In the textbook, Africa in Global History, Robert Harms claims that Africa is the root of all human history as the first modern humans and their predecessors hailed from the continent. Harms cites the discovery of remains of modern humans’ predecessors that have not been found anywhere else in the planet as proof that all humans are originally from Africa. With the proof that Harms provided, it is not hard to believe that the first modern humans evolved and developed in African soil before moving elsewhere. Further evidence is presented in the article “The Great Dispersal,” where the DNA of Australian Aboriginals is linked to other groups who migrated out of Africa at the same time. This proves that all human life can be traced back to Africa, thus dismantling the way we think about race and ethnicity. Humans are all genetically equal save for some genes that determine things like skin color and hair texture, which are all superficial adaptations to help humans survive in certain climates. Race and ethnicity are both human constructs to differentiate one group from the other and to create hierarchies. In reality, all humans are biologically the same and hailed from the same place in Africa.
The evidence that was presented in the textbook to show that all humans on earth descended from single migration out of Africa is very convincing because the evidence can be used to trace the development of early humans back to Africa; where humans started. It is also multiple evidences that we can look at and determine if it is actually true. In his book Africa in Global History with Sources, Robert Harms describes in a summary titled The Great Dispersal where he talks about how and when early. Humans evolved in Africa. He summarizes three DNA studies led by teams of scientist. With this three DNA studies, it is pretty convincing to us that perhaps the development of early humans are traced back to Africa, even though one of the group concluded that at least 2% of the genomes of people from Papua New Guinea comes from an early dispersal of modern human(36).
The Out of Africa hypothesis is a theory that argues that every living human being in descended from a small group in Africa, who then dispersed into the wider world displacing earlier forms such as Neanderthal. In todays world, the affect that this can have on us is that it is a prove that deep down, all humans are related, technically. For that reason, there shouldnt be any discrimination based on color or other physical differences we have since we all are came from the same region of a country. Physical attributes are something that are used to differentiate from one person to another, however when it comes to our ancestor and the history of our family, we are related if the Out of Africa Hypothesis is indeed an accurate theory.
The “Black Athena” debate is regarded as quite contentious in Egyptology and modern academia; while some scholars teach Egypt as the center of all cultures, including that of the Greeks, many stress that Egypt and Greece were two distinct civilizations, each with their own accomplishments and shortcomings. One individual, Martin Bernal, claims that Egyptian culture was stolen by Greek society; his argument that Athena’s name derives from Egyptian phonology, as well as evidence that Greeks visited the ancient nation and made observations of their society that influenced their own actions — as he claims is evident in the ancient story of Memphis — are used as evidence for his position. On the opposite side is Lefkowitz, who claims that the linguistic basis of Bernal’s analyses were faulty and that his chronology was incorrect; Athens was established independently of Egyptian influence, and Greek society emerged from a distinctly Mediterranean circumstance. Personally, I believe Ann Macy Roth’s perspective to have the most merit. Rather than vilify either side, she explains why some misconceptions may have formed (such as the belief that Egypt influenced all South European and African cultures); by exaggerating the accomplishments or influence of the ancient civilization, those of African descent could reclaim a part of their heritage and history that has been stripped away by colonialists. Rather than focus on the matter of race, which both Bernal and Lefkowitz argue about, Roth states that ancient Egyptians merely perceived themselves as “just right,” and altogether human, rather than as a particular color or race — just as ancient Greeks likely did. She explains that Afrocentrism is, in itself, a form of Eurocentrism; rather than focus on Egypt for its own merits and achievements, proponents of the Black Athena philosophy assume an antagonistic stance toward European powers. Roth discusses the similarities between Egyptian and other African cultures, as well as the similarities to Greek civilization, but does not attempt to portray Egypt as the center of all culture. Rather, she explains that Egypt was just as successful — and unsuccessful — as other ancient empires, and, while it has a lasting impact on modernity, isn’t quite the anathema individuals like Lefkowitz dismiss or the paragon scholars like Bernal adore.
Martin Bernal and Mary Lefkowitz, clearly had different perspectives/arguments in the Black Athena Debate. Martin Bernal argues that Ancient Egypthian had an influence on Greece society, but they stole from the Egyptian culture, to claim as their own. An example of how he supports his claim is by pointing out the similarities of words that Greek society had in common with Ancient Egypt. He states that the Greek have loanwords” from Ancient Egyptians, for instance the similarities between Hyksos (Egyptain) and Hikesios (Greek), and how Hikesios is taken from the Egypatian word Hyksos. This point reveals that the two ancient civilizations shared similar words and even cultures, but considering Ancient Egypt came first, that the Greek copied them, without giving credit in history. On the other hand, Mary Lefkowitz opposes Bernal and argues that his claim is unjustified and exaggerated. She supports her claim by stating that Bernals claim is based on fiction rather than factual evidence. Lefkowitz mentions the Egyptian Mystery System, and how Bernal states that the Greek society supposedly stole from Ancient Eygptian, when it was actually based on an eighteenth-century European fiction. Therefore Lefkowitzs point is that if the evidence cannot be supported by hard evidence, it most likely is not true. Based on the argument/perspective presented, I find Mary Lefkowitzs evidence more compelling. This is because she based her evidence on facts rather than fiction. For instance she states in her writing, B. tries to discredit my discussion… about mysteries is lost because they are by their nature mysterious….Since initiation rituals are found all over the world, general similarities between them cannot be used to prove any direct connection. This statement further supports Lefkowitzs claim that the Greek society could not have stolen from the Ancient Egyptians, because some of Ancient Egyptians cultures are based on mysteries rather than actual proof. Overall, both Bernal and Lefkowitz made good points, but Lefkowitz’s point was stronger than Bernal, simply because her evidence was based on facts rather than indirect evidence.
Egypt is located in an area that receives two inches of rainfall per year on average. In these kinds of conditions, very little, if any, crops would grow and the limitations of food would not allow society to thrive as much as it did in Egypt. The Nile was important to Egypt because its flooding brought the water Egypt needed for farming and the alluvial silt that made the dry terrains of Egypt fertile and allowed the crops to grow. Without the flooding of the Nile from June to October, the Egyptians would not have been able to grow the food that would sustain them for the year and the population of the area would not have grown and stayed stable as it did. To put it simply, there would be no Egypt as we know it without the Nile because its population would have starved and the empire that largely depended on the crops grown from year to year would not have existed.
Both the quality and quantity of participation are important. It is in your best interest to read postings and actively participate in online discussion. Your postings must be thoughtful and reasoned, clear, and written in complete sentences and in formal academic English. Avoid abbreviations and colloquial language. Your postings will also be evaluated for spelling, syntax, and punctuation. Of course, you must also be respectful to your colleagues when you reply to their postings. If you disagree with them, you must express your disagreement professionally and in a way that does not offend anyone.
There are 5 short passages so response for each. and the total word count of your answer must be between 200 and 300 words.