Tuesday, May 8, 2012

Berber Origins & Fake Genealogies:


The Berbers’ supposed Iberian, Cretan, Canaanite or Yemenite origins are wholly unfounded and, in many respects, colonially impostored as anthropologists and historical linguists are increasingly pointing to the native nature of the Berber nations. As for Ibn Khaldoun's widely-quoted imaginary Berber ancestors, Olwen Brogan points out that his genealogies are “as artificial as are most similar genealogies.” The histories of Al-Bakari and Ibn Qotaybah, who identified the Berbers with the vanquished Philistines and the slaying of Goliath by David, are obviously a "big joke"; so are those genealogies tracing the Berbers to Yemen, H'imir or Ber-Bin-Qis Ghilan, which according to the anonymous author of Mafakher Al-Barbar (‘The Boasts of the Berbers', 1312 AD) are false and exist only in the minds of "jahilite" (p. 78).
Oric Bates (1919) points out that, ”The literary opinion generally current among the Arab writers acknowledged several lines of descent for the various groups of Berbers, each group being referred to an imaginary, and usually eponymous, ancestor.” In relation to the Berbers of Canaanite origin, who adopted the language of the conquered Hamites, myth has it both Phoenix and Cadmus were the sons of Agenor the son of Libya by Poseidon, who left Egypt to settle in the land of Canaan, and thus one reads in Genesis (10: 22) that: “Ham [is] the father of Canaan” (not vice versa). Both sources are discredited historically and therefore their authority deemed by science unfit to recorded history. It is probably because of these and similar influences that, like Oric Bates had pointed out, “The Byzantine historian Procopius has, like Sallust, preserved a story of African origins which reflect this tendency on the part of the Libyans to relate their remote ancestry to Asia Minor.
The authors of The Berbers (1996) came under sharp criticism by a number of scholars and activists (cf. H. Hagan) for the poor picture they claim to be the first comprehensive guide to the Berbers in the English language. In the Introduction, M. Brett and E. Fentress, state that, “No general book on the Berbers is available in English. One of the most unfortunate consequences of this is the total ignorance in both Great Britain and the United States of the existence of the Berbers . . . This book is intended as a step towards answering the question, and perhaps toward a modification of the idea that Mediterranean history can be divided between black Africans and white Europeans.”
This, of course, sounds a very good book, especially when its back cover carries the approval of the Journal of North African Studies (JNAS):“Here at long last is a decent and thoroughly worthwhile general book on Berbers.” But it may be of relevance to some to know that JNAS was founded in 1996 and that Michael Brett was a member of its International Advisory Board. In this black-and-white history, in which Berber culture was made to start as recent as 7000 BC (Capsian culture), one comes face to face with the European or Semitic origin of the white Berber who had “subjugated the existing black population” – not to say that the black cover of the book and the white title (The Berbers) coincidently and graphically illustrate the point. Of course, ignorance could have played an important role in this, as they say, but the massive material available in libraries allows any serious scholar to write a comprehensive Berber history going back to the beginning of Afroasiatic language, if not to the beginning of civilisation itself. For some reason, this is yet to emerge and there is no sign that it will ever emerge. It is about time the Imazighen themselves start writing their own history and break away from this long period of darkness in which supremacists wrote like tyrants.
  Berber Nesmenser; Zuwarah, Libyahttps://www.paidverts.com/ref/Agadiri