<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/india.html<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Siddis were Ethiopians kidnapped into slavery by the usual racists: islamis. The Ethiopians in India were brought by Indian muslims (=slavers).
One branch I hear managed to break free after a ship-wreck off coastal India near Goa I think, and so they were never converted to the scary religion but still remain African Religionists. I read that they also helped Hindus fight against the muslim oppressors.
But the others forcibly brought to India were not so fortunate and today they're all islamis, sadly.
That page has so many ridiculous mistakes in it ("Bengal was ruled by Abyssinians" said some Portuguese guy - of course he would, to colonial Europeans all Indians were Africans because they weren't white), but perhaps the following deserves a mention:
the page quotes someone saying that Buddha was an Egyptian priest, referring to some description of him with woolly hair. Yeah, sure. Why not. This is after all, the only version I hadn't yet heard. But how is it more likely than other random descriptions of the Buddha with red hair which the Oryanists like to hold up as proof for the Oryan ancestry of the Buddha? (And <i>they</i> think Sakhya Muni = Shaka Muni, mwahahahahaha). But then, they <i>need</i> an 'Oryan' Buddha to make the Central Asianists have practised and spread an 'Oryan' religion. Like these Pan-Africanists need an African Buddha to prove the same, but about Africans.
The oldest Egyptian culture was African. And it is hypothesised that the Sphinxes were possibly built by them, but scholars never seemed to agree about the dating of the Egyptian monuments. I've heard dates ranging from 10,000 years, 5,000 years, 3,000 years. Which is it?
But later, Egypt was taken over by another ethnic group and its culture. And this happened repeatedly until the time when Greece took over Egypt (Alexander's time certainly, before that possibly). Cleopatra of the 1st century BCE was a Greek, descended from Ptolemy I think.
When dating is in question, where's the proof that in 6th century BCE Egyptians were all still African?
Of course, this has no bearing on the Buddha, who was Indian, and of which there is no doubt. He was of a Kshatriya dynasty, and dynasty means you need to have been in India pretty long. 'Sakhya' in Muni also indicates this. But there need be no question of foreign origins for his ancestors either.
But why believe any Indian literature or tradition to this effect - none of which make mention of his Egyptian origins or ancestry? Why not believe some random European who thinks Buddha had 'woolly' or 'red' hair and, like Indologists, ignore the Indian tradition altogether or misinterpret it wherever useful to <i>make</i> Buddha fit the Oryan or African mould, depending on who is the one doing the appropriating.
Anyway, whether it's the Oryanists or the Pan-Africanists, they're all reconstructing history with very little knowledge of the places, figures, civilisations and people they are appropriating. They make huge mistakes and assumptions and try to imagine that black skin means African. The pictures of tribal and other South Indian people and 'dalits' at that link above makes bad argument. Just because they are dark doesn't mean they are African. (Same with Australian Aborigines or Fijians.) Most South Indians are dark. Then where are the pictures of many of the equally-dark Brahmanas of South India with a label beneath saying they are African too? The omission might be due to the fact that Pan-Africanists believe just as fervently in the racist AIT as the Oryanists.
Here's a hint: dark people can be appropriated as African only if they are from Africa in recent times - like the Siddis. Not if they lived in India for 5,000 or 10,000 years or more, say. In which case they are Indian.
Else what then, the whole world's brown people would be considered 'African'? That's no different from the ignorant racists among the Americans who think everyone in the world is either Caucasian ('white'), African or 'Chinese'.
There are a thousand sites like the one mentioned in the previous post. There's nothing different or special in this one to bring it up.
<b>CORRECTIONS:</b> lots of typos, spelling and plain absent-minded errors in the above are corrected; the changes are in blue.
One branch I hear managed to break free after a ship-wreck off coastal India near Goa I think, and so they were never converted to the scary religion but still remain African Religionists. I read that they also helped Hindus fight against the muslim oppressors.
But the others forcibly brought to India were not so fortunate and today they're all islamis, sadly.
That page has so many ridiculous mistakes in it ("Bengal was ruled by Abyssinians" said some Portuguese guy - of course he would, to colonial Europeans all Indians were Africans because they weren't white), but perhaps the following deserves a mention:
the page quotes someone saying that Buddha was an Egyptian priest, referring to some description of him with woolly hair. Yeah, sure. Why not. This is after all, the only version I hadn't yet heard. But how is it more likely than other random descriptions of the Buddha with red hair which the Oryanists like to hold up as proof for the Oryan ancestry of the Buddha? (And <i>they</i> think Sakhya Muni = Shaka Muni, mwahahahahaha). But then, they <i>need</i> an 'Oryan' Buddha to make the Central Asianists have practised and spread an 'Oryan' religion. Like these Pan-Africanists need an African Buddha to prove the same, but about Africans.
The oldest Egyptian culture was African. And it is hypothesised that the Sphinxes were possibly built by them, but scholars never seemed to agree about the dating of the Egyptian monuments. I've heard dates ranging from 10,000 years, 5,000 years, 3,000 years. Which is it?
But later, Egypt was taken over by another ethnic group and its culture. And this happened repeatedly until the time when Greece took over Egypt (Alexander's time certainly, before that possibly). Cleopatra of the 1st century BCE was a Greek, descended from Ptolemy I think.
When dating is in question, where's the proof that in 6th century BCE Egyptians were all still African?
Of course, this has no bearing on the Buddha, who was Indian, and of which there is no doubt. He was of a Kshatriya dynasty, and dynasty means you need to have been in India pretty long. 'Sakhya' in Muni also indicates this. But there need be no question of foreign origins for his ancestors either.
But why believe any Indian literature or tradition to this effect - none of which make mention of his Egyptian origins or ancestry? Why not believe some random European who thinks Buddha had 'woolly' or 'red' hair and, like Indologists, ignore the Indian tradition altogether or misinterpret it wherever useful to <i>make</i> Buddha fit the Oryan or African mould, depending on who is the one doing the appropriating.
Anyway, whether it's the Oryanists or the Pan-Africanists, they're all reconstructing history with very little knowledge of the places, figures, civilisations and people they are appropriating. They make huge mistakes and assumptions and try to imagine that black skin means African. The pictures of tribal and other South Indian people and 'dalits' at that link above makes bad argument. Just because they are dark doesn't mean they are African. (Same with Australian Aborigines or Fijians.) Most South Indians are dark. Then where are the pictures of many of the equally-dark Brahmanas of South India with a label beneath saying they are African too? The omission might be due to the fact that Pan-Africanists believe just as fervently in the racist AIT as the Oryanists.
Here's a hint: dark people can be appropriated as African only if they are from Africa in recent times - like the Siddis. Not if they lived in India for 5,000 or 10,000 years or more, say. In which case they are Indian.
Else what then, the whole world's brown people would be considered 'African'? That's no different from the ignorant racists among the Americans who think everyone in the world is either Caucasian ('white'), African or 'Chinese'.
There are a thousand sites like the one mentioned in the previous post. There's nothing different or special in this one to bring it up.
<b>CORRECTIONS:</b> lots of typos, spelling and plain absent-minded errors in the above are corrected; the changes are in blue.