What does Jesus1)Just because Jesus has brown skin is not definitive proof he was African. The criteria needs to go deeper than just subjective physical appearance. It may turn out he was African. Maybe the historical Jesus was from Ethiopia, but that needs research, not fantastical statements., Buddha, Mozart, Shakespeare all have in common? According to a lot of fringe scholarship they were all black men. Black like Nelson Mandela and Spike Lee. In the age of free-flowing information, is it any surprise that you can Google almost any person and find some YouTube video using “deep” scholarship to prove well known historical figures were really Black people. Unfortunately picture scholarship is not true scholarship. Comparative jewelry and nose widths is not verification of anything to do with identity. At best it proves subjective similarities which can be explained in a million ways. That is a parlor trick, not scholarship. And when we look at the work of people like Ivan Van Sertima, regardless of if we agree or disagree, we can see, in addition to comparative photos, there is a lot of deeper research going on. Not just matching features.
Google Search is not research, it is just a search of Google. It is not scholarship.
Some people in the African community have been doing something for so long and have built up an audience around the discovery of new Black people, an expectant demand from their fan-base pushes them to keep discovering more and more Black people to remain relevant. They must go from shock to greater shock in order to continue their career in pseudo-history. It is the same with conspiracy theories, and scholars like Amos Wilson warned us about this.
What is worrying is – why do people do this? With all the rich African history, why look at other people’s history and try to insert yourself into it? Why complain about Europeans taking away African history and claiming it as their own, and then come and return the favour. And what we find is extremely worrying. Additionally, it speaks to the slave mindset of race envy. As opposed to seeking out and learning about Ancient Ethiopia, Mali, legends like Mansa Musa, Askia and Menelik, we would rather chase down the boast of Arabs, Asians and Whites before learning and loving our own. So they know nothing about Umar Tal, or Tewodros, but they’re busy proving Mozart and the Samurai were black.
WHAT IS WRONG
So what is so wrong with looking at ancient statues and declaring them black men? Well, where do you want us to start? What is a black person? Well I can tell you one thing – if the first European builders were black, they did not call themselves blacks. Ok, what about people with black or dark skin? Well that is a whole lot of people who are not from Africa. Or is Africa the only continent that can produce black skin? What about curly hair? Is Africa the only continent that can produce curly to kinky hair? I think the climate does that, not the continent. So, any place with those climes would produce curly hair. What about people with broad noses? Oh, that makes you black? So, everyone with a broad flat nose is now a real Black person? But many native Africans from Africa do not have broad flat noses, yet people from outside Africa may have them. Chinese have flat noses, Ethiopians and people of the Sahel do not.
Neither do the Masai or the Ancient Egyptians. Even in Zululand, not all people have flat noses. So where is this nose thing really going? Physical features are not African or not in isolation. Black skin is not what makes you African. If having dark skin made you African then you just denied the Africanity of a whole lot of Xhosa and Khoisan people. What you are setting up is a very problematic argument, especially when we know from DNA that Khoisan/San people are the oldest people on Earth. So living near to the sun does not make you more African than someone who lives in the highlands of Ethiopia, exposed to different climatic conditions.
One funny YouTube video compares earlobe extension on Nuba person from Sudan to those seen on an Ancient Buddha statue. The problem with this kind of scholarship omits the confirmation whether earlobe stretching is uniquely African. 3)The Ancient Egyptian pharaoh Tutankhamun is one of the earliest known rulers to have stretched ear lobes, however, so do many cultures outside of Africa, from India to the Aztecs to Easter Island. And while its distribution is found more among African groups, like the Masai and Mursi, it has not proven to be exclusive to Africa. It certainly does not mean evidence of direct contact, genetic or via cultural transfer When did the Nuba start doing it? It is like looking at Masai bead work and then seeing it in China and saying Chinese took it from the Masai. But Masai bead-work does not go beyond contact with Europeans, who brought those beads to Africa for trade.
How does this scholarship operate? Well it is classic tunnel vision. They have no concept of scholarship. So Ako is a name found in Japan, but also West Africa. So, we now know that Japanese are originally Africans.
You cannot say Jesus was black, when black is still to be defined. What these guys are trying to say, when we cut it down, is that Jesus and Buddha and a whole lot of out of African cultures are you, and you are part of that greatness. It is not really scholarship as it has not even started to define the primary word in the subject–What is Black. Now you cannot switch black with African because we can do DNA and linguistic tests and find out there are Arabs in Palestine and North Africa who have more “African” DNA than these guys in Solomon Islands. Linguistically Arabic and Amharic are from the same source, the language of Amba has zero relationship to any African language. Genetically they are too different from native African populations to be classified as African. Looking like an African cannot make you African.
BLACKNESS IN ANTIQUITY
Blackness in antiquity is nebulous. It has no real meaning right now, what about back then? So, none of these people identified with anything we identified with. It is not like they pointed to the continent we call Africa today and said Ï am from there. And if you are unclear about this let us say Saladin vs Ali Mazrui, two different people, two different times. But both Mazrui And Saladin are connected because the identified with Islam, making them both Muslims. Although Saladin lived long before Mazrui. Shaka Zulu and Jacob Zuma have a connection despite the name change of modern South Africa and the fact that Shaka Zulu was not technically a Zulu, that came after him. He may have called himself by another ethnic name. But to pick a dark-skinned man based on a subjective picture from the middle of Asia and say he was black, with all due respect, is not scholarship but black mythology. Is the connection seriously coming down to nose widths and skin color? From a statue? Not even a Hi-Def 3D photo but a statue?
We all know, beyond debate, that our history has been hidden, stolen, covered up, reassigned, destroyed, deleted and transferred. A case in point would be African contributions to Islam and the entire history of Ancient Egypt. So we know this. But is the solution to insert ourselves into histories we have no place in, just to compensate for the destruction done to our authentic history?
Scholarship must be rigorous, it must use neutral methods. It cannot use such subjectivity and one plane of observation to validate something as nebulous as identity. When we say Ancient Egyptians were primarily an African people, that is not because they had curly hair or flat noses, because many of them did not. The argument for an African Egypt does not rest on these methods. Maybe Buddha was an African or a black man but it is not proven just by comparative picture scholarship. Some cultures use black paint to denote a religious state. They do not use black paint to be photo realistic.
We have enough history that needs to be discussed and learned. What is gained from talking less about Sokoto and Great Zimbabwe to chase down black people in Mongolia and Japan?
References [ + ]
|1.||↑||Just because Jesus has brown skin is not definitive proof he was African. The criteria needs to go deeper than just subjective physical appearance. It may turn out he was African. Maybe the historical Jesus was from Ethiopia, but that needs research, not fantastical statements.|
|2.||↑||This photo shows the Ethiopian Queen of Sheba meeting King Solomon. We can see how the African-Ethiopians contrast themselves ethnically against other African people.|
|3.||↑||The Ancient Egyptian pharaoh Tutankhamun is one of the earliest known rulers to have stretched ear lobes, however, so do many cultures outside of Africa, from India to the Aztecs to Easter Island. And while its distribution is found more among African groups, like the Masai and Mursi, it has not proven to be exclusive to Africa. It certainly does not mean evidence of direct contact, genetic or via cultural transfer|