Africa’s Original Name
Author:Benny Muhammad(---.rasserver.net)
Date:12-23-03 00:03
I was at a lecture featuring the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan. In this lecture he mentioned that the continent now known as Africa was named by the Greek conqueror known as "Alexander the Great". I believe that it would add more value to our research if we would gather more information concerning this young Macedonian king who ruled and conquered most of the lands in what is now known as Asia Minor and Africa. Then I believe that we may be able to answer the question, "what was the name of this continent before Europeans stepped foot on it". History has shown us that when the "whites" of Europe went "a conquering" the lands of the Black, Brown and other "darker" people that they frequently, as a matter of what they consider their right, changed the name of not only the land but the people that inhabited that land. And if our research leads us to discover that Africa was indeed known by another name other than Africa then maybe the Black people in the United States of America might think twice or three times before calling themselves "African-American".
Very interesting you caused me to do some research. Read what I found below, quite complicated. I have to read again.
AFRICISM
AFRICA AND AFRICISM
The specific concerns of this presentation are misnomers that have disadvantageously affected the religions of Africa. But before addressing Africism as the appropriate name of the discovery it is important to be clear about its antecedent which is Africa. Africa is the name of a continent. What is the origin of the name Africa?
In the first century CE, Flavius Jospehus, a Jewish historian advances an opinion that it was the descendants of Abraham, Japhras and Apheras, by his wife Katura, their names to the city of Aphra and the country of Africa. [1930: I, 239-242]. This assertion seems to be no where clearly and specifically supported in the book of Genesis. Leo Africanus suggests that “Festus has the name Africa to be derived from the Greek word phrike which means horror or cold and the prefix a- as a privative particle indicating negation or absence and agglutinantly forming the word aphrike, meaning that Africa is a place free from horror and extremities of cold because it lies open to the heavens and is sandy, dry and desert”. [1660: 13]. On page 121 of the same book, Leo Africanus also suggests that Africa in Arabic is called Iphrichia with the sense of dividing. That this part of the world is divided from Europe by the Mediterranean Sea, and that it is divided from Asia by the Nile and the Red Sea.
Prior to opinions so far enunciated about the origins of the name Africa, to the opinion of this presentation, the name by the Roman derivation seems to be the most plausible. This may be traced back to the Punic Wars (264-146 B.C.E.). During this period one is made aware of the existence of a people known as Afri inhabiting the southern Mediterranean shores around the city of Carthage. The Punic Wars end by the destruction of Carthage and the annexation of its territory by Rome. The region becomes a Roman province. Latin becomes the official language of the province. Africa, as it were, is proactively and geontologically coined to designate the province. The procedure of coining this name takes the name Afer, singular, and Afri, plural, by which the autochthons of this region were known, agglutinates it with the suffix -ca to make a qualificatory adjective. Africa which is brought together with the word for land and forms an intelligible phraseology of Africa terra, to mean the land of the Afri. In his Latin-German Dictionary under the word Africa, Dr. William Freund notes that “the Romans received this name from the Carthaginians as designating their country (1850). While the silenced terra in the phrase Africa terra helps to emphasize the existence of the totality of the continent, terra incognita, draws attention to the fact that there is part of the totality of the land which was unknown. But the semantically racist translation ended by creating what is called the “Dark Continent.” The restricted sense of Africa means the ancient Roman province. In an extended sense, by metonymy the name Africa covers the whole quarter of the globe south of the Mediterranean Sea. The coverage however, is not only terrestrial, it can also be noted as spiritual. Africa is also understood in the form of Africus. As such according to a note by Dr. William Freund in the dictionary mentioned above, the classical world has known Africus as the god in manifestation of the south west wind. So connected the root of Africus i.e. Afric- appropriately contributes to the generation of the name Africism.
AFRICISM
The task of this endeavor is to come up with a name which comprehensively, consolidatively and inclusively names and appropriately projects the image of Africa’s autochthonal religions. The name Africism is arrived at by an agglutinative process which is seriously mindful of the semantic implications of the component parts. Africism results from agglutinating the suffix -ism to the root Afric. While the latter component part geontologically stands for Africa and the people thereof, the suffix -ism in this case stands for the system of the religions and the world views of Africa. Grammatically, linguistically, rhetorically and semantically the suffix -ism connotes some ideas. For the purpose of this presentation, the Oxford English Dictionary expresses the vital ingredient regarding the suffix -ism in the process of creating a neologism. About how and when the suffix is applied OED states that: “Forming the name of a system of theory or practice, religions, ecclesiastical, philosophical, political , social, etc., sometimes founded on the name of its subject or object, sometimes on that of its founder.” Given this premise, Africism, as a Terminology, means: The system of African religious beliefs, ritual practices and thought concerning superhuman beings and the world. Africism stands for the essence and unity of African Religions. It helps to elucidate the unity and diversity of the autochthonal religions of Africans. It contributes to saving the African religious condition from the perpetuation of semantic racism.
Author:Ebenezer(140.147.159.---)
Date:12-27-02 07:52
Is it true that like America Africa was named by Europeans?
I have read that the name Africa is related to the fruit name Apricot and it's related to some Latin name referring to the Sun.
I also have read that the first land to be called Africa was in fact in Africa and it's been Tunisia for some time now.
What is now northern North Africa was once Roman colonies. One of the colonies is now Tunisia and the Romans caled it Africa.
Of course, and happily so, the peoples of Africa have made the name AFRICA their own with no thought whatsoever of its Roman origin. YES, THE ROMAN ORIGIN IS IN FACT IRRELEVANT but I would like to have some replies. My Congo friend always called herself African, of course, she also called herself Congolese.
Speaking of which. It is a shame that too many people, black and white and Hispanic and Asian, do not have any idea of the different ethnicities of Africa. Granted, like my friend says and the fact that a great portion of Africans can be said to be of the BANTU RACE, there are in fact at least 30 Bantu countries. Then there the non-Bantu African countries.
Then again, those folks from ETHIOPIA AND EGYPT AND ALGERIA and so on in Northern Africa (including the first land to be called Africa) do not call themselves African. "African" to them are the Bantus, the blacks of the Sahara and the SubSahara from Mali on down.
Then again, whites and blacks here do in fact distinguish Ethiopians (and yes Eritreans, regardless of their civil war they are basically of the same group, and Somalians -Italian and British Somalia, and French Somalia (Djibouti), Eastern Africa) and Egyptians and NORTHERN AFRICANS/ARABIC/the darlings of Old Spain, the Moors (YES,THAT'S SARCASM) from Africans whom they lump together in one big group, "Africans".
((Spaniards, a great portion of whom are in fact VERY WHITE AND EVEN GERMANIC, truly hate being called not white on account of 700 years of Moorish rule.
The last 200 years of Moorish rule was confined to a small portion of southern Spain. Muslims ruled most of Spain for less than 200 years.))
Then again, my Congo friend does that too but she of course distinguishes between her people and, even, her neighbors in Rwanda/Burundi/le Republique du Congo (Congo Braza)/le Republique Centrale du Afrique/Gabon/le Guinea Equatoriale/Angola (as a Puerto Rican I could possibly make somebody in the Congo think I'm Angolan, then again, I am "white"(!)).
She'll see some Africans and she'll know if there Congolese or not.
She saw some Congolese guy giving her and me dirty looks because she, a Congo woman, was with me, somebody who might be white.
AFRO-RICAN:
UNLIKE BLACKS HERE WHO ALWAYS REMIND US OF THEIR AFRICAN ROOTS, PUERTO RICANS, WHO DON'T GO IN FOR THAT SORT OF THING, DO IN FACT KNOW WHO MOST OF THEIR AFRICAN ANCESTORS ARE. WE PUERTO RICANS SPEAK OF THE YORUBAS OF WHAT IS NOW NIGERIA.
It is unfortunate that Afro-Rican in Puerto Rico is in fact only music and food and not much else. Bomba (listen to Yoruba music, Bomba is about the same) and Plena (more of a blend of African and Spanish music) and Plantains ("platanos") and Codfish ("bacalao")
It is interesting how Puerto Ricans deal with race using deprecating humor and familiarity. For example, the Spanish prefix "so" adds the adjective "damn" to a name. So we Puerto Ricans, white and nonblack, can refer to one of our black or dark countrymen as SO NEGRO, which is to say, damn black. However, you never hear SO BLANCO, "DAMN WHITE". And African hair is PELO MALO, BAD HAIR. But you can call your sweetie of any color or race "negrito" "negrita". But you can make "darkie" jokes and comedians can use whiteface. FAMILIARITY, hey ,we're all Puerto Ricans, we ain't black or white! But that familiarity and that humor is basically a form of RACIAL HATRED.
Author:Ebenezer(140.147.159.---)
Date:01-02-03 08:00
Weezie, your coverage of Josephus Flavius and of the Romans and the Carthaginians agree with my findings though as separate entities.
I would agree that the Romans and their European descendants knew that there more lands south of the RomanProvince of Africa and knew it as Terra Incognita, the UnknownLand. I further posit that the British and the French brought the name Africa to the peoples they encountered. Eventually, all these peoples had a sense of being one on a vast continent called Africa AND THEY ADOPTED THE NAME AND BECAME AFRICANS. That in fact they lacked that sense even though, I'm sure, they in fact, traveleved long far and wide (the mythic/historical migrations of the ancestors of most of the people of West and Central and Southern Africa), that they did not have a name for the vastness of lands and territories encountered beyond their own lands. THAT IS NOT A PUT-DOWN, PLEASE DON'T THINK IT IS.
Author:Ebenezer(140.147.159.---)
Date:01-02-03 08:02
Would the Arabic name "Iphrichia" be an antecedent of the name "Ethiopia"?
Author:Robert(212.187.240.---)
Date:01-04-03 06:45
Ebenezer, don't worry about the fact that the name Africa, has a Roman origin.
Most of the European names around the Meditteranean, also have the same Roman origin. It was so long ago now, we now consider this as something to be proud of, because the Civilised Roman era ( about 400-600 years ), was replaced by nearly 1000 years of the Dark Ages !
These names include:
Brittania Britain
Hispania Spain
Hibernia Ireland
Caledonia Scotland
Germania Germany
Mauratania Mauratania
Arabia Arabia
PersiaIran
Countries generally are quite proud of their Roman heritage !
The Romans were also quite a cosmopolitan society.
There were many Black Africans, and North Africans that were citizens, and lived in Rome.
Author:Mikey(---.cdc.gov)
Date:03-15-0416:14
Just curious what's the differece between Black Africa and North Africa?
Author:NJ(---.mayo.edu)
Date:08-23-0412:28
North Africa refers to the region of Africa north of the Sahara desert and comprising predominantly the Maghreb (currently Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, probably Libya and Mauritania also) and Egypt. The Sudan is sometimes included as part of North Africa. The North Africans are genealogically considered as being of Middle Eastern ancestry i.e. Arabs, and genetically, about 80% are Caucasoid with ancient middle Eastern origin ('white Africans'). On the other hand, the term 'black Africans' refers to persons from East Africa and subSaharan Africa (the West and South). But note that some people believe that East Africans (the Swahili especially) originated from North Africa and are predominantly the product of marriages between northern Arabian men and subsaharan African women. There is a contrary opinion that the Swahili in East Africa migrated from more southward parts of Africa and settled in east Africa. There is evidence to support both views. In much of Southern Africa, as a result of immigration of Caucasian and Indian populations and intermarriages, there's also quite a bit of admixture at present.
Author:Robert(212.187.240.---)
Date:01-04-03 07:10
Other names include :
Begica Belgium
ArmeniaArmenia
Assyria Syria
The only part of Africa, that was colonised was a thin strip along the North coast of the Mediteranean :
The regions of Africa, and Egyptus, were vital to the Roman empire as these were the bread baskets of Rome !
Mauretania
Numidia
Africa
Cyrenaeca
Egyptus
The name Africa, was used to rename Carthage, which was Rome's defeated rival empire. This area is modern day Tunisia, and the city of Carthage was located roughly where the modern city of Tunis is located.
The most famous Carthaginian was Hannibal, who led his Elephants to the gates of Rome, during the 2nd Punic war.
Author:Ebenezer(140.147.159.---)
Date:01-06-03 07:42
Europeans also made the Roman names their own and became a people under those names, the British for example. However, these people are aware and proud of their Roman ancestry of which they retain more than their "nation's name". Because this so-called New World as we know it began as a New Europe (no, I'm not denigrating the nonEuropean peoples that were already here) and Europeans named our countries then we, too (especially white Americans and Hispanics) have that Roman connection in ancestry/language/ethnic names,etc.
Speaking of Hispanics... The term "Latin American" was originally a French American term designating WHITE FOLKS IN THE U.S. whose ancestry and parentage was Portuguese/Spanish (European Spanish, not Mestizo and Mexican, etc)/French/Italian. To me that makes a lot more sense than the modern application of the term. However, I would include mixed Hispanics and black Hispanics.
Speaking of Hispanics... Again, the term "Hispanic" was originally a European Spanish term designating the white children/descendants of the Spaniards. Thus it excluded more than half of the populations of the Spanish Indies, i.e. "Latin America". In fact, under Spanish rule Spanish citizenship was limited to the Spaniards and the native whites.
Speaking of HISPANICS VIS A VIS BLACKS....
ANY THOUGHTS ON HISPANIC BLACKS/BLACKS OF HISPANIC ORIGIN...SHOULD WE CALL THEM BLACKS, JUST BLACKS, OR SHOULD WE CALL THEM HISPANICS???????
Author:Robert(212.187.240.---)
Date:01-07-03 05:37
North Africa, is less proud than Europe of its Roman heritage, because it has less of this heritage remaining, i.e. unlike Europe :-
1) its writing uses the Arabic alphabet rather than the Latin alphabet.
2) its religion is now Islam rather than Roman Catholic.
Author:Ebenezer(140.147.159.---)
Date:01-07-03 09:11
Of course, North Africa is really closer to the rest of Africa than to Europe, whether the North Africans like it or not, and the factors you mention, Robert, are among the reasons why. I think Tom would agree that in this case skin colour (that's "color" over here!) is not a big factor.
Studying an atlas of history/historical atlas it is interesting to see how entire populations and ethnic groups have been supplanted and demoted and even removed, interesting in how such wrongs have been made.
But I think that in the case of Bantu Africa the peoples there are basically the descendants of the peoples that have been there for millions of years. They have not been replaced, removed, and since they won their independence from Europeans they are in fact in control of their ancestral lands. While they speak English, French, Portuguese, Spanish (Equatorial Guinea) they primarily speak their own languages such as Lingala (Ngala?) in Congo Kinshasa.
Cuba, Dominican Republic, and Puerto Rico are the only Spanish colonies where the original populations (The Indians: Tainos, Arawauks) were rtotally replaced. While millions of "Spanish West Indians" have Taino/Arawauk/Carib blood none is actually an Indian. The Indian languages have dissappeared save a few words here and there such as huricane ("huracan" in Spanish).
It is pathetic how black Dominicans call themselves Indians just to deny their black heritage. And that's given the fact that the Dominican Republic is racially closer to the rest of the West Indies, being the black Hispanic island. Cuba is more mixed and has a great number of blacks but also has a great percentage of whites and near-whites (of course, most of them live in The Republic of Little Cuba, aka Miami, supposedly a U.S. city). Puerto Rico has the least number of blacks and a higher number of near-whites. Puerto Rico is "the lightest Caribbean island". Whoopie! (sarcasm!)
YES, I'M PUERTO RICAN and I'm very light-skinned but I'm obviously not "Anglo-Saxon" like my Massachusetts father is.