)
Wepemnefer, Giza, IVth Dynasty, 2990 BC(http://asiapacificuniverse.com/pkm/A80.gif)
Ta_Seti, a premier online African-centered discussion group!
)
Wepemnefer, Giza, IVth Dynasty, 2990 BC
(http://asiapacificuniverse.com/pkm/A80.gif)
Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 08:53:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: Emiliano Zapata
To: GLORIA EMEAGWALI
Cc: athena-discuss@info.harpercollins.com, EMEAGWALI@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU
Subject: Re: More Greek History
Gloria:
Since we have yet to hear from Lefkowitz, I thought I would put forward
some of the points she argues about Herodotus in NOA.
In NOA, Lefkowitz names the Colchians as inhabitants from the "eastern
coast of the Black Sea" who were dark skinned.
Lefkowitz problematizes Herodotus as a primary source for E/G comparisons
due to mistranslations from Greek to English. Hence, we who do not know
Greek are dependent on those who do. Lefkowitz also characterizes
Herodotus in her New Republic article (I think) as "slippery" according
to the small number of experts who have used his narratives extensively
for benchmarking their in depth scholarship.
Lefkowitz calls translations of Herodotus into question on page 25 of NOA
referring to an alleged erroneous reference to Heracles lineage.
In addition Lefkowitz cites Herodotus' logical fallacy which she believes
renders his opinions suspect regarding origins of Greek culture and science.
On Page 65 of NOA Lefkowitz says:
"Herodotus thought that the Greeks might have been influenced by Egyptian
culture because the civilization of Egypt was more ancient than that of
Greece. In logic, this type of argument is called post hoc ergo propter
hoc, "after which means on account of which".(24) He does not seem to
have reasoned that cultural exchange almost always works in both
directions. Herodotus's explanation of the origins of the oracle at
Dodona provides an explicit illustration of after which/on account of
which reasoning....In a later passage, Herodotus again reasons that since
Egypt is the earlier civilization any common practice must have
originated in that country. He says that the reason why the rites the
Greeks call Orphic and Bacchic are really Egyptian and Pythagorean is
that each forbids the wearing of woolen garments. For him, superficial
resemblance, along with priority, is a sign of influence and even origin,
and he simply ignores what we would now consider significant differences....
"Once we understand why and how Herodotus makes these comparisons between
Egyptian and Greek culture, it is possible to see how, despite his best
efforts to get at the truth, he offers his audience misleading
information about origins. Unlike modern anthropologist [white?]who approach
new cultures so far as possible with an open mind [heh-heh]and with the
aid of a developed set of methodologies [the western positivistic
tradition?] Herodotus tended to construe whatever he saw by analogy with
Greek practice, as if it were impossible for him to comprehend it any
other way....Because he tended to rely on such analogies as he could
find, Herodotus inevitably made some false conjectures." (p.67, NOA)
For what it's worth.
eZ
-----------------
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 08:32:47 -0700
Message-Id: <199606021532.IAA12645@dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com>
From: polmansl@ix.netcom.com (paul manansala)
Subject: Re: The concept of "pure West African"
Gloria wrote:
I guess I am to the right or left of you , Paul, with respect
to this issue of "pure West African." Saharan West Africans,who
are generally ebony black, with hair of wool (in contrast to
horse hair), are as pure West African as any other.
******
I agree. However, I was referring mainly to the ancient Egyptians
not being pure West African.
******
They are generally lanky and tall, and as African as their
counterparts elsewhere in
the region.That is why the concept of"Africoid" is more
acceptable to me thn the concept "negroid". Are Europe"s
Scandinavian population less pure than other components? I
totally reject any concept that would force Africans to fit
Europe centered procrustean beds.
*****
I've always agreed that indigenous Africans are/were a diverse
bunch. The idea of Europeans being more diverse than other peoples
goes back at least to Hippocrates who stated that the people of Europe
were superior due to their diversity. He claimed it was due to their
living in a climate of four seasons. Later, the Arabs, who probably
borrowed more from Greek medicine than any other field, claimed in
some of their 'anthropological' works that Arabs were superior also due
to greater diversity. Here, of course, no mention was made of the four
seasons. The idea was that everybody else "looked the same," a common
ethnocentric viewpoint. The Sahara in the West usually describes all
the area north of the Niger river, and that includes a great deal of
territory inhabited by some of the most Africoid people anywhere. It
also was the home of a substantial element of those Africans brought to
the Western hemisphere.
Along the northern Sahara, near the coast, we find the
so-called "Mediterranean" type predominating, rather than the very
dark-skinned, wooly-haired, prognathous, gracile people you describe
above. However, even here I would agree that the great bulk of these
are indigenous Africans. Some European and West Asian gene flow has
occurred, but it makes up only a small percentage according to most
anthropological studies. Often, the so called "Caucasoid" traits like
straight nose are local adaptations, possibly to the dry, dusty
environment. I posted a quote from Molnar on this feature among
Nilotic tribes, which genetic studies have shown was not due to gene
flow from West Asia or Europe. And, of course, there are plenty
of people even along the north coast of the Sahara who would be
identifed as "blacks" in the West, for example, in a police blotter
(crime prevention being one area were the concept of race is still
quite alive).
-----------------
To: athena-discuss@info.harpercollins.com
From: phil smith
Subject: Athena-
Sender: owner-athena-discuss
Precedence: bulk
Regarding the Influence of Eygpt on Greece and Ethiopia's influence on Egypt.
A suggestion may be to back up and off a little bit from the "facts" of who
did what and when and understand the Context/Intent of which they are
presented.
Dr. Marimba Ani in Yorugu - An African Centered Critique of European Thought
and Behavior speaks of the European way of thinking.
"The secret Europeans discovered early in their history is that culture
carries rules for thinking, and that if you could impose you culture on your
victims you could limit the creativity of their vision, destroying, their
ability to act with will and intent and in their own interest."
NOTE: European is used as a term to describe the people coming from the
western part of the Eurasia Continent. Throughout history and the
interactions between African people and European People has produced
hybrids. These hybrids may look like one ethic group but think like another
ethic group, e.g., The African that thinks more European or vice verca.
The assumption I make is that --- It is not in the best interest of the
European Dominated world to have people think about their own history from
their own perspectives.
Europeans have traditionally set as standards of worth -- the European
Standard. They have been dogmatic in dichotomy thinking: Inferior,
superior; black, white; majorioty, minority.
>From the American Heritage Dictionary: Influence is Power to sway or affect
based on prestige, wealth, ability, or position.
For L to embrace Influence coming from the African would give credibility to
a people that had some ability, wealth or prestige. This line of thinking
in the eye of the European is outside of the norm of European Thought and
would be heresy. From their perspective and interest, evidence that
supports an African influence on Greece or Rome is not fact because it does
not support the concept of Blacks not creating anything.
Dealing with facts,
Drusilla Huston in the Wonderful World of the Ethiopians outlines
beautifully the historically influence of the Ancient Ethiopians, Cushites
or Nubians on the Arabian Peninsula, Mediterranean Region and the Far East.
Ivan Van Sertima's Journals of African Civilizations also cover the impact
the ancients have had on Far East, Europe and America.
Again for L to support and lend credibility to African Authors, Historians
is in conflict with the universal principle that Europeans created all and
no other race has contributed to the building of civilizations. If the
evidence does not support the perspective that maintains control of thought
then it is not legitimate.
Peace is the Quest for Knowledge and Truth
psmith@usbol.com
----------------
To: athena-discuss@info.harpercollins.com
From: errolhen@polisci.ufl.edu (Errol A. Henderson)
Subject: Not Out of Afrocentrism
X-Mailer:
Sender: owner-athena-discuss
Precedence: bulk
I appreciate the comments on my earlier postings and will attempt to deal
with most of them here. First, for Bernard the cite for Frank Martin's "The
Egyptian Ethnicity Controversy and the Sociology of Knowledge," Journal of
Black Studies, 14, 3: 295-325. For those interested Martin provides an
interesting argument against the methodology often used to assign "true
Negro" status among anthropologists and demonstrates why so often the "true
Negro" is not found in Africa because it is a statistical improbability( p.
308). I maintain that in a similar way affirmative action programs
following the recent Hopwood decision are going to make the "truly
discriminated against Negro" a statistical improbability, but let me stay on
point.
The comment concerning whether I considered the ancient Egyptians black
should refer to my earlier posting. Nonetheless, I maintain that where we
consider black in the manner in which it is described here in the US, not
only do I maintain that the ancient Egyptians were black but so does
Lefkowitz in her most recent article in the Journal of Higher Education.
Further, this was all that Afrocentrists were suggesting in the first place
when considering the race of the ancient Egyptians. As for critiques of
Afrocentrists, one should understand that there are different valences in
the worldview. St Clair Drakes' two volume Black Fold Here and There does
an excellent job of differentiating among them. Karenga's Introduction to
Black Studies provide some discussion of what he sees as a difference
between Asante's Afrocentricity and Afrocentrism. I don't share that
position, but I encourage the classicists looking for rigorous Afrocentric
scholarship in the classics to look at Karenga's new book on ancient
Egyptian ethics and the maatian tradition. As I noted earlier, Jan Assmann
wrote the preface to that piece. My own work is Afrocentrism and World
Politics, where I challenged both the white supremacism in Eurocentric
international relations and the lack of rigor of Afrocentrists. The
challenge is to create paradigms of social change, drawing upon African
social dynamics, to inform a wider multicultural framework for world
politics. As an aside, I find it funny that people can suggest that I can't
look at an African "cultural complex" when I do. Further, often this is
said at the same time someone is referring to the West, or Europe, as if its
not a largely heterogeneous but nonetheless identifiable "cultural complex."
Whether or not we can utilize such analytical constructs is not the issue,
what is important is to what extent does there usage suggest answers to
meaningful questions in a given field. And remember, it doesn't really
matter if the people "see themselves" as African or Native American. What
matters is whether there are observable patterns or regularties in the
behavior within such groups or in the interaction between such groups. Too
often scholars turn difficulties into impossibilities. These are empirical
questions, not to be simply dismissed out of hand. My use of culture leads
me away from the use of race for which I argue (Wager turn away) is a
specious concept having no scientific basis (OK Wager you can come back).
Here the work of anthropology is useful in assessing the persistence of
cultural forms over time (no small feat, I admit, but there is a lot of
research here).
Let me also submit that GGM James is an interesting and even mysterious
character but his work does not place him in the tradition of some of the
rigorous Afrocentrists. Karenga comes to mind as one Afrocentrist who
challenged James on his discussion of what James calls the "Memphite
Theology" or what Karenga labels, the Shabaka Texts. Further James was not,
to my knowledge, literate in ancient Egyptian and was probably more
concerned with providing a buttress to his conspiracy arguments. Karenga is
much more guarded in his discussion of Greek borrowings from Egypt and while
building on the core of Diop's work he avoids the more arcane folklorists
such as Higgins, Massey, or Churchward. I would also place Van Sertima high
on the list of more rigorous Afrocentrists, especially his work on the
African influence in the Americas. I also think that Asante's work in
communication is good. But what happens is that often Afrocentrists are
possessed of a cultural critic without a social theory. They often meet
scholarship such as Marxism, which it can said, is a social theory in need
of a cultural analysis (before Gramsci). Thus they often become wedded into
a critique of white supremacism (where for Marx it was capitalism) rooted in
the alledged core of change, the cultural system (for Marx the economc
relations). This is partly why Diop ends up appropriating Marx's ill
conceived "Asiatic Mode of Production" for ancient Egypt. Also, since
theory building is difficult some Afrocentrists avoid it completely opting
instead to promote themselves as grand theorists or as historians when this
is not their training. The example of Marimba Ani (formerly Dona Richards)
is a case in point. Here we have a very insightful anthropologist whose
first short piece "Let the Circle Be Unbroken" was very interesting. She
then jumps into what she considers a scholarly exegesis of European thought.
Not only was this a bit premature, but the scholarship in the book is full
of holes - conceptual, factual, empirical,and otherwise. Afrocentric
psychologists such as Akbar made some early contributions in his field
before he took a similar path. The work of Dr. Ben deserves credit as a
challenge to the prevailing scholarship on the role and race of the
Egyptians but in certain places he goes much further than the evidence
allows, but he does build on earlier work such as JA Rogers. As anyone who's
read Ben knows, he is in sore need of a copy editor. An interesting person
to talk to about this scholarship is Harold Cruse who is a contemporary of
Dr. Ben and JH Clarke (all near their 80s) who while proferring the
importance of cultural revolution in the 60s makes it very clear that he is
no Afrocentrist. And he challenges Afrocentrists to construct viable social
theory and produce what they claim they can. I took his admonition as
encouragement and he helped with my project. He is simply a brilliant
historian who authored The Crisis of the Negro Intellectual; and Plura But
Equal.
One should also be clear that the Nation of Islam and Louis Farrakhan are
not Afrocentric. The best source on the former is Malcolm X. Part of the
split between Malcolm and Elijah Muhammad concerned the role of Africa. In
a speech of 2-15-65, less than a week before his death he made the following
comments: "He [Elijah Muhammad] was in a position to unite us with Africa.
But you cannot read anything that Elijah Muhammad has ever written that's
pro-African. I defy you to find one word in his direct writings that's
pro-African. You can't find it." (see Perry,B. ed. p 139, Malcolm X, The
Last Speeches, Pathfinder). Actually this disdain for Africa goes back to
the founder of the NOI, W. Farad Muhammad whose statements, as Elijah
Muhammad suggests, are contained in the Message to the Black Man. There,
and I can get the page number for those interested, Farad repeats some of
the racial slurs against blacks, for example, that our hair was straight
until we descended into the jungles of Africa and it got "kinky." Farad was
not black and the NOI considers blacks to be Asiatic. I can explain that
more fully for those interested, but the main point is that the NOI does not
have a history of being Afrocentric. The confusion centers on
differentiating black natinalism from Afrocentrism, they are not one and the
same.
Let me say that I've generally enjoyed this exchange and I hope that all of
you that are discussing diversity will see the diversity in Afrocentrism and
I hope some of you won't feel that you have to defend every sordid persons
who is classified by some as belonging to your race. And I hope this debate
isn't stifled. Also, I think its often confused that many Afrocentrists
defended Jeffries right to speak and not his content (I really would prefer
not to revisit that).
Also, for Mr Wager, I did list my background on my first message, but you
may have missed it: my training is in political science. I also would like
to acknowledge that though I disagree strongly with your position, that
posting where you called me a "notwithstanding" had me rolling. I
appreciate your candor and humor but I do think that you were being less
then candid when you suggested that your reference to white fear as a factor
in black on black crime was identical to mine which focused on the role of
proximity. I also hope that you would examine Afrocentrism more widely
before associating it with Creationism. A more pointed concern with Mr.
Kent who after promising a substantive exchange, simply remarked that
Errol, The skeptic is going to say you are living too much in the past.
Ed Kent ekent@brooklyn.cuny.edu
This is a reply in a discussion of perceptions of antiquity and thier impact
on present scholarship? Its this type of insight and erudition that will
lead to the erosion of tenure. I live at home, engage the issues.
Bernard, your comments are right on the mark, Scott you are correct for
adding the issue of how we know black is black to my comment of the same
regarding whites. And John, I still have that black Kangol from the Diag.
----------------
From: ANDY-K ()
Subject: Egypt and the Rest of Africa
Sent On: 05/31 03:40 PM PM ET
Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 21:36:46 GMT+1
From: ANDY-K [ANDYK@amadeus.cmi.no]
Sender: owner-athena-discuss@info.harpercollins.com
[owner-athena-discuss@info.harpercollins.com]
Subject: Egypt and the Rest of Africa
August discussants,
One trend in the exchanges so far is the concern of some about
regarding Egyptians as "blacks", and then also linking Egypt to the sub-
Saharan Africa (SSA). This is quite understandable.
For a few centuries now, the myth of Egyptian civilisation being a
civilisation originated by whites, and the country too was populated by
whites has been accepted as the biblical truth by the (Western)
academic establishment; and it was taught as such all over the world.
Old habits cannot just be changed just some few years. After all, the
same establishment no longer believe that the Jewish god Yahweh created
the world in six calender days (unless you're freak) and Noah built an
ark to escape a deluge or even the whale swallowed Jonah, not to
mention Jesus walked on water, but such legends and myths are still
taught to children and adult alike as gospels facts! Ani or some
others may say they serve a rhetorical ethic, so be it! I want to dwell
on how the establishment treats history, archaeology, etc, so that
in spite of all the evidence, they continue to maintain old myths that
suit their interests.
First, I think I should correct some misinformation in my last
post, written off the cuff. That was the comment in the digest 143.
Secondly, I then present some bit of historical to challenge those who
are so much concerned and apprehensive about bringing Black Africa into
the ambit of Egyptian civilisation too.
In my previous post, I made references to some books. I mistakenly
wrote that Orlando Patterson's book, Slavery and Social Death,
published by Harvard University Press, was published in 1983. Correct
date was 1982.
I also mentioned Samir Amin as authoring a book which dates back the
evolving present world system to 5000 years ago. Actually, the credit
goes to Andre Gundar Frank and Barry K. Gills, (eds) "The World
System," 1993, Routledge. With contributions by William H. McNeill and
Immanuel Wallerstein, among others, the debate was about whether the
world system should be dated to 500 or 5000 years back.
I mentioned the case of Athnony William Amo, the young Nzima captive
from the former Gold Coast (now Ghana) who defended his Ph.D in 1734 in
the University of Wittenberg, at a time Europeans still saw Africa as
the origins of human civilisation. His fate illustrated very much the
changing attitudes of Euro-Americans towards Africa and Africans. I
therefore give a brief history of him to illustrate a point.
Amo was given as present to the Duke of the Wolfen-buttel, serving as a
page for many years. In 1727, he was sent to the University of Halle,
where he studied philosophy and jurisprudence. At defence of his
doctoral dissertaion later at Wittenberg, the Rector wrote:
"Great once was the dignity of Africa, whether one considers natural
talents of mind or the study of letters, or the very institutions for
safeguarding religion. For she has given birth to several men of the
greatest pre-eminence by whose talents and efforts the whole of human
knowledge, no less than divine efforts had been built up".
The Chairman of the University was also lavish in his praise,
concluding: "It only remains now for me to congratulate you whole-
heartedly on this singular example of your refined learning; and
with a more abundant feeling of the heart than with words I pray for
all good fortune and commend you to the Divine Grace and also to the
Highest and Best
Prince Ludwig
for whose greater health and safety I shall never tire of worshipping
the Divive majesty. You too I commend with equal devotion and humility.
I write this at Wittenberg in Saxony
The month of April, A.D. 1734".
Some years later, Dr Amo, the scholar and teacher of German students,
was forced to flee Germany by the rise of racism, which imperilled his
life. He lied buried somewhere in Shama, Ghana today. His example
and that of Equiano, the Ibo ex-slave from present Nigeria, were used by
the abolitionists to show that blacks were human beings too and capable
of learning! By then, Europeans have turned upside down the history of
Africa, transferring the site of the origins of civilisation to Greece.
At least, that was closer to Troy, where they (Europeans) created the
myth of originating from.
Let us see an example of how the establishment "makes" history and how
they interprete it.
DIVINE KINGSHIP
Divine Kingship is one thing associated with ancient Egypt as well as
many African communities. R. Oliver and J.D. Fage the compiler of the
Cambridge History of Africa, Vol 2, which dealt with Greek dealings
with Egypt, wrote in "A Short History of Africa":
" It seems on the whole most likely that the Egyptian idea of Kingship
emerged in Ehypt itself, and that it developed very rapidly following
the political unification of the country by the First Dynasty ...It
would accordingly seem to be organisational triumph of the early
Pharaohs which was mainly responsible for the elaboration of of divine
kingship, Egypt's EVENTUAL LEGACY TO SO MUCH OF THe REST OF
AFRICA...(emphasis mine). It is surely only reasonable to infer that
politico-religious ideas and practices, which later became very widely
distributed, had their ORIGIN and GROWTH in this uniquely fertile soil.
Later, much later, they would be exported, directly to Nubia, and at
tens and hundreds or removes, to more distant parts of Africa, where
migrants establishing "conquest states" would try in absurdly different
circumstances to apply some already greatly modified form of the
Egyptian idea of the state...(Oliver and Fage, 1975:37-38).
Perhaps, the Kingdom of Zaghawa (Rodney, 1967:34-35), boundaring on the
Kingdom of Nuba, may serve as an example of this "absurd" adoption of
what was acknowledged as of Egyptian origin. But now, we know better -
the Egyptians arguably, and by their own admittance, if credulous
Herodutus is to be believed, copied in absurd manner Divine kingship
from Nubia or some other previously existing kingdom, instead of the
other way round. At least, that some Egyptian "civilisation" robbed
onto the rest of Africa is admitted. In fact, down to West Africa,
among the Yorubas and Ewes, e.g., also known for their divine kingship
institutions. My own forebears were as such revered. But we refuse to
admit that we copied from the Egyptians, having evolved the institution
together before further splitting of the African people.
But let us see how Fage treated divine kingship when it comes to Greece.
"The Ptolemies in Egypt, in common with the Seleukid kings in Syria and
some other Hellenistic rulers, adopted and elaborated notions of divine
kingship which had been ORIGINALLY conceived in the entourage of
Alexander. When Alexander visited Egypt in 332 BC, he had been greeted
by the local priesthood as a son of the Egyptian god Amun-Re`, whom the
Greeks identified with their own supreme god Zeus. This was, of course,
a normal part of the titulary of an Egyptian Pharaoh, but Alexander was
deeply impressed, and seems to have become increasingly convinced of
his divine paternity. In posthumous portraits on the coins of his
successors, Alexander is always represented with the ram's horns of
Amun-Re`. Ptolemy 1 had every interest in encouraging belief in the
divinity of Alexander's kingship, p.150.
Fage then went on to detail ho the Ptolemies gradually transformed
themselves into divine rulers, with siblings marrying each other,
with the second Ptolemy marrying his sister Arsinoe, and proclaiming
themselves divine as the "Theoi Adelphoi" ("Brother-and-sister Gods)
during their lifetime. Fage concluded
"The marriage of the king with his sister, first practised by Ptolemy
Philadelphos, also became normal under later Ptolemies. (Whether this
was an imitation of teh brother-sister marriages of the earlier
Pharaohs is not clear.) !!!!!!!! Exclamation signs my own additions.
With all the evidence and proof Fage presented, he still doubted that
the Greeks were so much eager to be accepted that they were copying
hook, line and sinker Egyptian customs! What evidence can one present
again to these doubters conditioned to be believe that the Greeks just
copied what was existing on the ground in "absurd ways"? But for the
rest of Africa, without providing any evidence at all, they concluded
that other Africans copied in absurd ways Egyptian originated divine
kingship.
In the next paragraph, we read
"The official cult of Alexander and the Ptolemies at Alexandria
(actually the 1500 year Rakotis rebuilt by order of Alexander) designed
to legitimize dynasty in the eyes of its Greeks subjects. The
Hellenistic institution of divine kingship, though in part inspired by
the Egyptian example, meant nothing to the native Egyptians. For them,
the Ptolemies had to be presented as a new dynasty of Pharaohs. They
are represented on their monuments as wearing the traditional pharaonic
regalia, and given the traditional pharaonic titulary in vernacular
inscriptions. The Ptolemies also patronised the indigenous religion,
making substantial gifts to existing temples and the buliding of new
temples for the Egyptian gods" pp.150-151.
We then see how the more powerful Egyptian culture absorbed the Greeks
but this was represented as being the other way round, since the Greeks
enforced the learning of their language for social advancement in the
bureaucracy.
When I saw a Zimbabwean white in 1992 on the British Sky TV appealing
for funds to save what the dwarf cattle they seized from the Shonas
barely over a 100s ago, with the statement that those cattle remain the
one of the last vestiges of the Jews sojourn there, I gave up on white
racists completely! We might have to chase them out of Africa one day,
if the won't give us our worth, heritage and the respect that comes
with it. Language of force is one thing racists understand best.
As for Euro-American apologists and the Western academic institutiions
(universities and research institutes) for rationalising the actions of
their depraved politicians and military-industrial complexes in
ravaging our homelands, and TNCs of the Shell-BP kind, the post-Bernal
era (I love the sound of its originality) should be seen as the dawn of
reciprocity and inclusiveness, in replament for the emergent Global
Apartheid! For us the Wretched of the Earth, Afrocentrism reawakens our
histories from where Francis Fukuyama says that of the West has ended!
Hurraaaay! for that. That's the empowering and political implications
of Afrocentrism which is making entrenched exclusionists in the best
Greek style very much alarmed.
Sure! Th Egyptians excluded the Greeks for many centuries, but for good
reason, judging from what happened! Never allow your mercenaries to
take over your house if you can!
I end my contribution to this debate on this note - It's only just
begun!
ANDY C.Y. KWAWUKUME
NORWAY
NOTE: All typos kindly acknowledged.8-)
Ta_Seti, a premier online African-centered discussion group!
Report any problems to Paul Kekai Manansala at p.manansala@sbcglobal.net
Sponsored by AsiaPacificUniverse.com
Ta_Seti, a premier online African-centered discussion group!