound the same (barely), the only connection is that Yitzhak Yosef used the term כושי and in the same sermon compared black people to monkeys. The conclusion is that he's a racist and uses a comparison that I'm pretty sure is not restricted to a particular language.
Breathtaking photos and awesome article! I knew nothing about the Kush before reading this.
Yeah, doesn't look forgotten to me
https://civilization.fandom.com/wiki/Amanitore_(Civ6)
> Kandake Amanitore ruled Nubia at the turning of an era. A powerful queen, feared by her enemies and beloved by her people, she was one of the last great builders of the Kingdom of Kush. Amanitore restored the Land of the Bow to its greatness following a period of turmoil. Her rule was long and her works lasting.
> At least, that is what historians have pieced together. Two millennia and one dead language later, there is little surviving written record of Amanitore in the form of scrolls or other documents. What remains is carved into the very stone of the buildings she left behind.
> The most nebulous aspect of Amanitore's life is who she was before she became queen. Indeed, her personality is a cypher. We can only interpret. One abstract depiction of the kandake shows her mercilessly slaying enemies she has already subjugated. Was it from an actual incident where she ordered the execution of rebels, or propaganda proclaiming her righteous vengeance against those who would be enemies of the state?
> Even then, her actual role as queen is difficult to pin down. Conflicting accounts of her co-ruler Natakamani depict him as either her husband or her son, though thankfully never both. Furthermore, Amanitore succeeded Kandake Amanishakheto, who was either her mother-in-law (if Natakamani was Amanitore's husband), her actual mother (if Natakamani was Amanitore's son), or some other form of relation lost to time.
> The fuzzy details of Amanitore's lineage are less important than the role she held. The title of kandake—or “candace,” as the Romans called it—roughly translates to “queen-mother,” but it did not equate to a regent ruling on behalf of an heir too young to hold power. Instead, the kandakes were independent queens who ruled alone with husband consorts or with kings in a form of co-rulership.
> Amanitore's reign took the latter form, with Natakamani as her equal. There is scant information on any aspect of her life before she became queen (around 1 BCE). Still, monuments always depict both co-rulers as adults, so she was likely in her prime when her rule began. In fact, the depictions of Amanitore and Natakamani deliberately present the two as equivalent, particularly in religious buildings, which was uncommon for the time.
> With Egypt a Roman vassal and Rome on amicable terms with Nubia, no regional conflicts threatened Amanitore's reign. The relatively peaceful time and the collaborative autonomy of co-rulership let Amanitore pursue what would become her legacy—an extended period of building that brought great prosperity to the Meroitic kingdom. Among her works were the construction of Nubian pyramids and tombs, restoration of Amun's temple in Meroe, and infrastructure projects, such as the reservoirs built near the capital.
> Amanitore also rebuilt the temple of Amun at Napata—the same temple that Roman invaders had destroyed just two decades prior. As Amanitore’s name incorporated the name of the god Amun, it is reasonable to assume its restoration was a point of pride for the busy queen. Indeed, her efforts helped revive Jebel Barkal to at least a fraction of its former glory.
> Although the queen enjoyed cordial relations with Rome, the decades-earlier reprisal raids into Egyptian (which is to say, "Roman") territory had recovered bronze statues of Augustus Caesar as spoils of war. An apocryphal tale describes Amanitore burying the decapitated head of one such statue beneath temple stairs in Meroe so Nubians would always walk over the Roman emperor responsible for razing Napata. (It was most likely Kandake Amanirenas, her predecessor, who actually did this.) Whether or not she was actually responsible for its burial, the "Meroe head" of Augustus Caesar was recovered in the early 20th Century—found beneath a flight of temple steps.
> As with the confusion surrounding Amanitore's ascension, we know very little about the end of her reign. Some estimates put the date of her death at roughly 20 CE. Treasure hunters have long since plundered her tomb in Meroe.
> Despite the many unknown aspects of Amanitore, the extensive building program she left behind inspired later kandakes to expand upon her work, which in turn led to a flourishing of Meroitic culture and fortunes through the Second Century. Archaeologists continue to uncover examples of her influence, including a set of recently unearthed Nubian pyramids built during her reign.
So not exactly a fair analogy, and I don't see how your snarky low-effort comment moves the conversation forward in any way.
The article also isn't talking about "Europeans are racist and didn't appreciate black people". It's referencing about how Sudanese archaeology has been plagued by Diffusionism, a formerly dominant school of thought that's come under heavy criticism in the past 40ish years. Some people, myself included, will argue that diffusionism is a product of prejudiced ideologies and worldviews, but that's at least one step removed from what you're suggesting.
As an example: we know Carthage was a huge civilisation...until Rome razed it so we have no real idea today what ancient Carthage actually was like apart from that it was significant enough for Rome to burn to the ground.
Also, talking about "Europeans" is indicative of a total misconception of history in the period. Rome was a Mediterranean as much as a European one (north of Rome wasn't Europe as today, it was just a bunch of tribes). Many important figures that, ironically, people today say are examples of an over-emphasis on "Europeans" were Africans. Augustine being the best example, basically founded the theology of the early Church, he was a Roman but he was (in today's terms) also African. In short, trying to read the present back into the future is not smart.
As for the comment about Europeans, I was talking about modern academics (particularly of the early through late 20th century). The leading archaeologists of that period primarily came from European and American traditions. I have no idea what Augustine has to do with 20th century academia. Please feel free to enlighten me if there's a connection though.
That wasn't the claim. I will explain, although you would do just as well to go back and read what I said more closely...again. The point is: many people who are perceived to be part of the European tradition (i.e. Rome/Greece) are not Europeans. So when someone says: Europe has got a disproportionate share of work, these regions are ignored, their civilizations are ignored...this is wrong. Most of these civilizations were mutli-culutural/multi-national, and included Africa (the other big contributor would be the Middle East). Again, attempting to read the current political view onto the past. And the point about Augustine is that he was African, the point about academics who say things like: we are too Euro-centric is that they define Europe in a way that makes no historical sense (unsurprisingly, as they are usually arguing about things in the present, not anything related to history...the concept of Europe itself is not something with a clear historical meaning).
> ..the 3 classical areas of Rome, Greece, and Egypt have gotten a very disproportionate share of work...
Greece and Rome (in the sense of the empire) are literally the "classic" in so-called classical archaeology [1]. Egypt is included because it's comparable for this particular case and there's a pretty substantial overlap with "core" classical archaeology.
Again, I've written nothing about whether these areas encompass parts of Africa nor whether they were wholly European. I also haven't implicated racism as the reason for that disproportionate amount of study. The things you're criticizing aren't my views and trying to put words into my mouth isn't appreciated.
[1] https://lsa.umich.edu/classics/undergraduate-students/majors...
This is a mischaracterization in the same class as what's described in the article. Early Rome was just as tribal as the rest of Europe, and Greece has been tribal for almost its entire (ancient) existence. The major difference is that the tribes of Northern Europe seem to have been much less well documented, but they didn't live in isolation. There's ample evidence of trade routes spanning from the Iberian peninsula to the Carpathians, and across the British isles, the Nordic and Baltic states.
The "bunch of tribes" encountered by the Romans was actually a vast Celtic empire, which was itself preceded by other societies such as the Bell Beaker or Corded Ware cultures. But they've largely disappeared from the record because of the written legacy from the Greek and Roman empires.
> hinges on the current fad of 'Europeans are all racists and didn't appreciate a Black civilization', which is of course wrong.
... eh, until last century it was fashionable to attribute it to "just an Egypt copy, basically".
EDIT: On the latter topic, RE the guy who looted the Sudanese pyramids:
> He tried to sell the treasure, but at this time nobody believed that such high quality jewellery could be made in Sub-Saharan Africa.
The stuff he stole ultimately ended up in two German museums for _Egyptian_ artifacts.
Doesn't seem true to me; people seem aware of the Mayans and some of the stuff going on in Asia at the time (though generally not all).
It's an extra bummer quite simply because civilizations in the middle interact with more civilizations, and so are a great way to tie together everything else one remembers into a coherent whole.
(Umayyads conquer Sassanids and 100-200 years later have a big only-old-school-military-historicans-think-it-matters one-off battle with the Tang dynasty in like modern Tajikistan or something. What a great flashcard!)
Really? The Romans are known for their expansionism. Who were they conquering? Who was everybody fighting against in 300?
There was plenty of interaction, but the thing about those insignificant barbaric tribes is that they aren't worth conquering either.
(This was, in fairness, largely how the Romans represented it to themselves, regardless of how true it was, so it's maybe not surprising.)
The Macedonian empire was technically larger, including Persia, except it was never administrated as a whole and fell into pieces just a few years after coming into existence.
The Kingdom of Kush, and the people who came from there are well known to Jews. Moses wife Tziporah was a Midianite (as was Jethro) and he had a second wife from Kush.
The leaders of European nations fed and feed their populations large amount of misinformation about who they are and who people outside their borders were. If a monarch was made in the image of and chosen by god, how could the greatest structures in human history not be in Europe? The solution was to whitewash as much as possible.
You see this in the restoration of art for the last few centuries, many brown/black pieces turned white all of sudden. Some claim this was unintentional, but if we look at how Africans have been treated for the past 500± years, that claim seems suspicious and sounds more like ass-covering when the fraud was revealed.
I expect this exposing of fraud to ramp up as automated translation allows us to compare notes between the great civilizations of human history in the near future.
Title is clickbaity though of you interpret it literally. Article does not answer “why” it was forgotten.
We were kings and queens, never porch monkeys
There was empires in Africa called Kush
Timbuktu, where every race came to get books
To learn from black teachers who taught Greeks and Romans
Asian Arabs and gave them gold, when
Gold was converted to money it all changed
Money then became empowerment for Europeans
The Persian military invaded
They heard about the gold, the teachings, and everything sacred
Africa was almost robbed naked
Slavery was money, so they began making slave ships
Egypt was the place that Alexander the Great went
He was so shocked at the mountains with black faces
Shot up they nose to impose what basically
Still goes on today, you see?"
- From I Can by Nas https://genius.com/Nas-i-can-lyrics
I don't understand why make up stories when there are more than enough material with the colonial history.
Roughly: 'our people were good and peaceful until evil warlike invaders with wholly-different human motivations wiped us out.'
We should aim to fix injustices in the world. But building false narratives of differential demonization will only recreate problems in the long run.
Lets define warlike as those who have achieved a high degree of skill at warfare.
The Mongols who conquered cities and states were famously warlike. So were the Macedonians/Greeks under Alexander.
These lyrics bring home the point that so much of culture is historical narrative. I was reading Scale by Geoffrey West who is a particle physicist. Every 5-10 pages West brings up Plato/Aristotle. This was baffling to me till it dawned on that Greek history is the author's historical narrative, his cultural identity. Erase someone's history, erase their identity and you crush their progress. Give them a glorious past and they feel predestined to greatness. I believe good things will come from resurrecting the history of African Civilizations.
"Where is your history? How did the man wipe out your history?" - Malcolm X [1]
So I went and looked it up on Wikipedia, and it turns out that Kush had an alphabetic script. Many inscriptions remain but little of the language (Meroitic) has been decoded. Although they would have had access to paper as a result of contact with Egypt and the Hellenistic world, there's no indication that any books written in Meroitic have survived.
He was so shocked at the mountains with black faces
Shot up they nose to impose..."
Is that a reference to the Great Sphinx of Giza?
If so... it doesn't appear that Alexander the Great had anything to do with it.
Am I missing something?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Sphinx_of_Giza#Missing_n...
Edit: attempting to format the quote
It also helps to be closer to the modern era. Complaints that the Greek and Roman empires are better known seem a bit silly when you consider that they were in their peak closer to the present day than they were to Kush.