ŠNW NW DHDH/Shenu Nu Dekyahdekyah:
[Cycle of Revolution]
The Moral Response of
an Oppressed People!
Ambakisye-Okang Olatunde Dukuzumurenyi, Ph.D.
[Public Policy Analysis]
Human organization of a social system
is a basic fundamental feature of collective action and a seminal step in the
development of the material aspects of culture. The creation, innovation,
development and expansion of socio-political economic structures is, along with
animal and plant domestication and the invention of writing systems, the
seminal bequeathments of the Wahenga na Wahenguzi of Utamaduni Mkubwa ya Afrika
passed on to their posterity.
Judging
from the nature of the origins of , XPR/Kheper [Kush/Kemet: Existence] as theorized in the spiritual-scientific
texts of , NHSW KMT/Nehesu-Kemet [Kush/Kemet: Negro-Egyptian,
Kushite-KMT/Kemet], the nature of social and political-economic
organization of the earliest societies was a joint act of complementary Watu
Weusi couples. Having thoroughly
surveyed their environmental setting the Global Afrikan woman and man derived a
social structure, which was best suited to their environmental conditions and
which would allow for not only biological survival but spiritual, cognitive,
affective and psychomotor physiological expansion and prosperity as well.
Considerations of the nature of Global
Afrikan socio-political economic organization reveal that the original system
of social organization of Global Afrikans was neither an absolutely matrilineal
nor an exclusively patrilineal system, but instead was one that addressed
itself to the specifics of a given social situation.
For example, the traditions circumscribing
the marriage compact were such that in a given social setting the union could
be matri-local under certain circumstances such as where the male spouse joins
the Ukoo [Kiswahili: Clan] of the female spouse, but it could also be
transformed into a patri-local power relationship under a given set of
circumstances where the female spouse for some reason becomes a part of the
living structure of the Ukoo of the male spouse.[1]
In the first instance, the marriage compact
is defined by a matriarchal system with matrilineal determination of filial
relationship order of accession to positions of leadership and
responsibility.
In the second situation,
the system is organized according to the principles of patriarchy with filial
relationship and order of accession being governed by patrilineal guide
lines.
The filial relationship of the
matri-local system of Utamaduni Mkubwa ya , NHSW KMT/Nehesu-Kemet [Kush/Kemet: Negro-Egyptian,
Kushite-KMT/Kemet], where the brother of the mother, her
partner in the ceremonial marriage, played a significant role in inheritance,
was a firm pillar of the social organization of the , PR ‘З/Per-aa [Kush/Kemet:
Great Ruling House] until the Persian conquest of the ,
IDHW ITRW H ‘PI/Idehu Iteru Hapi [Kush/Kemet:
Nile Delta].
The
matrilineal-patrilineal system and the psychology which goes with it is in part
an outgrowth of the temperate environmental surroundings which predominated
across the Afrikan continent at different periods in the past, for example
during c. 8759 BKC [c. 13000 BCE],[2]
and of the agricultural, horticultural and pastoralist techniques of settled
political-economic productivity.
The Afrikan matrilineal-patrilineal system
operated throughout all Afrikan socio-political economic organizations,[3]
which made up the multinational pluralist Afrikan state beginning with the
smallest socio-political economic aggregate known as the
, IWNTYW HDHD/Iuntyu
Kyahedkyahed [Kush/Kemet: Extraction
Societies] and continuing through the increasing social complexity
represented by the socio-political economic interconnections of both the
, DYDY MNIW SIWT/ Deyedey Meniu Siut [Kush/Kemet: Horticulture Pastoralist
Societies] and the , IHWTY/Ihuty [Kush/Kemet: Agriculturalist Societies].
Within each we find the intermixture of
matriarchy and patriarchy within a socio-political economic, socio-cultural and socio-historical , ST/Săt
[Kush/Kemet: Context]
represented in the institutions of communal stewardship of the land and private
possession of the material effects of Ukoo estates with birthright being
determined by a given situation as stated previously.
Additionally, there is an
Afrikan differentiation of state managerial, technological and industrial labor
enterprises represented in the Ukoo based specialization in social endeavors
such as the legal inheritance of state administrative offices or of
professional occupations such as civil engineering and architecture. This decidedly Afrikan system of labor
differentiation was derived with the intentionality of preserving the
egalitarian harmony of the , MЗ‘T/Maat [Kush/Kemet: Truth, Justice, Harmony, Balance, Order,
Reciprocity, Propriety] based social system by
structuring and distributing the political-economic institutions in as wide a
pattern of dispersion as was socially viable.
The , IWNTYW HDHD/Iuntyu
Kyahedkyahed [Kush/Kemet: Extraction
Societies] were an Afrikan political-economic adaptation to a given
environmental habitat that were herbivorous-cultures which specialized in the
extraction industries of studying and harvesting naturally growing wild
varieties of edible plants and fruits.
The wild varieties of the plants had to
be scientifically analyzed to determine their health impacts and possible
deleterious effects when consumed individually as well as the impact of
consumption of combinations of the wild varieties. Societies organized in this fashion were also
carnivorous-cultures that developed and honed exceptional skills in the
observation and tracking of animals native to an environment for purposes of
deciding on the feasibility of consuming the flesh and utilizing other aspects
of the carcass in the enhancement of their material culture.
Where the environment circumvented, was
bordered by or was separated by lakes and rivers these types of Afrikan
societies also became maritime-cultures developing among other skills expertise
in pisci-culture.
Furthermore, Afrikan
societies of this type perfected piscatorial, herbivorous and carnivorous
methods of food storage such as drying, salting and smoking animal and fish
flesh. The degree of nomadic tendencies
and range of movement in these societies was highly dependent on the quality
and quantity of the food supply in a given locale. Even so, the , IWNTYW HDHD/Iuntyu
Kyahedkyahed [Kush/Kemet: Extraction
Societies] were able to live a sedentary life in the pisci-cultures while
sending out foraging expeditions once local herbivore supplies dwindled due to
consumption and their seasonal nature of growth and while sending out hunting
expeditions which followed the wild herds.
Those , IWNTYW HDHD/Iuntyu
Kyahedkyahed [Kush/Kemet: Extraction
Societies] which happened to live far afield of major water sources due to
climatic changes or other causes tended to rely heavily upon the resources
extracted from the carnivorous-culture and therefore their migration patterns
tended to be heavily influenced by the migratory movements of the wild herds.
The , DYDY MNIW SIWT/Deyedey Meniu Siut [Kush/Kemet: Horticulture Pastoralist
Societies] are societies that applied the knowledge, skills and abilities
learned from the , IWNTYW HDHD/Iuntyu
Kyahedkyahed [Kush/Kemet: Extraction
Societies] in the domestication of plants and animals. Having learned of the varieties and types of
plants and fruits and their seasons of propagation from the
, IWNTYW HDHD/Iuntyu
Kyahedkyahed [Kush/Kemet: Extraction
Societies], the , DYDY MNIW SIWT/Deyedey Meniu Siut [Kush/Kemet: Horticulture Pastoralist
Societies] domesticated those plant varieties which lent themselves most
effectively to human manipulation and consumption.
Also, in the course of becoming proficient in
the observation and tracking of animals the , DYDY MNIW SIWT/Deyedey Meniu Siut [Kush/Kemet: Horticulture Pastoralist Societies]
gained sufficient knowledge of the way of life of a variety of animals and how
to domesticate them. With the
application of this knowledge base the , DYDY MNIW SIWT/Deyedey Meniu Siut [Kush/Kemet: Horticulture Pastoralist Societies]
were able in environmental ecologies which provided the resource base to live a
sedentary way of life year round while periodically sending out hunting
expeditions, extending their , DYDY/Deyedey [Kush/Kemet: Horticulture] plots in the face of the depletion of
the fertility of older plots, and sending out their , MNIW SIWT/Meniu Siut [Kush/Kemet: Shepherds] and flocks to
find grazing land.
The , IHWTY/Ihuty [Kush/Kemet: Agriculturalist Societies] expanded upon the extensive
knowledge base of the , DYDY MNIW SIWT/Deyedey Meniu Siut [Kush/Kemet: Horticulture Pastoralist
Societies] in the areas of , SKЗ/Ska [Kush/Kemet: Tilling], , SWRD/Surd [Kush/Kemet: Planting], , SKЗ/Ska [Kush/Kemet: Cultivation] and the , ЗSX/Askh [Kush/Kemet: Reaping] of the
, SKЗW/Skau [Kush/Kemet: Harvest] to bring larger areas of land under , SKЗ/Ska [Kush/Kemet:
Cultivation] systematically and
indefinitely. All of these acts
presuppose the observation of the planets and stars and hence the utilization
of calendars in order to carefully forecast seasons for planting.
Given that there is incontrovertible
paleontological substantiation that by c.
35759 BKC [c. 40,000 BCE] extensive mining activities were being conducted
by Watu Weusi in what is now contemporary Swaziland; and also
there is the Lebombo bone implement which was uncovered in what is now Swaziland
which dates to c. 32759 BKC [c. 37,000 BCE] and has twenty-nine markings
conceivably representing a lunar-solar Afrikan calendar; and finally that there
is the Ishango bone implement found in the Democratic Republic of the Congo,
which is dated conservatively to c. 4759- 2259 BKC [c. 9000-6500 BCE] and may
be as old as c. 20759 BKC [c. 25,000 BCE] and is an Afrikan calendar that
contains thirty-nine marks, used as a notation system for calculating the
monthly phases of the moon, then the developments in the , IHWTY/Ihuty [Kush/Kemet:
Agriculturalist Societies] occurred at a point in the Global Afrikan past
which exceeds by many millennia the conservative dates of c. 3759 BKC [c. 8000
BCE].[4]
Each of these Afrikan forms of , NT‘/Neta [Kush/Kemet:
Organization, Coordination and Cooperation] were dependent on their
surrounding ecology, and defined by the relationship of the
, WHYT/Wehyt [Kush/Kemet: Family, Village] and the
, KRHT/Kerhet [Kush/Kemet: Ancient Lineage] system, exogamy or external group Ndoa [Kiswahili: Marriage] for the purpose of establishing
political-economic coalitions, , NT‘/Neta [Kush/Kemet: Rites, Rituals] of passage, the novitiate system of
education, socio-cultural and political-economic Kujitegemea [Kiswahili:
Self-reliance] and therefore self-government, self-determination and true Uhuru [Kiswahili: Freedom], and , IЗK ‘NX NW NIWTYW/Iak Ankh Nu Niutyu [Kush/Kemet: Consensus Decision-making,
Democracy].
In addition they were
demarcated by a system of labor division defined by differentiation, but
egalitarianism between Global Afrikan women and men with the ethereal Global
Afrikan women maintaining judicious guardianship and direction of the , DYDY/Deyedey [Kush/Kemet:
Horticulture] and , IHWTY/Ihuty [Kush/Kemet: Agriculture] food system and all associated
political-economic institutions.
Only in those ecologies in which the
environmental setting was such that the carnivorous aspects of the
, IWNTYW HDHD/Iuntyu
Kyahedkyahed [Kush/Kemet: Extraction
Societies] and the , MNIW SIWT/Meniu Siut [Kush/Kemet: Shepherds] component of the
, DYDY MNIW SIWT/Deyedey Meniu Siut [Kush/Kemet: Horticulture Pastoralist
Societies] came to predominate did distortions set in which were delineated
by male domination, a destruction of the age old social system of
differentiation with egalitarianism and the subjugation of the Global Afrikan
woman.
Examples would be those Global
Afrikan communities which migrated into Europe, the lands of Kushite KUR Ki-na-ah-na [Kiagadèki: Canaan], Kushite Arabia and Kushite Māt Kaldu [Kiagadèki: Ancient Chaldea] c. 25759- 3759
BKC [c. 30000-8000 BCE] that following major climatic cataclysms and population
decimation become socially mutated communities that would have a male dominated
political-economic hierarchy based upon female subjugation and would be
extremely violent, war-like and aggressive.[5]
Against this background it would seem that
government a key socio-political economic institution is very much derived as
John Locke described:
“Men being, as has
been said, by nature all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of
this estate and subjected to the political power of another without his own
consent, which is done by agreeing with other men, to join and unite into a
community for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living, one amongst
another, in a secure enjoyment of their properties, and a greater security
against any that are not of it. This any number of men may do, because it
injures not the freedom of the rest; they are left, as they were, in the
liberty of the state of Nature. When any number of men have so consented to
make one community or government, they are thereby presently incorporated, and
make one body politic, wherein the majority have a right to act and conclude
the rest.”[6]
The
mutual consent of all who shall be governed by this socio-political economic
compact implies the following definition of freedom:
“The natural liberty
of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the
will or legislative authority of man, but to have only the law of Nature for
his rule. The liberty of man in society is to be under no other legislative
power but that established by consent in the commonwealth, nor under the
dominion of any will, or restraint of any law, but what that legislative shall
enact according to the trust put in it. Freedom, then, is … freedom of men
under government…to have a standing rule to live by, common to every one of
that society, and made by the legislative power erected in it. A liberty to
follow my own will in all things where that rule prescribes not, not to be
subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, arbitrary will of another man,
as freedom of nature is to be under no other restraint but the law of Nature.
This freedom from absolute, arbitrary power is so necessary to, and closely
joined with, a man’s preservation, that he cannot part with it but by what forfeits
his preservation and life together.”[7]
On
the moral reprehensibility, illegality and indefensibility of conquest Locke
writes cogently that:
“Though governments
can originally have no other rise than that before mentioned, nor polities be
founded on anything but the consent of the people, yet such have been the
disorders ambition has filled the world with, that in the noise of war, which
makes so great a part of the history of mankind, this consent is little taken
notice of; and, therefore, many have mistaken the force of arms for the consent
of the people, and reckon conquest as one of the originals of government. But
conquest is as far from setting up any government as demolishing a house is
from building a new one in the place. Indeed, it often makes way for a new
frame of a commonwealth by destroying the former; but, without the consent of
the people, can never erect a new one. That the aggressor, who puts himself
into the state of war with another, and unjustly invades another man’s right,
can, by such an unjust war, never come to have a right over the conquered, will
be easily agreed by all men, who will not think that robbers and pirates have a
right of empire over whomsoever they have force enough to master, or that men
are bound by promises which unlawful force extorts from them.”[8]
With regards to the illegitimacy of coup
de tats and other unlawful seizures of power Locke is of the position that:
“As conquest may be
called a foreign usurpation, so usurpation is a kind of domestic conquest, with
this difference—that an usurper can never have right on his side, it being no
usurpation but where one is got into the possession of what another has right
to. This, so far as it is usurpation, is a change only of persons, but not of
the forms and rules of the government; for if the usurper extend his power
beyond what, of right, belonged to the lawful princes or governors of the
commonwealth, it is tyranny added to usurpation…all commonwealths, therefore,
with the form of government established, have rules also of appointing and
conveying the right to those who are to have any share in the public authority;
and whoever gets into the exercise of any part of the power by other ways than
what the laws of the community have prescribed hath no right to be obeyed,
though the form of the commonwealth be still preserved, since he is not the
person the laws have appointed, and, consequently, not the person the people
have consented to. Nor can such an usurper, or any deriving from him, ever have
a title till the people are both at liberty to consent, and have actually
consented, to allow and confirm in him the power he hath till then usurped.”[9]
Concerning
corruption and the mis-use of power through oppression Locke surmises:
“As usurpation is the
exercise of power which another hath a right to, so tyranny is the exercise of
power beyond right, which nobody can have a right to; and this is making use of
the power any one has in his hands, not for the good of those who are under it,
but for his own private, separate advantage. When the governor, however
entitled, makes not the law, but his will, the rule, and his commands and
actions are not directed to the preservation of the properties of his people,
but the satisfaction of his own ambition, revenge, covetousness, or any other
irregular passion…for wherever the power that is put in any hands for the
government of the people and the preservation of their properties is applied to
other ends, and made use of to impoverish, harass, or subdue them to the
arbitrary and irregular commands of those that have it, there it presently
becomes tyranny, whether those that thus use it are one or many…May the
commands, then, of a prince be opposed? May he be resisted, as often as any one
shall find himself aggrieved, and but imagine he has not right done him? This
will unhinge and overturn all polities, and instead of government and order,
leave nothing but anarchy and confusion. To this I answer: That force is to be
opposed to nothing but to unjust and unlawful force.”[10]
Finally,
in Chapter XIX of John Locke’s essay that is entitled, “Of the Dissolution of
Government,” he provides the philosophical vantage point by which all societies
that reside under a common mutually developed government may lawfully vindicate
the extreme measures that may be necessary to remove from themselves the harsh
yoke of arbitrary government, while being careful to differentiate the
dissolution of society from the dissolution of government. On the difference between the two Locke
writes:
“He that will, with
any clearness, speak of the dissolution of government, ought in the first place
to distinguish between the dissolution of the society and the dissolution of
the government. That which makes the community, and brings men out of the loose
state of Nature into one politic society, is the agreement which everyone has
with the rest to incorporate and act as one body, and so be one distinct
commonwealth. The usual, and almost only way whereby this union is dissolved,
is the inroad of foreign force making a conquest upon them.”[11]
As
far as the socio-political economic depredations that can lead a people to the
decision of choosing the dissolution of government Locke writes:
“First. When the
legislative is altered, civil society being a state of peace amongst those who
are of it, from whom the state of war is excluded by the umpirage which they
have provided in their legislative for the ending all differences that may
arise amongst any of them…When any one, or more, shall take upon them to make
laws whom the people have not appointed so to do, they make laws without
authority, which the people are not therefore bound to obey; by which means
they come again to be out of subjection, and may constitute to themselves a new
legislative, as they think best, being in full liberty to resist the force of
those who, without authority, would impose anything upon them…First, that when
such a single person or prince sets up his own arbitrary will in place of the
laws which are the will of the society declared by the legislative, then the
legislative is changed…Secondly, when the prince hinders the legislative from
assembling in its due time, or from acting freely, pursuant to those ends for
which it was constituted, the legislative is altered…Thirdly, when, by the
arbitrary power of the prince, the electors or ways of election are altered
without the consent and contrary to the common interest of the people, there
also the legislative is altered…Fourthly, the delivery also of the people into the
subjection of a foreign power, either by the prince or by the legislative, is
certainly a change of the legislative, and so a dissolution of the
government…There is one way more whereby such a government may be dissolved,
and that is: When he who has the supreme executive power neglects and abandons
that charge, so that the laws already made can no longer be put in execution;
this is demonstratively to reduce all to anarchy, and so effectively to
dissolve the government…There is, therefore, secondly, another way whereby
governments are dissolved, and that is, when the legislative, or the prince,
either of them act contrary to their trust.”[12]
These
acts in unison or singly compel a people to seek the moral grounds, upon which
a government may be dissolved, this position is stated by Locke thusly:
“But it will be said
this hypothesis lays a ferment for frequent rebellion. To which I answer:
First: no more than any other hypothesis. For when the people are made
miserable, and find themselves exposed to the ill usage of arbitrary power, cry
up their governors as much as you will for sons of Jupiter, let them be sacred
and divine, descended or authorised from Heaven; give them out for whom or what
you please, the same will happen. The people generally ill-treated, and
contrary to right, will be ready upon any occasion to ease themselves of a
burden that sits heavy upon them. They will wish and seek for the opportunity,
which in the change, weakness, and accidents of human affairs, seldom delays
long to offer itself He must have lived but a little while in the world, who
has not seen examples of this in his time; and he must have read very little
who cannot produce examples of it in all sorts of governments in the world.
Secondly: I answer, such revolutions happen not upon every little mismanagement
in public affairs. Great mistakes in the ruling part, many wrong and
inconvenient laws, and all the slips of human frailty will be borne by the
people without mutiny or murmur. But if a long train of abuses, prevarications,
and artifices, all tending the same way, make the design visible to the people,
and they cannot but feel what they lie under, and see whither they are going,
it is not to be wondered that they should then rouse themselves, and endeavour
to put the rule into such hands which may secure to them the ends for which
government was at first erected, and without which, ancient names and specious
forms are so far from being better, that they are much worse than the state of
Nature or pure anarchy; the inconveniencies being all as great and as near, but
the remedy farther off and more difficult. Thirdly: I answer, that this power
in the people of providing for their safety anew by a new legislative when
their legislators have acted contrary to their trust by invading their
property, is the best fence against rebellion, and the probable means to hinder
it…In both the fore mentioned cases, when either the legislative is changed, or
the legislators act contrary to the end for which they were constituted, those
who are guilty are guilty of rebellion.”
The
terms by which a government may be dissolved as expressed by John Locke in the
56th Century KC [15th Century CE] are the selfsame terms
averred by Thomas Jefferson in his draft of the American “Declaration of
Independence” in the 59th Century KC [18th Century
CE]. This particular point is
illustrated succinctly by the following extraction from Thomas Jefferson’s
preliminary draft and final version of the document:
“…But when a long
train of abuses and usurpation’s, (begun at a distinguished period and)
pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under
absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such
government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”
The whole of John Locke’s essay served as the guiding document by which the founders of the United States government and by implication all over governments based on the American and United Kingdom template laid the social and political fabric of the American nation.
And it is from this very foundation that the government is built upon that a morally justified case may be made as to why Global Afrikan peoples have an ethical right and cultural duty to the Wahenga na Wahenguzi, the Beautyful Ones Not Yet Born and the q R, NTR ‘З/Netcher-aa [Kush/Kemet: The Great Spirit or Ancestor], to overrule the legitimacy of the present social, political and economic structures under which they live and the obligation to replace them with a just egalitarian system born of the Global Afrikan cultural paradigm.
However, before the full extent of the words ‘…of the dissolution of government,” can be adequately comprehended in their fullness of their meaning, an optimal, yet synoptical awareness of the entire principle of government, its origin and purpose must be attained.
[1] Cheikh
Anta Diop, Civilization or
Barbarism : An Authentic Anthropology
(Brooklyn, NY: Lawrence Hill Books 1991) pp. 115.
[2] In
this article two calendars will be presented as a guide to recorded events. One
is the Julian calendar to which all in the Eurocentric countries and their
former colonies are familiar with. Its divisions used here are BCE, Before the
Common Era and CE, the Common Era. The second calendar is labeled KC, for
Kemet/Kush Calendar. This Kemet/Kush calendar was based on the Sopdet Year
[Sothic Cycle]. The German Egyptologist Eduard Meyer of the Berlin School of
Egyptology developed the Sothic Theory in 1904. See: Eduard Meyer, Ägyptische Chronologie, (Akademie
der Wissenschaften: Berlin, 1904). The
Sothic Theory is based on the 1,460 year cycle of the star Sopdet [Sirius]. The
Peret Sopdet, heliacal rising of Sopdet, is mentioned in many Kemetic documents
as occurring in the same observational position every 1,460 years would occur
on the Wep Renpet or Kemetic New Year. The earliest Sopdet Year as calculated
by Eduard Meyer occurred in c. 4241 BCE, with a second Sopdet Year occurring in
c. 1461 KC [c. 2780 BCE] during the 4th Kemetic Dynasty. Another
Sopdet Year is stated to have occurred during the 12th Dynasty in
the seventh year of Per-aa Sesotris III according to the Illahun Papyrus. The
Eberus Medical Papyrus also states that a Sopdet Year occurred in the ninth
year of the 18th Dynasty Per-aa Amenhotep I. By dating Afrikan
history from an Afrikan time-frame the contemporary events discussed occur in
the, conservatively speaking, 62nd century of Afrikan Global
history.
[3] Gerhard Lenski, Power and Privilege (Chapel
Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1966); Morton
Fried, The Evolution of Political Society
(New York: Random House, 1967); Gerhard
Lenski, Human Societies: A Macro-level Introduction to Sociology (New
York: McGraw-Hill, 1970); Gerhard Lenski and Jean Lenski, Human Societies:
An Introduction to Macrosociology (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1974); Gerhard
Lenski, "Societal Taxonomies: Mapping the Social Universe." Annual
Review of Sociology (1994) 20:1-26; Gerhard Lenski, Patrick Nolan, and Jean
Lenski, Human Societies: An Introduction to Macrosociology (New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1995)
[4] Clarke Somers and R. Engelbach, Ancient Egyptian
Masonry (London: Oxford University Press, 1930); Jean de Heinzelin,
“Ishango,” Scientific American, Vol. 206, No. 6 (June 1962) pp. 114;
Richard J. Gillings, Mathematics in the Time of the Pharaohs (Cambridge,
MA: MIT, 1972); Alexander Marshack, The Roots of Civilization (New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1972), pp.23, 365; Peter D. Beaumont, “Border Cave – A Progress Report,” South
African Journal of Science 69 (1973); Richard B. Parker, “Egyptian
Astronomy, Astrology and Calendrical Reckoning,” Dictionary of Scientific
Biography (New York: Scribners, 1978), pp. 706; Claudia Zaslavsky, Africa
Counts: Number and Pattern in African Culture (Brooklyn New York: Lawrence
Hill Books, 1979); J. Bogoshi, K. Naidoo, and J. Webb, "The Oldest
Mathematical Artifact," Mathematics Gazette 71:458 (1987) pp. 294;
A. S. Brooks and C. C. Smith, "Ishango Revisited: New Age Determinations
and Cultural Interpretations", The African Archaeological Review,
(1987) 5: 65-78; Cheikh Anta Diop, Civilization
or Barbarism : An Authentic Anthropology
(Brooklyn, NY: Lawrence Hill Books 1991) pp. 111-122; Claudia Zaslavsky, "Women as the First
Mathematicians," International Study Group on Ethnomathematics
Newsletter Volume 7 Number 1, January 1992; Gerhard Lenski, Patrick Nolan,
and Jean Lenski, Human Societies: An Introduction to Macrosociology (New
York: McGraw-Hill, 1995) pp. 81-84. Gerhard Lenski et al. theorize a typology
of human societies which theorizes that Hunter-gatherer societies began c.
95759-3759 BKC [c. 100000-8000 BCE] followed by Horticultural societies 3759
BKC - 1241 KC [c. 8000-3000 BCE] and then Agrarian societies 1241- KC [c. 3000
BCE-1800 CE].
[5]The
material on Afrikan socio-political economic organization is taken from the
forthcoming book: Ambakisye-Okang Dukuzumurenyi, The
Book of the Tep Heseb: An Afrikological Research Methodology (Iringa,
Tanzania: University of New Timbuktu SBЗ/Seba Press, 2015)
[6]
John Locke, Two Treatises on Government (London: Whitmore and Fenn, Charing
Cross, 1821) pp. 269-270.
[7]
John Locke, Two Treatises on Government (London: Whitmore and Fenn, Charing
Cross, 1821) pp. 205
[8]
Ibid, pp. 340
[9]
John Locke, Two Treatises on Government (London: Whitmore and Fenn, Charing
Cross, 1821) pp. 358-359
[10]
Ibid, pp. 360
[11]
John Locke, Two Treatises on Government (London: Whitmore and Fenn, Charing
Cross, 1821) pp. 370
[12]
John Locke, Two Treatises on Government (London: Whitmore and Fenn, Charing
Cross, 1821) pp. 371-383
No comments:
Post a Comment