218358 Bullies, 5388 online  
  • Register
Our Sponsors:

Results 1,101 to 1,110 of 1126
Page 111 of 113 FirstFirst ... 1161101107108109110111 112113 LastLast
Sponsored Links Spacer Image
  1. kwoww is offline
    kwoww's Avatar

    poser

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley / Rochester
    Posts
    1,986

    Posted On:
    6/22/2007 12:35pm


     Style: punching bag / crew jitsu

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Mantis
    Hey, I appreciate your opinions. Thanks.

    Ok, he's not a historian! He cannot even help us with peer review. He is disqualified from this discussion!
    I don't get it.

    His points about peer review are entirely legitimate. Since none of us can be arsed to go to Ethiopia and dig **** up, we have to rely on the writings of people who do it for a living. But even archaeologists and historians are known to lie, and that's where peer review comes in. Citing random, partially relevant websites, which for the most part do not cite sources of their own, is not a good way to prove a point. Citing a peer-reviewed paper from a scholarly journal, on the other hand, is not only an excellent way to prove your point, but is the ONLY way to do it convincingly.
      #1101
  2. Mantis is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    379

    Posted On:
    6/22/2007 12:39pm


     Style: Judo

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by kwoww
    I don't get it.

    His points about peer review are entirely legitimate. Since none of us can be arsed to go to Ethiopia and dig **** up, we have to rely on the writings of people who do it for a living. But even archaeologists and historians are known to lie, and that's where peer review comes in. Citing random, partially relevant websites, which for the most part do not cite sources of their own, is not a good way to prove a point. Citing a peer-reviewed paper from a scholarly journal, on the other hand, is not only an excellent way to prove your point, but is the ONLY way to do it convincingly.

    Nope ... it doesn't prove anything. It may offer evidence, but it does not prove any point. Are you a historian? If not, would stop with the bullshit rhetoric.
      #1102
  3. Mantis is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    379

    Posted On:
    6/22/2007 12:44pm


     Style: Judo

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Grashnak
    You know, for someone who doesn't want people to make generalizations about people based on race etc, you really ought to practice what you preach..
    Forgive me for not staying on topic with this guy ... in any case, you guys wanted to go with the Race bullshit. I tried to avoid it ... but ok, let's go their, I am not afraid. But since you are not a historian that is the topic. Please stop posting your opinionated bullshit rhetoric trying to sound smart.

    You cannot help advance this discussion.


    Useless None Historian Debaters:

    1. Kwoww (disqualified from peer review)

    2. Grashnak (disqualified from peer review)

    3. Don Shirley (disqualified from peer review)

    4. "It is Fake" (disqualified from peer review)
    Last edited by Mantis; 6/22/2007 12:46pm at .
      #1103
  4. kwoww is offline
    kwoww's Avatar

    poser

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley / Rochester
    Posts
    1,986

    Posted On:
    6/22/2007 12:45pm


     Style: punching bag / crew jitsu

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Mantis
    Nope ... it doesn't prove anything. It may offer evidence, but it does not prove any point. Are you a historian? If not, would stop with the bullshit rhetoric.
    I'm not using any rhetoric, and you aren't any more of an historian than I am. My point was that it's far better evidence than some random Geocities page that any douchebag could have made, and as such is much more convincing.

    If you make a claim and can't back it up, then your claim will be invalidated. It's common sense.

    Actually, ARE you an historian? Do you have a degree in history? Why are you more qualified to "review" evidence than Grashnak and I are?

    edit: disagreeing with you is not rhetoric. resorting to personal attacks to cover up deficiencies is your argument, however, is rhetoric, and as such you, not I, need to "stop with the bullshit rhetoric."
      #1104
  5. Mantis is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    379

    Posted On:
    6/22/2007 12:51pm


     Style: Judo

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by kwoww
    I'm not using any rhetoric, and you aren't any more of an historian than I am. My point was that it's far better evidence than some random Geocities page that any douchebag could have made, and as such is much more convincing.

    If you make a claim and can't back it up, then your claim will be invalidated. It's common sense.

    Actually, ARE you an historian? Do you have a degree in history? Why are you more qualified to "review" evidence than Grashnak and I are?
    Like you I am not a historian, but I made my claims about history as a student would in a history class. Now I am waiting for my professor to agree or correct me or at least send me in the right direction for the research. Everyone else in the class is handing out bullshit rhetoric. You cannot educate anyone on history, because you nore your friends no anything about ancient history, except of course what you can google:laughing9 . This is my last post to you.

    Useless None Historian Debaters (AKA, Bullshit Artist):

    1. Kwoww (disqualified from peer review)

    2. Grashnak (disqualified from peer review)

    3. Don Shirley (disqualified from peer review)

    4. "It is Fake" (disqualified from peer review)

    Those on this list can not advance my historical discussion because their arguments have proven to be bullshit rhetoric and not actual historical scholarship.
    Last edited by Mantis; 6/22/2007 12:55pm at .
      #1105
  6. Mantis is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    379

    Posted On:
    6/22/2007 12:56pm


     Style: Judo

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Useless None Historian Debaters (AKA, Bullshit Artist):

    1. Kwoww (disqualified from peer review)

    2. Grashnak (disqualified from peer review)

    3. Don Shirley (disqualified from peer review)

    4. "It is Fake" (disqualified from peer review)

    Those on this list can not advance my historical discussion because their arguments have proven to be bullshit rhetoric and not actual historical scholarship.
      #1106
  7. kohadril is offline
    kohadril's Avatar

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Seoul, ROK
    Posts
    551

    Posted On:
    6/22/2007 12:56pm


     Style: BJJ, Debate-Fu

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    (Most of this is widely known now, but at the time the developer of Comba-Tai wrote about this, the information was not widely known or none existent.)
    You say this, but from your lack of citation I can see that you're not willing to actually provide an argument. An argument has three components; a claim, a warrant, and an implication. You are missing the second part. Please provide documentation that Dr. Jones knew about any of this before anybody else did.

    The art of Comba-Tai is not 6,000 years old, but a Component of Comba-Tai-- Gezerit el Malik-- is thought to be a 6,000 years old system that is believed to be traced to the Kushite/Nubian Medjay from an Unbroken Lineage. (Also see Gukurana) http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/nubianarchers.html
    1) There is no clear explanation of Geziret el Malik, or its relationship to Medjay Nubian culture.
    2) Other than references to the Comba-Tai document by Dr. Jones cited in this thread, references to this thread itself, and a reference to an unsourced wikipedia reference desk article that cites only those things we've already seen in this thread, the only references I can find online to "Geziret el Malik" are as a place name. No independent source available to us even verifies the existence of Geziret el Malik as a fighting style before Dr. Jones started writing about it.
    3) "Is thought" by whom? Who thinks it? Dr. Jones? There's a pretty absurd gap between "the Nubians existed a long time ago and have wrestled since 1400 BCE" to "ancient Nubian wrestling became Geziret el Malik (the art Dr. Jones claims to be the progenitor of Comba-Tai) and is traced in a 6,000 year unbroken lineage to Dr. Jones here in the modern day."
    4) The link you provided here doesn't provide any evidence at all of any of the claims you're making. Are you trying to convince us that the Medjay Nubians, in fact, existed? Because that's not the claim you're defending and citing this source to support. In fact, this article doesn't even so much as mention Nubian wrestling, and the only people it suggests even have a 6,000 year history are the Beja, who are decidedly not the Medjay Nubians.

    1) This is boxing; Geziret el Malik was, according to Dr. Jones in his original article, about stickfighting and grappling. Boxing is indeed traceable to 6,000 years ago, but the claim that Geziret el Malik includes a system of boxing does not appear in Dr. Jones' initial work. In fact, he seems to very carefully limit what Geziret el Malik was to stickfighting (which he correlates with sword/shield techniques) and leg sweep techniques. For pure context, here is what he says, in total, about Geziret el Malik; it follows a segment in which he acknowledges the huge influence of modern martial arts on every area of Comba-Tai:

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Jones
    However I never forgot the African Philosophy that
    Reverend Dr. S.A. Jones handed down to me. I believe it has always tempered the
    teachings I gave to my students that causes us to “think of even our enemies as our
    responsibility.”
    In terms of the actual fighting system, as far as I can tell, this movement containing the
    stance of the sword and shield has some relevance to the Nuba stick fighters. We know
    that as early as the 1930’s they moved in similar fashion with a mock sword and shield.
    And hence to day, our stance is called the sword and shield. In 1949 the fighters carried
    sticks and shields that were reminiscence of sword fighting made safer. While these may
    be safer than an actual blade one blow from the stick could kill. This seldom happened
    because the battles were closely controlled by a referee.
    All this seems to be in memory of some sort of soldier play Since the 16 Century
    Europeans had heard of legendary Knights that existed in the Sudan. These Knights were
    garbed in splendid armor much like medieval Knights of Europe. A British expedition
    traveled to the Sudan hoping to prove these fabulous legends were false. When the
    Europeans saw them, they were flabbergasted to see these Africans arrayed in coats of
    Armor ridding expertly precision horses through complex maneuvers. They charge the
    Europeans seeming to attack them, but at the last minute pulling away shouting time and
    time again “Welcome.” One European writer expressed that these mock charges were a
    declaration of contempt for our weakness. Perhaps the Nuba tribesmen stick fighting,
    recount this ancient glorious time.
    In any case my grandfather handed down this movement to me, and it is what we know
    today as Geziret el Malik. In June of 1992 I interviewed Michael Saliko Rwiyamilira
    who is from the country of Rwanda. I described to him a combative technique from
    Geziret el Malik known as umtego. I attempted to describe this technique to by saying,
    “My grandfather used it to grapple close to the opponent, sweeping the leg while close,
    throwing the opponent.” I also described a number of other tactics it was used for. He
    said the technique was identical to a fighting form in Rwanda known as Gukirana. Mr.
    Rwiyamilira described it by saying, “To sweep your opponent’s legs it involves two
    people, each holding one another’s waist. One tries to sweep the legs of the other with
    the intention of following him to the ground. The purpose,” he says, “of Gukirana is to
    prepare the person so that in a real fight he may use this skill. He further stated that
    Umutego means sweep.
    Please note the absence of any reference to the Nuba, only a tangential reference to Nubian wrestling (takedown techniques) and no reference at all to boxing. In fact, in this section, he's laying out what he believes is the whole influence of traditional Nubian martial arts on modern Comba-Tai; that he doesn't even mention boxing, doesn't even glance in that direction, DIRECTLY refutes your account that a 6,000 year history of boxing in Ethiopia somehow relates to Geziret el Malik. Why would he have left boxing out?

    2) Boxing can evolve independently. One of your own references says that it probably did in Crete. Boxing is a pretty simple thing; Hey, you two! Fight by hitting each other and avoid grappling because people find it boring and kicking because it keeps fights at a distance! Not complicated, just a way to make fights entertaining.

    3) Even if boxing didn't evolve completely independently in Crete, that doesn't support an unbroken lineage of any kind.

    4) None of those articles supports the argument that boxing in Ethiopia was the first systematized form of hand-to-hand combat.

    5) While I have seen independent verification of much of the information contained in those links, please do not confuse those citations with research papers; they were not.

    I don’t think there is evidence anywhere that people from Africa to Asia developed complex military skills in isolation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_warfare ( also see: Cambridge Encyclopedia on Africa regarding the Bow)
    1) The use of the term "complex military skills" to describe boxing is pretty bald. Yes, boxing requires a great deal of skill, but it doesn't require a stroke of creative genius to conceive of the ruleset.

    2) The earliest bronze-age swords come from Sumeria. Therefore, modern Olympic epee fencers can claim an unbroken royal warrior lineage to the military dictators of Ur.

    3) This is an argument that can't be falsified or verified, and is largely irrelevant, since Dr. Jones never even claimed boxing as part of Geziret El Malik or the Nubian contribution to his art. If he starts doing it now, I'm going to wonder why he didn't before--did he just now remember another part of the oral tradition that was passed down to him?

    4) How much development would the Cretans have had to do, assuming they did adopt their boxing from the Ethiopians by way of Egypt, before they could claim the sport as their own? How clear and defined a system did ancient Ethiopian boxing have to be to be claimed as not only a type of early boxing, but as the progenitor of all the boxing styles that have developed since then? And why that arbitrary level? This is why we shy away from narratives of long, unbroken martial histories; it gives people the ability to take credit for everything, without showing how they influenced much of anything at all.

    I also believe the documented hand to hand combat that began in Ethiopia was a systematic skill.
    Okay. But it wasn't Geziret El Malik, it was boxing. See all the arguments above.

    I believe the Medjay who lived in Ethiopia at this time who developed Kingship engaged in complex systems. http://www.raceandhistory.com/cgi-bi...rames/read/812
    Okay. No problem with this at all. They weren't the only complex, continuous culture that existed at the time, nor were they even close to the oldest. While we don't know precisely when hereditary monarchy arrived in Sumer, we do know that the Ubaid period began around 5300 BCE; this is generally considered to be the earliest end to pre-history for any culture so far known (Egyptian pre-history, by contrast, ended in 3500 BCE).

    I do not believe they were hunter gathers. The evidence does not support a primitive milieu in Ethiopia among the Medjay. http://www.nubianet.org/about/about_history3.html http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/qustul.html

    Alternate View: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=002...3E2.0.CO%3B2-J
    We're not disputing any of this. It just doesn't support the claims at issue..

    I never suggested Comba-Tai was a proven fact ... how could I, I am only scantly aware of the research … I don’t know … But I am aware it has been research by the developer for 20 years. I have said that I believe a collaboration of the evidence suggest that in fact it is probable and therefore possible. Admittedly such a stretch in the distant past is hard to prove by specific evidence.
    However, these claims are specific, overarching, and flamboyantly in conflict with the academic and scientific principles of parsimony and conservatism (that is, making only those claims that are supported by the evidence, and making as few additional assumptions as possible).

    I have said I believe we can take a broader look at, and link evidence as it relates to a Big History concept http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_History.
    Big History does not look like Dr. Jones work, if you've ever read any of it. Also, big history still requires evidence, and still submits itself for peer review. Big history is a way of looking at settled historical facts for themes and narratives--it relies on normal historical scholarship to provide the framework for a meta-narrative process. Comba-Tai's claims are not an example of "Big History" in the sense that I understand it or wikipedia describes it.

    I believe that there are other ways of transmitting evidence other than the written record and oral traditions which admittedly is problematic but possible.
    I didn't dispute that oral traditions could be valuable; I only argued that oral traditions requried a great deal of additional support and analysis, because of the greater propensity for them to be made up or altered from generation to generation.

    Yet I do not believe any historian discounts Oral history even if it is second hand.
    So if we are to believe the oral history that collaborates with the written record, artifacts, symbols and transference of military skills and philosophies, I still contend that the 6,000 year old tradition is possible.
    The oral tradition of Geziret El Malik, however, is not corroborated by the historical evidence of a 6,000 year history of boxing, since apparently that oral tradition did not tell him that Nubian/Ethiopian history contained the beginnings of boxing. Nor have you provided any evidence that any of the supposedly accurate claims made by this oral tradition are any older than the scholarship that revealed the relevant historical facts to the public. In fact, you've defended that these oral histories were kept secret instead. You've failed to address our criticisms of your corroborations, and you haven't answered that a great deal of what's claimed isn't in the historical record. Finally, you haven't explained why even if a few claims turned out to be right, this would justify the belief in other claims made by that oral tradition that are not historically evident.

    Is the lineage claimed to be unbroken? Yes! Do I believe it is unbroken? Yes I do. If one technique or philosophies is transmitted in tact--and they suggest over 30--than yes the tradition is in fact unbroken. But again, you would have to believe their presupposition about Africa and the Comba-Tai descent.
    Lineage is not the same as tradition. Comba-Tai has claimed both, so we'll address them separately. An unbroken tradition would require a demonstration that Comba-Tai not only has techniques that are similar to ancient arts, but also that wouldn't have developed other ways. Japanese jujutsu and ancient Greek pankration both have the medial and lateral key locks, the rear naked choke, the short choke, the guillotine, etc; there aren't many historians who think they influenced one another, though. Human bodies are similar everywhere. The techniques for attacking them will therefore be similar everywhere. Especially in unarmed combat, we can expect similar techniques to arise independently. Not to mention, you have yet to address the possibility of ex post facto mimickry or conscious alteration of existing techniques to appear like ancient ones. Finally, you have yet to cite sources for these supposedly obvious comparisons.

    Most of this is widely known now, but at the time the developer of Comba-Tai wrote about this, the information was not widely known or none existent.)

    The art of Comba-Tai is not 6,000 years old, but a Component of Comba-Tai-- Gezerit el Malik-- is thought to be a 6,000 years old system that is believed to be traced to the Kushite/Nubian Medjay from an Unbroken Lineage. (Also see Gukurana) http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/nubianarchers.html It was the first recorded organized system of hand to hand combat. http://www.hickoksports.com/history/boxing01.shtml , http://www.madehow.com/Volume-6/Boxing-Gloves.html , http://www.answers.com/topic/boxing-1?cat=technology I don’t think there is evidence anywhere that people from Africa to Asia developed complex military skills in isolation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_warfare ( also see: Cambridge Encyclopedia on Africa regarding the Bow) I also believe the documented hand to hand combat that began in Ethiopia was a systematic skill. I believe the Medjay who lived in Ethiopia at this time who developed Kingship engaged in complex systems. http://www.raceandhistory.com/cgi-bi...rames/read/812 I do not believe they were hunter gathers. The evidence does not support a primitive milieu in Ethiopia among the Medjay. http://www.nubianet.org/about/about_history3.html http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/qustul.html

    Alternate View: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=002...3E2.0.CO%3B2-J
    Why did you repeat this block three times in this post? I cut out the second one, but was it to make it appear more substantive? What's up with that?
      #1107
  8. Iscariot is offline

    I decided I'd have a pretty avatar for a while.

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Sheffield, England
    Posts
    1,661

    Posted On:
    6/22/2007 12:59pm


     Style: Student Jutsu

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Mantis
    Are you a historian? If you are not, perhaps you are right, we should end this conversation because all your claims against the historicity of the Comba-Tai claims revolve around a foundation of ignorance.

    Are there any historians on this thread? If so, I would be willing to listen to your view of the possibility of an ancient lineage of African Martial arts. By the way, your presuppositions don't have to be peer reviewed, I don't believe in the peer review process as it realties to anything African.

    If a historian says I cannot make such claims about history, I will consider adjusting my views.
    If I remember correctly Olorin teaches History to University level. He posted:
    Quote Originally Posted by Olorin
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DAYoung
    Where's Olorin? He could provide a nice response to this.


    I will try to keep this short, as I have no desire to argue this endlessly.

    I looked into some of this and did a little digging. As far as a recognized peer reviewed article on Comba Tai, I used JSTOR to search through 20 academic journals of archaeology, 21 academic journals of African Studies, 8 African American studies journals, 27 journal on anthropology, 6 journals of folklore, and 73 academic journals of history, and found not a single reference to Comba Tai, Comba-Tai, or Gezerit al Malik

    M.B. Poliakoff’s work Combat Sports of the Ancient World: Combat, Violence, and Culture (Yale University Press, 1987) does contain a few pages on the Nubian tribes of the lower Sudan, and a few pages about ancient Egyptian stick fighting and wrestling techniques, but no reference to Comba Tai. Ditto for Gezerit al Malik

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mantis
    Oh and by the way, I gave you more than 10 peer reviewed articles,


    Would you mind linking to them again please? It’s a long thread and I just got here. I would like to take a quick look at them. I found the Scott T. Carroll on Wrestling in Ancient Nubia. If you do not have a link, I can find about any article with the Author’s name and article title.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mantis
    There are a few articles however about Nubian culture that are peer review that might suggest 6,000 years, i.e. Racial History and Bio-Cultural Adaptation of Nubian Archaeological Populations Dennis P. van Gerven, David S. Carlson, George J. Armelagos The Journal of African History, Vol. 14, No. 4 (1973), pp. 555-564


    This article is about Egyptian and Nubian admixture (cultural and genetic mixing) it has nothing to do with any martial arts. It is a bit of a historiography about when Egyptian and Nubian admixture occurred. I do not think anyone is arguing that Nubian civilization of not very old. Traditionally its historical significance is in that it is a place of great mixing as the gateway between Egypt, and therefore all of Europe and the Middle East, and Sub-Saharan Africa.

    The fact that Nubian culture is old and that almost every culture has some form of martial arts does not mean that Comba Tai is an unbroken tradition reaching back 6,000 or so years. Such a claim requires proof.

    It is up to you to show that what you say is correct not for us to disprove something that might not exist.


    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mantis
    --American Anthropological Association
    Statement on "Race"
    (May 17, 1998)



    Most of this comes from Edmund S. Morgan’s American Slavery American Freedom. However, the article states that the American concept of race and racism developed in the 18th century when in fact Morgan and others argue that it started after the Tobacco Bust of the 1660s. Just FYI.

    As far as relying on oral history, it is problematic. If there are no written records, oral history might be the only way to get to a peoples history. As far as US history is concerned, historians mostly use it when dealing with Native American history. While a historian can choose to take it seriously, it is not the same as primary source material or archeological evidence.

    All that being said, it is upon you to back up your claims with solid evidence and not upon us to disprove what might not exist. 6,000 years is a very long time and very few things exist this long in an unbroken chain.

    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Either provide it, or just state that your belief is one of faith and not fact.
    Please refer to the bolded sections for what a historian thinks of your points.
    "Listen to Iscariot you Vicchysoise ninja-fuckers!" - kohadril
    "Are you going to rise to godhood out of the ashes of Earth? " - frumpleswift
    "I'll pray for you Iscariot." - Mas
    "Iscariot, check your pulse and report back. We need to know if you are in fact, not alive." - Lu Tzu
    "Iscariot is victorious!" - Dai Tenshi
    "More God delusions." - DAYoung
    "Iscariot, despite our obvious doctrinal differences, I salute your exquisite bastardry, and take back half of all the bad things I ever said about you." - Zendetta
      #1108
  9. Mantis is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    379

    Posted On:
    6/22/2007 1:06pm


     Style: Judo

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by kohadril
    You say this, but from your lack of citation I can see that you're not willing to actually provide an argument. An argument has three components; a claim, a warrant, and an implication. You are missing the second part. Please provide documentation that Dr. Jones knew about any of this before anybody else did.

    ?

    No you are wrong ... Dr. Jones does claim that Gezerit el Malik is related to the 6,000 year old tradition of boxing. He did this back in "Warriors of Antiquity" 1995. This is also claimed in a Wekipedia file. So again, good try but no cigar.

    I read your arguments and they seem OK, but are you a historian?
      #1109
  10. Grashnak is offline
    Grashnak's Avatar

    Old School DM

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Ottawa
    Posts
    1,055

    Posted On:
    6/22/2007 1:06pm

    supporting member
     Style: Nothing current

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    The art of Comba-Tai is not 6,000 years old, but a Component of Comba-Tai-- Gezerit el Malik-- is thought to be a 6,000 years old system that is believed to be traced to the Kushite/Nubian Medjay from an Unbroken Lineage. (Also see Gukurana)
    Believe by Jones. So far, we see no one else who believes that. I don't see the words "Gezerit el Malik" anywhere on the internet (except as used by Jones) in connection with a martial art. A google search for "Gezerit el Malik" actually tells you that you've spelled it wrong. A search for Geziret el Malik turns up 16 hits, 12 of which relate to an Egyptian Island. The other 4? This thread and two articles by Jones.

    Not much of a case for saying it is "thought" to be 6,000 years old. Just because Jones thinks this, doesn't make it true.


    http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/nubianarchers.html It was the first recorded organized system of hand to hand combat.
    Do you even look at the sources you quote? This web page belongs to some guy whose website is entitled: "Celestial Democracy: The Making of America". I have no idea who he is or what his agenda is, but even if he was the friggin Smithsonian, the article has absolutely nothing to do with Geziret el Malik or Comba-Tai. Its a fairly amateurish look at some pictures of ancient Nubian archers etc.



    This source is an article on the history of boxing. It contains one sentence that says:
    Fighting with fists was a sport about 6,000 years ago in what is now known as Ethiopia, from where it spread to ancient Egypt and eventually throughout the Mediterranean area.
    This website belongs to a sports writer named Ralph Hickok (as compared to say, a historian) and without even arguing about the accuracy of what he says, notice that he says nothing about G-e-M or Comba-Tai.


    This is an article on how to make boxing gloves, which again contains one sentence about the origin of boxing being in Ethiopia 6,000 years ago:

    Fist fighting has existed as a form of entertainment since the early days of human civilization. Some form of the sport appeared as long as 6,000 years ago in present-day Ethiopia.
    Again, no source for this statement and, no surprise, no mention of G-e-M or Comba-Tai.


    And this article is simple quoting the article above. Nice use of circular reasoning. It just shows how poor your research was.


    I don’t think there is evidence anywhere that people from Africa to Asia developed complex military skills in isolation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_warfare ( also see: Cambridge Encyclopedia on Africa regarding the Bow)
    I don't even know what your point is here. I do note though that reading through that article, we see that the first historically recorded instances of combat took place in Mesopotamia - not in Africa. So again, not sure what you're trying to prove. Maybe the Nubians learned to fight from the Sumerians.


    I also believe the documented hand to hand combat that began in Ethiopia was a systematic skill. I believe the Medjay who lived in Ethiopia at this time who developed Kingship engaged in complex systems. http://www.raceandhistory.com/cgi-bi...rames/read/812
    You can believe anything you want, but that link is broken. A web page entitled "Race and History" is unlikely an unbiased source btw. The website hosts such enlightening articles as "Imus and White Privilege: Don't Blame Rap Music", "White Liberals Cannot See Truth in Africa", and "The Wealth of the West Was Built on Africa's Expoitation". Quoting a bunch of loons earns you no research brownie points.

    Oh, and again, no mention of G-e-M or Comba-Tai.


    I do not believe they were hunter gathers. The evidence does not support a primitive milieu in Ethiopia among the Medjay. http://www.nubianet.org/about/about_history3.html http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/qustul.html
    The Nubianet website is pretty cool. The other one is the same nutbar you quoted from "Celestial Democracy". Regardless, I have no idea whether or not the Medjat were hunter gatherers. I don't really care. What does that have to do with anything?


    So apparently what you believe about Geziret-el-Malik is based on absolutely nothing. Those web pages, even the ones by lunatics, still don't contain any information that would prove anything about your alleged martial art or its history.
    Jesus loves you. I think you're an asshole.
      #1110

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Powered by vBulletin™© contact@vbulletin.com vBulletin Solutions, Inc. 2011 All rights reserved.