Jump to content

Talk:History of Africa/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Recent additions

User:Kacembepower recently added a map he made that suggests Mogadishu, a large city in Somalia and the nation's capital, was not, in fact, a Somali civilization as logic would indicate, but rather a Swahili one. After various unsourced edits to this effect, the user above finally produced some references to support his position. However, his sources all of have one thing in common and that is that they are all modern and written by people unfamiliar with Somalia i.e. writers outside the field of Somali Studies. This is important because Somalist scholars are intimately familiar with the historical sources on the city, and the actual historical sources on the city (that is, people who actually visited it in the distant past) invariably describe Mogadishu as inhabited and ruled by Somalis and/or Arabs (not Swahili people). These old authorities include the twelfth century Syrian historian Yaqut al-Hamawi, who explained that the inhabitants of Mogadishu were dark-skinned Berbers (the ancestors of the Somali). From J. D. Fage, Roland Oliver, Roland Anthony Oliver, The Cambridge History of Africa, (Cambridge University Press: 1977), p. 190.:

"Yakut, a twelfth-century Arab geographer, says that the inhabitants of Mogadishu were 'Berbers, of a colour between that of the Abyssinians and the Negroes."

And the Moroccan traveler Ibn Battuta, who visited the city in 1331 and made sure to distinguish between the inhabitants of the Bilad al-Barbar ("The Land of the Berbers", which was the medieval Arabic name for the Somali coast) and the Bilad al-Zanj ("The Land of the Zanj, which was the old Arabic name for the Swahili coast to the south of it). From The Rise and Fall of Swahili States by Chapurukha Makokha Kusimba, p.58:

"As to the occupants of these settlements, Ibn Battuta noted that the ruler of Mogadishu was from Berbera and his speech was not Arabic or Persian, but Mogadishu, while the occupants of Mombasa and Kilwa, he noted were Zanj, extremely black, with cuttings in their faces..."

And from I.M. Lewis, A modern history of Somalia: nation and state in the Horn of Africa, 2nd edition, revised, illustrated, (Westview Press: 1988), p.20:

"This distribution gleaned from oral tradition is supported by the descriptions of the early Arab geographers who refer to the Hamitic peoples (the Galla and Somali) of the north and centre by the classical name 'Berberi', and distinguish them in physical features and culture from the Zanj to their south."

Battuta himself is quoted on p.33 of Muslim Societies in African History by David Robinson as having written about setting sail toward the "land of the Swahili", while already being stationed in Mogadishu:

"Then I set off by sea... for the land of the Swahili and the town of Kilwa, which is in the land of Zanj.

We know that Battuta was already stationed in Mogadishu when he wrote about setting sail for the actual "land of the Swahili" because the book's author David Robinson introduces the quote above with a phrase stating that "Muhammad ibn Abdullah ibn Battuta, or Ibn Battuta as he is usually called, visited Mogadiscio and then set for the south. He had this to say about the towns he visited," which is immediately followed by Battuta talking about Kilwa and Mombasa in said "land of the Swahili".

The bottom line is, all the historical sources on Mogadishu & the Somalist scholars familiar with them understand and uphold the fact that Mogadishu has predominantly been inhabited and ruled by Somalis and/or Middle Easterners, not by Swahili/Bantu people. Mogadishu, while in part developed by Arab/Persian traders (and consequently Islamic in religion, architecture, and customs), was not Swahili since Swahili culture and language emerged from the interaction and intermarriage between a ruling minority comprised of Arab/Persian merchants/enslavers and their majority Bantu subjects/slaves, whereas historical sources consistently describe the inhabitants of Mogadishu as "Barbar" (just like the Somalis/Afars to the north), not Zanj. Mogadishans also spoke the local dialect of the Afro-Asiatic Somali language (much as the Hawiye majority in the Benadir region do now), not Swahili or any other Bantu language. Middayexpress (talk) 01:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

All references are standard historical academic text about Mogadishu, fairly recent not dated 1977. I notice most of your references for somalia is questionable, no date, isbn number, not even historical sources or academic sources. Some are not even in English. Most of your statement above is original research, not allowed on wikipedia. Your focus seems to be on the race of Swahili and Somali, the issue is about Mogadishu being a Swahili city, all these academic historians Shillington, Illife, Collins, Appiah, and Gates point out a Swahili Mogadishu. My map is almost a facsimilie to maps in Shillington and Collins. 168.156.251.65 (talk) 01:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually User:Kacembepower, as pointed out above, all of the sources that you cited are not by any stretch of the imagination authorities on Somalia. All fall outside the specialized field of Somali Studies (of which scolars such as I.M. Lewis, whom I quoted from above, are, by contrast, doyens), which the subject of Mogadishu -- a Somali city, not a Swahili one -- necessarily falls under. And per WP:VER, "academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources where available." All of the actual historical sources that I have quoted from, from Yaqut to Ibn Battuta, both of whom actually visited the city, likewise identify it as having been inhabited & ruled by the ancestors of Somalis, not the ancestors of Swahili people (the Zanj). Battuta clearly stated that the Swahili coast was to the south of Mogadishu & that he was heading for it afterwards. He also stated that the Sultan spoke Mogadishu, the local dialect of the Somali language (not Swahili). As with Yaqut before him, Battuta stated that the people in Mogadishu were Berbers (not Zanj), and that so was the ruling Sultan that welcomed him:

"As to the occupants of these settlements, Ibn Battuta noted that the ruler of Mogadishu was from Berbera and his speech was not Arabic or Persian, but Mogadishu, while the occupants of Mombasa and Kilwa, he noted were Zanj, extremely black, with cuttings in their faces..." The Rise and Fall of Swahili States by Chapurukha Makokha Kusimba, p.58

"The ruler of Mogadishu was a Berber (Somali) sultan who spoke Somali and Arabic with equal ease. Ibn Battuta seemed to have been astonished by the wealth of Mogadishu." David Laitin and Said Sheikh Samatar, Somalia: nation in search of a state, p.15

You can pretend all you want that modern, inexpert sources with no specialization in or experience with Somalia to speak of trump actual historical documents from the period as well as the testimony of scholars specialized in Somali Studies, but that won't change the facts on the ground. From Sanjay Subrahmanyam's The Career and Legend of Vasco Da Gama, pp.120-121:

"Kilwa, we may note, was visited by Ibn Battuta in the 1330s, and described by that time as having surpassed Mombasa as the dominant center of the Bilad al Zanj (as the Swahili coast was known to the Arabs).

However, in the very next sentence, he places Mogadishu in the Somali/Horn African Bilad al Barbar to the north and not in the Bilad al Zanj to the south, which he of course has just clearly identified as being synonymous with the Swahili coast according to the ancient Arabs themselves:

However, by the late fifteenth century, sharp trading and political rivalries of some importance existed between these centres; if, in the Somali coast (Arabic, Bilad al Barbar) to the north, Muqdisho (Mogadishu) preserved its pre-eminence, the dominant position of Kilwa further south was under challenge by both Mombasa, and the ruling family at Zanzibar."

Furthermore, Mogadishu was ruled by a series of peoples, including Emozeidi Arabs, the Muzaffar dynasty (a joint Somali-Arab federation of rulers allied with the powerful Somali Ajuuraan State), and Somalis from the Hawiye clan. At no point, however, was the city ever ruled by any Swahili or Bantu people:

"Thus Mogadishu, which in the tenth century consisted of a loose federation of Arab and Persian families, had by the thirteenth become a sultanate ruled by the Fakhr ad-Din dynasty. Three centuries later these rulers were supplanted by the Muzaffar Sultans and the town had become closely connected with the related Ajuran Sultanate in the interior. In this period Mogadishu was attacked but not occupied by the Portuguese. The true conquerors of the ancient city were those new Hawiye Somali settlers who defeated the Ajuran and brought the downfall of the Muzaffar dynasty in the early seventeeth century." I.M. Lewis, A modern history of the Somali: nation and state in the Horn of Africa‎, 2002, p.28

The closest it came to be was quite recently, in the late 1800s, when the city was briefly under the simultaneous control of the Somali Geledi Sultanate and the Sultan of Zanzibar (if the latter Afro-Arab can indeed be considered Swahili) -- hardly a "Swahili civilization". Only a few years later, Mogadishu would become a part of Italian Somaliland, again, hardly making it an "Italian civilization".
The fact is, as I pointed out from the start, Mogadishu has always been a Somali-Arab (Benadiri) civilization, not a Swahili one. Those are the people that built the city and principally inhabited & ruled it throughout its existence, including its medieval heyday. Swahili culture and language, by contrast, emerged specifically from the interaction and intermarriage between a ruling minority comprised of Arabs/Persians and their Bantu subjects, not between Somalis & Arabs (both of whom speak Afro-Asiatic languages). From I.M. Lewis (A modern history of the Somali: nation and state in the Horn of Africa‎, 2002, p.21), an actual expert in the field:

"There is little doubt that Arabian penetration along the northern and eastern Somali coasts is of great antiquity. It probably antedates the Islamic period; and certainly shortly after the hegira Muslim Arabs and Persians were developing a string of coastal settlements in Somaliland. From their condition today, from traditional sources, and from such documentary evidence as is available, it is clear that in these towns Arab and Persian merchants and prosyletizers settled usually as local aristocracies, bringing the faith, marrying local women, and eventually merging with the local inhabitants to form a mixed Somali-Arab culture and society. This new culture representing varying degrees of mixing and blending at different periods, and by no means uniform throughout the coastal ports, is the Somali counterpart to the more extensive Swahili society of the East African coast to the south."

I realize you don't know much about actual Somali history, but some of us do and speak not out of desire but knowledge. Middayexpress (talk) 04:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

At least you know one place in Africa. I see you have added more material comment the last time I was here. I do accept Mogadishu as Somali. The very same question did enter my mind originally, since Mogadishu is in Somalia. The people you quote as experts are doubtful. I am sorry but I don't accept I.M. Lewis(if you are not him) as an expert on Somalia. Somalian scholars don't even accept him as an expert. He and his ideas are described as "old" and "retired". I.M. Lewis's Retired Ideas and Somalia by Professor Abdi Ismail Samatar. Quoting me Roland Oliver, a prominent espouser of the Hamitic Hypothesis and founder of the Cambridge School of African History does not help your arguments of expertise. I find it interesting Jared Diamond seem to reference Roland Oliver quite a bit, in Guns, Germs, and Steel.

Do Englishmen still use the term "subjects". If they were Bantu subjects or Cushitic subjects, they would be speaking Arabic. The Swahili would not be speaking Swahili or Somali's would not be speaking Somali if they were "subjects". As you can see in North Africa, where Arabs dominate and conquer they don't share. They impose. The Berber language is now marginalised and in Egypt the last vestiges of the ancient Egyptian language in the Coptic Church, might be cleanse. Lets just say you find a lot of Copts living outside of modern day Egypt. It seems we have old retired Englishmen from the British imperial era trying to write African history. You have been coming to the article and constantly labeling the Horn of Africa. I thought you loved the Horn of Africa. I deliberately left Medieval Ethiopia out of the section of Horn of Africa to see if you were here in good faith. It is 9 months you have contributed nothing on the history of Medieval Ethiopia to the article, which tells you are not here in good faith. I have decided to complete this article, somewhere else in one of my pet projects. Working for free without self interest, bad idea. I thank you for one thing. You have made it clear that the other child of the Horn has been a bit neglected in broader African History.Kacembepower (talk) 15:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks and incivility only do you a disservice, not me. Your rather cryptic suggestion that where Arabs "conquer" they apparently don't share is irrelevant, as Arabs never conquered the Somali territories. They came as individual merchants, proselytizers and settlers (not en masse), and they never managed or indeed even attempted to subjugate the local Somalis [1]:

"Muuse Galaal (Somali poet, historian, sheekh, teacher, UNESCO representative for the MInistry of Education, and presently a member of the Somali Language Commission)[...] notes, where Arabs do miscegenate, it is with peoples they have enslaved. The Somalis, being warlike, and close racially to the Arabs, have never been enslaved by them. So although the Arab peninsula was the foundation of the religion of the Somali people, the degree of Arab cultural influence has been rather small."

Arabs did, on the other hand, enslave the local Bantus; that is what the term "subjects" referred to. Why this basic regional history is a source of distress, I do not know.
Further, why you deliberately left Ethiopia out of the section (as you've just indicated) is more a statement on your own decision-making than anything. Complaining about it is also not particularly ingenuous since the history of the Somali empires was left out of the page altogether to begin with, while Axum was of course already mentioned. As for I.M. Lewis, that link to an opinion piece from a rival scholar in no way changes the fact that Lewis is a doyen of Somali studies, and as such is widely respected for his large body of work [2]. Had you been better informed on the region, you'd already have been aware of this as well. In future, it would be more helpful to adopt a constructive tone rather than a confrontational one; I'm not the enemy here (nor need there even be one). Middayexpress (talk) 18:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

"Your rather cryptic suggestion that where Arabs "conquer" they apparently don't share is irrelevant, as Arabs never conquered the Somali territories."

That is the point. That is why Somalians don't speak Arabic.

"They came as individual merchants, proselytizers and settlers (not en masse), and they never managed or indeed even attempted to subjugate the local Somalis."

Again that is the point. Same with the Sahel, that is why the Sahel speaks native african languages and write native ajami scripts.

"Muuse Galaal (Somali poet, historian, sheekh, teacher, UNESCO representative for the MInistry of Education, and presently a member of the Somali Language Commission)[...] notes, where Arabs do miscegenate, it is with peoples they have enslaved."

Like North Africa, not cryptic there.

"The Somalis, being warlike, and close racially to the Arabs, have never been enslaved by them."

I am assuming racially you mean phenotypically. That is not exactly true. John Hunwick Arab Views of Black Africans and Slavery says,

One of the very first black Africans known to have been in slavery in the

Arabian peninsula, and to have become one of the first converts to Islam., was the Abyssinian called Bil!l [b. Raba˛], who was owned and then freed by Abü Bakr, the Prophet Mu˛ammad's father-in-law and later successor, to whom he gave his freed slave, who then accepted the Prophet's message and was given the position of

muezzin - "caller to prayer" by Mu˛ammad.

Abyssinians or Ethiopians are not that phenotypically different from Somalis. They can be distinct but not that phenotypically apart.

"So although the Arab peninsula was the foundation of the religion of the Somali people, the degree of Arab cultural influence has been rather small."

Agree. It is interesting. Some on Wikipedia have made the argument that because Somalia is part of the Arab League, she is part of the Arab world. I am assuming being part of the Arab World one would have a alot of Arab cultural influences, not small.

"Arabs did, on the other hand, enslave the local Bantus; that is what the term "subjects" referred to. Why this basic regional history is a source of distress, I do not know."

You obviously are not up to date with Swahili scholarship. They did not subject local Bantus, the evidence does not support that. Notions of Swahili culture being Arabic and Persian culture on the African coast is no longer accepted scholarship, that is from the colonial past a bit dated like the term "subjects". To use the word,"subjects" would be a bit anachronistic in current vocabulary. Any racist colonialist ideology on Africa would cause me concern.

http://books.google.com/books?id=LgnhYDozENgC&pg=PA128&dq=swahili+history&hl=en&ei=sQalTM1Vk_a2A4fowf0O&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=swahili%20history&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=frC8SAu9QxQC&pg=PA148&dq=swahili+history&hl=en&ei=QhWlTL2iCIjQsAOo-rT-Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CFUQ6AEwCDgy#v=onepage&q=swahili%20history&f=false
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsoPMbt5CZM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ew_3IQ6842Q&feature=related

"Further, why you deliberately left Ethiopia out of the section (as you've just indicated) is more a statement on your own decision-making than anything. Complaining about it is also not particularly ingenuous since the history of the Somali empires was left out of the page altogether to begin with, while Axum was of course already mentioned."

I deliberately did not write about "Medieval" Ethiopian History (Solomonid, Zagwe, etc.) to test how commited you are to the Horn of Africa. It is 9 months all you have contributed is 2 paragraphs only on Somalia. You have contributed nothing on that major period of Ethiopian History. But you are always coming around altering the geographic makeup of major articles you contribute nothing to. So let me refer you to incivility. I don't complain. When working for free there is a simple solution to complaining.

"As for I.M. Lewis, that link to an opinion piece from a rival scholar in no way changes the fact that Lewis is a doyen of Somali studies, and as such is widely respected for his large body of work."

The rival is a current professor. He is not retired. He is Somali. He lives Somali culture. He is highly engaged in Somali issues. He is publishes quite a bit and his opinion is highly sought after. It is not just him that has misgivings about the expertise of I.M. Lewis. I.M. Lewis: Celebrating The Work Of The Godfather Of Somalia's Darkest Era, SOMALIA WATCH

other critiques: http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showpdf.php?id=8552

"Had you been better informed on the region, you'd already have been aware of this as well."

I am aware now to know that the expertise of I.M. Lewis is questionable. He might be an expert in certain circles, but not in the circles he claims expertise.

"In future, it would be more helpful to adopt a constructive tone rather than a confrontational one; I'm not the enemy here (nor need there even be one)."

I don't know if there is a future. You are the one that alter articles, you don't invest the time in and contribute to. That is confrontational. I could care less if you are the enemy or not. All I know is the internet needs a reliable source of information on Africa and African peoples. Wikipedia is not the place for it. Any racist or bigot can edit her. The internal ones are the most dangerous.Kacembepower (talk) 04:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

You seem bothered by the fact that Somalis were never enslaved by Arabs, though I can't understand why since this is in fact the case. From yet another source [3]:

"One important commodity being transported by the Arab dhows to Somalia was slaves from other parts of East Africa. During the nineteenth century, the East African slave trade grew enormously due to demands by Arabs, Portuguese, and French. Slave traders and raiders moved throughout eastern and central Africa to meet the rising demand for enslaved men, women, and children. Somalia did not supply slaves -- as part of the Islamic world Somalis were at least nominally protected by the religious tenet that free Muslims cannot be enslaved -- but Arab dhows loaded with human cargo continually visited Somali ports."

On the other hand, the fact that Bantus in Somalia (the Bantus I was actually referring to) were enslaved by both Arabs and Somalis is common knowledge. Many of their modern descendants, in fact, still live in the southern regions (c.f. [4]).
Furthermore, that link to a paper on Arab Views of Black Africans and Slavery is irrelevant since Arabs did not consider the Somalis to be "black Africans"; they considered them racially distinct from the latter. This was enshrined in law too. Here's a passage on Sayyid Said bin Sultan, the ruler of Oman and of Omani possessions in East Africa [5]:

"In December 1839, small additions to the Moresby Treaty were agreed upon by Said. One addition shifted the line marking the limits of the "internal" Omani slave trade slightly westward so as to insulate the British "protected" states in India from the virus of the Arab slave trade. Another clause was designed to protect the "caucasoid" Somalis from enslavement. Said agreed that the Somalis, being "free men," i.e. Muslims, were not to be carried away from Africa as slaves.14 By implication, non-Muslims were suitable objects of enslavement."

Your complaints about the scholar and doyen of Somali studies I.M. Lewis again demonstrate a clear lack of familiarity with Somali history since he wrote much of the material that some of these later scholars' own work is based on. That is why he is being toasted in the first place by members of Chatham House, the Anglo-Somali Society (a Somali non-profit), and the prestigious School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) alike, as that same opinion piece by some random non-scholar that you just produced indicates. That is also why Lewis has compendiums by other Somali studies scholars dedicated to him, such as Milk and Peace, Drought and War: Somali Culture, Society, and Politics. As Professor Gunther Schlee, Director of the world-renowned Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology notes, "the list of contributors to this volume reads like a Who's Who in Somali Studies" [6].
Lastly, in terms of Wikipedia policy (which is all that matters at the end of the day), I'm under no obligation to edit anything I do not feel like editing, nor is there even a deadline to do so. In other words, it is none of your business what I do or do not choose to edit or how fast or slow it takes me to do so. I could edit exclusively porn-related articles at a snail's pace if I wanted to, and it would still be none of your affairs. This matter is closed, as far as I'm concerned. Middayexpress (talk) 00:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Reading your response provided me with comic relief. Who are you? I must be speaking to somebody else.

"You seem bothered by the fact that Somalis were never enslaved by Arabs,"

Quite the opposite. From my previous comment of Arabs not sharing that should be obvious. I am happy a black African nation was not Arabised. Somalis kept their native African language and culture, as did the Sahel, unlike North Africa, which saddens me more.

"though I can't understand why since this is in fact the case. From yet another source,"

I agree you can't understand why, that is quite evident. My friend let me educate you on a rule with islamic slavery. It was forbidden to enslave a muslim. Most slaves converted quickly to Islam because it was a pathway to freedom. Most slaves be it Bantu, Cushitic, or "Abyssinian", whatever were not muslims on being enslaved. In both your references its says:

"Somalia did not supply slaves -- as part of the Islamic world Somalis were at least nominally protected by the religious tenet that free Muslims cannot be enslaved"

"Said agreed that the Somalis, being "free men," i.e. Muslims, were not to be carried away from Africa as slaves.14 By implication, non-Muslims were suitable objects of enslavement."

This is from both your references. Now your claim that Somalian were not enslave because they were racially similiar or caucasoid to Arabs is absolute rubbish. Hunwicks work,Arab Views of Black Africans and Slavery is very valid. Its says Abyssinians or Ethiopians were enslave, who are phenotypically similiar to Somalis. One of the major source of slaves in the Arab world was the Slavic population of eastern and central Europe. The term slave comes from the word slav. Slavery in medieval Europe http://histclo.com/act/work/slave/eur/sla-med.html

You have link phenotype to language. In this video, the people are not from the Horn. They are not Ethiopians or Somalis. They are Tutsis, no different genetically from Hutus. They are Bantus. Their genetics are not from the Horn. Also, Kikuyu Bantus in Kenya, can have so called caucasoid phenotypic traits. In West Africa, ethnique groups of the Niger Congo group can also have the caucasoid phenotypic trait, and I am not just talking about Fulanis. Dry heat can produce the trait.

"On the other hand, the fact that Bantus in Somalia (the Bantus I was actually referring to) were enslaved by both Arabs and Somalis is common knowledge. Many of their modern descendants, in fact, still live in the southern regions"

We have moved from Swahili Bantus to Somali Bantus. Why not enslave the Swahili Bantus? Swahilis are Bantus, since Bantus are the only one Arabs enslaved.

Your complaints about the scholar and doyen of Somali studies I.M. Lewis again demonstrate a clear lack of familiarity with Somali history since he wrote much of the material that some of these later scholars' own work is based on.

Apparently not this one based on his critique:http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showpdf.php?id=8552 . Plus he would not need secondary source. He is of the source. It wasn't a complaint, it was an observed fact.

that is why he is being toasted in the first place by members of Chatham House, the Anglo-Somali Society (a Somali non-profit), and the prestigious School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) alike, as that same opinion piece by some random non-scholar that you just produced indicates. That is also why Lewis has compendiums by other Somali studies scholars dedicated to him, such as Milk and Peace, Drought and War: Somali Culture, Society, and Politics. As Professor Gunther Schlee, Director of the world-renowned Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology notes, "the list of contributors to this volume reads like a Who's Who in Somali Studies"

You referenced "Chatham House", "Anglo-Somali Society", " School of Oriental and African Studies", "Somali studies scholars", and "Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology." You have not negated my original statement: "He might be an expert in certain circles, but not in the circles he claims expertise."

Lastly, in terms of Wikipedia policy (which is all that matters at the end of the day), I'm under no obligation to edit anything I do not feel like editing, nor is there even a deadline to do so. In other words, it is none of your business what I do or do not choose to edit or how fast or slow it takes me to do so. I could edit exclusively porn-related articles at a snail's pace if I wanted to, and it would still be none of your affairs. This matter is closed, as far as I'm concerned

It is the editors business. If you edit and re-arange articles that you contribute minuscule. It is that editors business who wrote 90% of it.In this article, you have contribute two pretty short section on Somalia, 9 months ago. You have contributed little else. We had to touch race. That is why you are here. Contributing nothing to articles on Africa, but instantly wanting to make changes that fits your racial POV. One of your English countrymen says its American race identity issue. I don't think he knows his own countrymen.72.86.24.67 (talk) 20:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me to quote from you the purpose of talk pages since there seems to be confusion as to what they are here for. They are reserved for discussing the actual article and nothing else:

Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal.

That said, I can see that this is a very emotional issue for you. But you are frankly wasting my time at this point with these irrelevant digressions.
In my comments above from September 30th, it's very clear that I am referring to the Bantus in Somalia being enslaved since I alluded to the "local Bantus".
Moreover, it is both disrepectful and dishonest to ascribe comments to an editor that the editor has never made; it is also a violation of WP:CIV. You claim I wrote that "Somalian were not enslave because they were racially similiar or caucasoid to Arabs". This is patently false. As can clearly be seen in my posts above, I quoted not one but two reliable sources explicitly indicating that the ethnic proximity of Somalis to Arabs was a factor in Arabs not enslaving them; those unfortunately aren't my words but the words of actual authorities on the issue. The bottom line is, there were many factors why Somalis weren't enslaved by Arabs, and indeed chief among them was the fact that Somalis were Muslim. But that was not by any means the only factor. Other factors include ethnic, legal (Somalis were legally exempted from enslavement; see the quote above) and behavioral considerations (i.e. the fact that Somalis were "war-like"). This too unfortunately is not coming from me, but from those same reliable sources that I've quoted.
That pdf on Arab Views of Black Africans and Slavery, on the other hand, is still likewise very much irrelevant since it does not even mention Somalis to begin with, while sources must directly discuss the subject: "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made. If a topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." That pdf is also irrelevant because, again, Arabs did not consider the Somalis to be "black Africans"; they considered them racially distinct from the latter and referred to them differently too. With regard to Somali cities:

"As to the occupants of these settlements, Ibn Battuta noted that the ruler of Mogadishu was from Berbera and his speech was not Arabic or Persian, but Mogadishu, while the occupants of Mombasa and Kilwa, he noted were Zanj, extremely black, with cuttings in their faces..." Chapurukha Makokha Kusimba, The Rise and Fall of Swahili States, p.58.

"The ruler of Mogadishu was a Berber (Somali) sultan who spoke Somali and Arabic with equal ease. Ibn Battuta seemed to have been astonished by the wealth of Mogadishu." David Laitin and Said Sheikh Samatar, Somalia: nation in search of a state, p.15

"Ibn Battuta referred to the two cities' inhabitants as Barbara or Berbers to distinguish them from the Zinj or Zenghi, the blacks, who inhabited the coast and hinterlands south of the Shabelle river." Katheryne S. Loughran, Somalia in word and image, p.18.

I will also ask you to stop linking me to weird, afrocentric Youtube videos on the genetics or supposed physical characteristics of unrelated people (i.e. Tutsis). I'm not interested in them nor are they in the least bit relevant to this discussion. They are also in no way reliable sources, as anyone can make them (refer to Wikipedia's policy on self-published sources).
You also state that I have not negated your original contention that the scholar I.M. Lewis "might be an expert in certain circles, but not in the circles he claims expertise." This is absurd since the only "circle" Lewis claims expertise in that is relevant to this discussion is in Somali studies, an expertise that is acknowledged by the overwhelming majority of scholars in that field (as that same link I produced earlier makes clear) [7]:

"The contributions to this volume, a timely collection of papers in honor of Ioan Lewis, read like a Who's Who of Somali studies. Markus Hoehne and Virginia Luling have mobilized many reputed scholars for this volume, but far from it being a ritualized homage to its subject, the collection actively engages with Lewis's work. Many of the authors take up the ideas of Lewis, the unquestioned doyen of studies on Somalia, and thereby prove the vitality and continued relevance of his findings to the country's society, politics, and culture." -- Günther Schlee, director, Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology."

Your critique from exactly one rival scholar unfortunately in no way comes even close to invalidating Lewis' acknowledgement as an authority and pioneering figure in Somali studies from the bulk of scholars in the field (and elsewhere in anthropological and historical studies too). Like I wrote, had you known anything about Somali history, you'd already have been quite familiar with Lewis and his esteemed position in it, which you clearly are not. Might as well try and challenge Isaac Newton's place in physics while you're at it since it's pretty much the same thing.
FYI, I have contributed to the Somalia and Ethiopia sections of the article because (1) the history of the Somali territories was not even included to begin with, despite the article being on the entire continent's supposed history; (2) what are rightfully Somali civilizations were being unjustly assigned to other people, and (3) I edit many Horn-related topics since this is an area that I am knowledgeable on; hence, why I have focused on those areas of this article. That is why I am here. I too could speculate on you reasons for being here, but I don't need to resort to ad hominem since I've got actual knowledge that I can rely on. That would also be a breach of WP:NPA, which stipulates that editors should "comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia."
With that said, it is not any of your business at all what articles I choose to edit, how much I choose to contribute to said pages, or how fast or slow I choose to make those contributions. Per WP:WIKIHOUNDING:

Wiki-hounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on pages or topics they may edit or debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor[...] The important component of wiki-hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions.

You also appear to think that because you may have made many contributions to this one article that you own it (your words: "It is that editors business who wrote 90% of it"). Unfortunately, however, you don't; see WP:OWN. Middayexpress (talk) 01:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Somalia -- Berberi civilization?

There's no explanation in Wikipedia as to what is meant by "Berberi civilization". The only occurrences of the phrase are repetitions of this same sentence. Checking Google also turns up a long list of sites that repeat the phrase from the same sentence, word-for-word. It's not helpful to Wikipedia users to include such a vague, unexplained phrase; that's why it was deleted. Rhyme3 (talk) 21:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The term was meant to be "Berber", not "Berberi". The "i" was a typo. "Berber" was the old term medieval Arabs reserved for Somalis & other Cushitic peoples of the Horn. Middayexpress (talk) 21:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Note that in Wikipedia (and elsewhere, generally) the term "Berber" is used for an entirely different group, not the Cushitic peoples of the horn but the Afro-Asiatic groups in regions west of the Nile (e.g., see the Wikipedia articles on "Berber people", "Berber languages", "Berberism", etc.). Wouldn't it be better to use some other term (such as, perhaps, "Cushitic") that will not be so completely misleading to most readers? Rhyme3 (talk) 22:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
There's nothing misleading about what the ancestors of Somalis were referred to. That's sourced fact. Complaining about that is like complaining about associating the Japanese with their own Jomon ancestors; it's a tall order. The fact is, we are talking about the past here, not the present (as is clearly indicated in the text). The name "Somali" wasn't even in use back then; that came later. This article is called "History of Africa" for a reason, not "African now" or some variation thereof. And even if it were an article on the present, that still wouldn't change the term for the Somalis' ancestors. Middayexpress (talk) 22:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Iron Contradiction?

In the "Metallurgy" section, it says there was ironworking in Egypt by the 1st millenium BCE. Then it says there was ironworking elsewhere between 1000-500 BCE, ''way before there was ironworking in Egypt. Are these two statements contradictory?70.179.92.117 (talk) 03:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

You should fix it.Kacembepower (talk) 15:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Who captured Africans for enslavement?

The first sentence in the second paragraph of the lede states "From the late 15th century, Europeans and Arabs captured Africans from West, Central and Southeast Africa and kidnapped them overseas in the African slave trade." There's an obvious omission from this statement: that Europeans and Arabs were not the only groups involved in capturing Africans; this was also done by Africans (see Slavery_in_Africa#Slavery_practices_throughout_Africa). Furthermore, the statement suggests that enslavement was unilaterally practiced by non-black Africans against black Africans, when the reality is that the enslavement of black Africans by other black Africans was commonplace before the Atlantic slave trade began, and it was also practiced against "white" Europeans by Africans at precisely the same time as the Atlantic slave trade took place. Between the 16th and 19th centuries, at least a million Europeans were captured, enslaved and expropriated to North Africa and the Ottoman Empire. Yes, that slave trade was smaller than that imposed upon black Africans, but it was nonetheless significant. (Ironically, the largest population of enslaved people today is comprised of black Africans, enslaved by other black Africans.) Regardless, I think that the statement should have this information added to it to give a more well-rounded view. I propose "From the late 15th century, Europeans, Arabs and Africans themselves captured Africans from West, Central and Southeast Africa and sold them overseas in the African slave trade. This took place at the same time that Europeans were being captured by raiding parties from North Africa, and enslaved there and elsewhere throughout the Ottoman Empire" (revisions and additions in bold) Thoughts? Occam's Shaver (talk) 06:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on History of Africa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Ham

No mention of Ham the father of all black people, this website is a joke. --Thqh (talk) 03:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a religionist platform for jewish tales. ♆ CUSH ♆ 13:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Because even from an 'in universe' perspective within Genesis, Ham was not depicted as 'the father of all black people'. The nations that are unquestionably said to descend from him are almost all in Arabia, Mesopotamia, and North Africa, with the links to Subsaharan peoples highly questionable. Though even this point is not particularly relevant, as the text in question is iron age mythology, and an encyclopedic article on the history of a particular continent is only concerned with factual accounts. Trilobright (talk) 20:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on History of Africa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Historiography of Africa

Anyone interested in creating a new article on the Historiography of Africa? Here are some sources:

  • WorldCat.
  • UNESCO guide to sources, 1970-1983 [8]
  • J.D. Fage (1981). "Development of African historiography". In J. Ki-Zerbo (ed.). Methodology and African Prehistory. General History of Africa. Vol. 1. UNESCO. ISBN 0435948075. Free access icon
  • P.D. Curtin (1981). "Recent trends in African historiography and their contribution to history in general". In J. Ki-Zerbo (ed.). Methodology and African Prehistory. General History of Africa. Vol. 1. UNESCO. ISBN 0435948075. Free access icon
  • Shillington's Encyclopedia of African history, 2005 [9][10]
  • Writing African History, 2005 [11]
  • Oxford's Very Short Intro, 2007 [12]
  • Oxford bibliographies, 2012 [13]

-- M2545 (talk) 10:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

The Historiographic and Conceptual Problems of North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa portion has major issues, primarily relying upon only 2 articles. The points raised are reasonable, but it relies on too few sources and repeats the articles so closely as to nearly be plagiarism.

Facts about reunification of Egypt after the first intermediate period

This articles says,
"By 2,130 BC, the period of stagnation was ended by Mentuhotep I, the first Pharaoh of the Eleventh Dynasty, and the emergence of the Middle Kingdom."
Isn't this wrong? As for my knowledge, Mentuhotep II reunited Egypt and the mere existence of Mentuhotep I is even disputed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by INKA000 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

"The earliest known recorded history arose in the Kingdom of Kush"?

Is this sentence from the lead section correct? I don't have access to the referenced book, but it seems pretty darn suspect, seeing as how the Kingdom of Kush started in the 8th century BCE, after the fall of the New Kingdom... — Preceding unsigned comment added by PauloDiCapistrano (talk • contribs) 02:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Corrected, thanks for noting! The claim made no sense and was probably added by an Afroncetrist. --Macesito (talk) 12:32, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:52, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Drafts

Three drafts, Draft:History of East Africa, Draft:History of Southern Africa, and Draft:History of Central Africa, have been submitted to Articles for Creation for review. This is essentially a split proposal. The drafts are currently in outline form. I have also asked for comments at WikiProject Africa. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The drafts have been declined with comments by User:Zoozaz1. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
The drafts have been resubmitted. Please review. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

"Pre-Colombian Africa" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Pre-Colombian Africa. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 30#Pre-Colombian Africa until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Macrakis (talk) 16:53, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Also Pre-Columbian Africa at the same discussion. Jay (Talk) 18:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Historiography Section

The section on historiography presents one particular, contested view as established fact, and is so bogged down in postmodern academic jargon as to be inaccessible to the general reader. I’m far from qualified to rectify the section, but it needs serious attention. 2600:8800:9C04:C00:5408:254E:B202:75D8 (talk) 01:25, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

It's too long and relies on just three papers. That's not "postmodern" jargon, but academic language in historiography, although it could do with simplification for a general Wikipedia readership. I will move the other section on historiography there but it will still need a lot of work. Even more problematic is the whole post-1950 section, which is extremely thin. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:55, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_Africa/Archive_2&oldid=1132379382"