http://libgen.io/ads.php?md5=AF1724ADBB88BC4CDA36192537B58878 (http://libgen.io/ads.php?md5=AF1724ADBB88BC4CDA36192537B58878)
Sent from my Uhuru Accu using Abibitumi Kasa mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=88213)
I found this to be the best Grammar to begin with. Certainly easier than Baba Ankh Mi Ra's "Let the Ancestors Speak" as well as those of Allen and Gardiner. The chapters are laid out in a "Lesson-plan" format that is easy to follow alone.
hotep my brother, Yes Hoch is a good grammar book. I use some of his lessons in my class. His book is easier because it is less wordy and dense, therefore, students fine it easier to understand. I would recommend doing the exercises in all three, even if you do not read them the grammar rules still apply.
Checking this out.
I have a strong suspicion that Ankh Mi Ra intended to do a Second Volume but was not able to do so (being that he misses some things). I still like to use it to introduce basic grammatical concepts because he highlights the Kmtyw context of the language, whereas Hoch is very deceptive (in that respect).
That said, I agree that Hoch gives great lessons and his detailed explanations (he covers stuff that most Egyptologist grammars do not).
This definition of power is very problematic.
I'm not sure that the incompleteness of the book is enough to suggest that Nana Ankh was going to write a second volume. That being said, I think you are speaking to the exact issue that is the problem with this grammar: it seems rushed and incomplete both in format and content. Hopefully we will eventually come up with a grammar (and dictionary) that actually works, that will allow us to become liberated from the non-Kmtyw ones.
Care to elaborate?
Yes, we definitely need our own. It's one of my goals.
It implies that if you can't impose your definition of reality on someone else and have them accept it as their own then you cannot have power. Well... is that not what "white supremacy" i.e. white terror domination has defined power as? Isn't that why they consistently seek to impose their definitions onto us? Seems to me this definition suffers from Conceptual Incarceration.
Brother Awene, first thank you for the response. I feel it might be best to post the video for Baba Wade Nobles to be heard in the context of the discussion where this quote is from. Actually he may have stated it elsewhere as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4801&v=yuvPo8yzz4A
about the 1:20 mark.
He has said it in many other places, both in lectures/talks and in writing. Perhaps you should explain what you understand by it. That quote implies, for instance, that if we are to have power then we must seek to get krakkkas to respond to our definition of reality as if it were their own. That sounds to me like a very dangerous definition of power. Any definition of power must be operational. What does it entail, in terms of operationalisation, how do we go about trying to get krakkkas to accept and respond to our definition of reality as if it were their own? How and why is that desirable?
We might have to consider the fact that maybe it's because we thought we could get them to accept/respond to our values as if they were their own that we got destroyed in the first place. So the Ancestor does not say "Behold the miserable eurasiatic... he fights since the time of Hrw... teach him our values and have him accept them as his own." No, rather, the Ancestors built a wall to bar them and keep them away from us. That conception of power does not involve them seeking to get eureurasians to accept/respond to Maat. It involves recognising them for what they are - agents of isft - and keeping/driving them away. In that case, Power is the ability to understand and defend Maat. There is no illusion that they can be persuaded to know/accept/do Maat. (see Lichtheim, M., Ancient Egyptian Literature, Vol. 1, 143-144).
Meda wo ase for your feedback. At the time I posted that quote my understanding was he was speaking from a psychological perspective involved the ability to control, manipulate, influence thoughts and by extension actions for the benefit of you even if those actions are against your best interest. Maybe "soft power " so to speak. Outcomes of this are manifested in worshipping a krakka on a stick, skin bleaching, self hate, wearing krakka hair while practicing a krakka system of law , etc etc. I do understand as Dr. Bobby Wright coins it this is mentacidal. I understand these to be spider webs and not addressing the spider to use Nana Khalid Muhammad's analogy. Symptoms of the problem, not the problem. "The most potent weapon in the hands of the enemy is the mind of the oppressed" Nana Steve Biko. This is my interpretation of the quotes implied meaning.
To your question about trying to get krakka or any eureurasian to have our reality be theirs I am in total agreement ....we can't anf shouldn't waste time thinking it can be done. They are agents of isfet and ultimately to rid ourselves of the above mentioned spider web, this spider needs to be driven away. (This goes for their agents from within our people as well). I do agree this was and still is an error in judgement when relating to eureurasians. Nana Malcolm made that a point in his analysis as opposed to Nana Martin Luther King Jr. appealing morally to a people who have no morality.
Our goal as stated is to restore and defend Ma'at - I agree.
Thank you for the clarity.
Ewa. There is also the question of whether one should define reality or whether one should understand it. Which might not necessarily mean the same sing. Does reality exist (and thus one should seek to understand and adjust one's life according to it) or is it whatever one defines it as (in which case it is whatever we say it is)? Are there different modes of "reality" created by different peoples/cultures or does reality exist regardless of our conceptions? It seems most of us are not clear on this issue especially in this subjective/multi-culture/individualistic/non-conforming/self-made/do-your-own-thing deception times. But maybe this is an issue for another time.
I would think that to define something, in this case reality you have to have an understanding first. In other words your understanding is based on serious focused inquiry of your environment. To use and exanple of our ancestors, the creation stories are examples of centuries of first observation, analysis...then to relay the outcomes they define their understanding in terms of definition that can be transmitted. We see this is the story of Nun, the creation of the calendar, clock...all aspects. Further because as Kmtyws we have a common environment and Ancestral observations we have an underlying cultural unity in terms of understanding and thought. The definitions are different but related as those understandings have to be communicated in terms of understanding. We see these cultural connections in all parts of the Kmtyw continent but manifest in different interpretations. Further to relate to what Nana Cheik Anta Diop called the two cradle theory we see that these core understandings are foundationally impacted by our geographic orientation. This is where we can see the difference in our " realities" and where we can see that to adhere to a eureurasian "reality" is anti -Kmtyw. We see Ma'at as our foundation they cannot.
We see the Kmtyw continent infected by the eureurasian "reality" of money, religion,and other anti-Kmtyw concepts that although we are still in our "cradle" we are adhering to a reality that benefits our enemies. This has us thinking we are poor because of lack of money when pre- eureurasian we didn't have this issue.
I think the cultural understanding across the continent and linked to Kemet or better yet the Hapi Valley is what ties us. Our varying definitions of this understanding is unique but based on one core Kmtyw Thought.
P.S. what does ewa translate to?
This is from Nana Ipuwer (from the forthcoming book).
(https://www.abibitumikasa.com/attachments/attachments/40/thumbnail/173-2018-09-0619-46-08.png) (https://www.abibitumikasa.com/attachments/attachments/40/173-2018-09-0619-46-08.png)
He says that Kmt will not be given over to sand. Do you @awenef and @kevlew think he knew that eventually it would be given over to sand and sand-dwellers?
Also, do you think our Kmtyw Nananom (Ancestors) knew that their bodies would now be housed in the dens of thieves called museums throughout eureurasia while the bodies of others were devoured by krakkkaz?
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-gruesome-history-of-eating-corpses-as-medicine-82360284/
I think Nana Ipuwer was speaking towards a specific period of isft, foreseeing that they will recover and overcome it. Which they did. So KMT was not given to sand-trekkers as he predicted. I wouldn't necessarily assume that the "prophecy" entailed "never will..." because then the negation would have to be nn zp and not just nn. I take this to imply that as long as the future generations have the same mental clarity and commitment then the condition would continue to hold true, but if they lose touch with reality in their contemporary situations then it would not necessarily be true anymore.
Kwadwo, I don't think that Nana Kwaku's definition of power means the same thing as what you are saying.
The definition implies that to have power you must
(1) be able to define reality.
(2) have others accept that definition as their own.
This means that
(1) potentially there are as many definitions of reality as there are "others."
(2) you cannot have power until you have others over whom you can impose your definition (i.e. you need a cultural other).
(3) power is, ultimately, the ability to impose definition (either by force or deception).
(4) reality is subjective and the definition is authenticated by it's coming from self and is validated by it's being made acceptable to others if it it is their own.
The whole model is basically based on afrocentric theory and inverted colonialism. It's problematic.
To illustrate just how problematic it is let's take this example of how he applies the definition to "convert" a word/concept from its eureurasian meaning and reclaims it to become "Kmtyw." This is from a talk he gave in 1993 in Ghana at the National Conference of Black Studies (link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jL2JtOgTW9M). The concept is "romance," which, from it's etymology alone is noticeably krakkka.
By defining power as the ability to define (and redefine) reality, Nana Kwaku proceeds to supposedly exercise that power and reclaiming the word so that it becomes Kmtyw. From around 32:00 he says: "See, power is the ability to define reality, so I'ma reclaim the notion of romance and suggest to you that romance is a state or a condition where in one holds values and treasures another. So if I hold value and treasure things Kmtyw then I have a romance with Kmtyw, I am in fact romantic because in romance you have self-in-colletive cherishment."
So we see the implications of that definition. It means exactly that reality is anything we choose to define it as because we have the power to do so. So we can define a non-Kmtyw word to become Kmtyw. How far does this go? What would stop us, since we have the power, to even "define" the whole language, in this case english, to be Kmtyw? Many have, in fact been claiming that they have done this and, thus, don't need to learn an Kmtyw language. Power is the ability to define reality: we define Russian to be Kmtyw. We define Islam to be Kmtyw. We define god to be Onyame. And so on. That definition makes it possible for us to retain all baggage by simply "defining" and "redefining" "reality" to conform with what we want it to be as is obvious from how Nana Kwaku applied it in that context by simply "reclaiming" a non-Kmtyw concept rather than finding an authentically Kmtyw one and rejecting the non-Kmtyw. It is one of the most used definitions/quotes in Kmtyw scholarship so now simply take it for granted.
Also, what will happen when we defeat our enemies, how are we going to exercise power? Who are we going to have accept our definitions of reality as their own so that we can have power? Who are these "others" going to be? And why would we defeat our enemies if we need them so that they can allow us the possibility of having power by providing us with the "other" that should be accepting our definition? Definition must satisfactorily answer the implications.
QuotePosted by: Awene
I think Nana Ipuwer was speaking towards a specific period of isft, foreseeing that they will recover and overcome it. Which they did. So KMT was not given to sand-trekkers as he predicted. I wouldn't necessarily assume that the "prophecy" entailed "never will..." because then the negation would have to be nn zp and not just nn. I take this to imply that as long as the future generations have the same mental clarity and commitment then the condition would continue to hold true, but if they lose touch with reality in their contemporary situations then it would not necessarily be true anymore.
Good answer! What of their bodies being shipped off to Eureurasia and eaten by krakkkaz?
QuotePosted by: Ọbádélé Kambon, PhD
QuotePosted by: Awene
I think Nana Ipuwer was speaking towards a specific period of isft, foreseeing that they will recover and overcome it. Which they did. So KMT was not given to sand-trekkers as he predicted. I wouldn't necessarily assume that the "prophecy" entailed "never will..." because then the negation would have to be nn zp and not just nn. I take this to imply that as long as the future generations have the same mental clarity and commitment then the condition would continue to hold true, but if they lose touch with reality in their contemporary situations then it would not necessarily be true anymore.
Good answer! What of their bodies being shipped off to Eureurasia and eaten by krakkkaz?
I answered part 1. I left part 2 for @kevlew (https://www.abibitumi.com/community/profile/kevlew/)
@awenef, part 2 was for you too.
(https://www.abibitumikasa.com/attachments/attachments/40/thumbnail/176-2018-09-078-32-08.png) (https://www.abibitumikasa.com/attachments/attachments/40/176-2018-09-078-32-08.png) (https://www.abibitumikasa.com/attachments/attachments/40/thumbnail/174-2018-09-078-32-49.png) (https://www.abibitumikasa.com/attachments/attachments/40/174-2018-09-078-32-49.png) (https://www.abibitumikasa.com/attachments/attachments/40/thumbnail/177-2018-09-078-33-12.png) (https://www.abibitumikasa.com/attachments/attachments/40/177-2018-09-078-33-12.png)
Do you think that this meant that Nana Sanhat would not die on the desert for a period of time or that eureurasians would not bury him or he would not be wrapped in the skin of a ram for a set period of time under which conditions of mental clarity and commitment hold true?
Here's my take. In Twi
túmi - power
tumí - to be able
In the Twi language, we see a clear relationship between power and ability. Nana Kwaku Berko I has chosen to define power along the lines of being able to express ability in the specific manner that krakkkaz have done so, which, as @awenef states, can be a very problematic proposition given the implications. If someone has power (i.e., ability), does one necessarily have to express it in the particular way that krakkkaz have done? In our case, if we have actual power (i.e., ability), do we even need to have krakkkaz in the picture at all.
Ɔwɔ wɔ nyansa; ɔde ka nipa. Kotokrodu wɔ nyansa; ɔde boro nipa. Wowa wɔ nyansa; ɔde yɛ ɛwoɔ. Ɛdeɛn na wode wo nyansa no bɛyɛ?
The snake has wisdom; he/she uses it to bite people. The wasp has wisdom; he/she uses it to sting people. The honeybee has wisdom; he/she uses it to make honey. What will you use your wisdom for?
Let me take the time to read this. I am seeing your point. Appreciate the response.
Takes me a little time lol. On it.
QuotePosted by: Ọbádélé Kambon, PhD
@awenef, part 2 was for you too.
(https://www.abibitumikasa.com/attachments/attachments/40/thumbnail/176-2018-09-078-32-08.png) (https://www.abibitumikasa.com/attachments/attachments/40/176-2018-09-078-32-08.png) (https://www.abibitumikasa.com/attachments/attachments/40/thumbnail/174-2018-09-078-32-49.png) (https://www.abibitumikasa.com/attachments/attachments/40/174-2018-09-078-32-49.png) (https://www.abibitumikasa.com/attachments/attachments/40/thumbnail/177-2018-09-078-33-12.png) (https://www.abibitumikasa.com/attachments/attachments/40/177-2018-09-078-33-12.png)
Do you think that this meant that Nana Sanhat would not die on the desert for a period of time or that eureurasians would not bury him or he would not be wrapped in the skin of a ram for a set period of time under which conditions of mental clarity and commitment hold true?
I am not saying that 'nn' negates things "for a period of time given certain conditions." I am saying 'nn' simply means 'will not,' and does not mean 'never will...' which is negated by 'nn zp' (although we know that mdw ntr does not always consistently follow rules statically, so there might be exceptions). As far as i presently know the general rule is: 'nn' = "will not," 'n zp' = 'never did,' 'nn zp'= 'never will'. So I am saying that the text is not saying 'KMT will never be given to the sand-trekkers' but simply that it "will not." And I say this implies for me that he was speaking to specific conditions and was not making a general, eternal, pronouncement. So the aspect of specific time/context given certain conditions I have added in my analysis of what I think the text is speaking to and is not necessarily inherent in the form of the negation itself.
Additionally, there needs to be clarity as to whether 'Say' ('nmyw Say') refers to eureurasians (i.e. non Kmtyws) or whether it referred generally to the people who inhabited that area, including Blak people, or, even, whether it only referred to the Black people while, for instance, Aamw referred to the non-Kmtyw people. In terms of identity, I don't think these are really clear. If Say refers to krakkkaz then we to deal with the fact that this Ancestor went and married a krakkka and made children with them, and fought for and with them, contributed greatly to their welfare and then was simply welcomed back to KMT. There are serious implications here so certainty of identity becomes important. In the Kmtyw origins Nana Diop says the area was populated by Blak who had many 'ups and downs' against 'the white tribes' before eventully blending with them (Kmtyw Origins, p. 107-108). So it could be that 'Say' should not be translated 'eureurasians'.
For some reason the video link has an error when I tried to play it.
"I will not eat faeces for you, I will not drink urine for you"
@awenef, Do you add the aspect of specific time/context in your analysis here as well? Does the text imply for you that the text speaks to specific conditions rather than a general, eternal pronouncement?
(https://www.abibitumikasa.com/attachments/attachments/40/thumbnail/183-2018-09-0721-01-14.png) (https://www.abibitumikasa.com/attachments/attachments/40/183-2018-09-0721-01-14.png) (https://www.abibitumikasa.com/attachments/attachments/40/thumbnail/181-2018-09-0720-50-59.png) (https://www.abibitumikasa.com/attachments/attachments/40/181-2018-09-0720-50-59.png) (https://www.abibitumikasa.com/attachments/attachments/40/thumbnail/182-2018-09-0720-54-38.png) (https://www.abibitumikasa.com/attachments/attachments/40/182-2018-09-0720-54-38.png)
CT de Buck and Gardiner + Faulkner translation
Nana Sanhat's contradictions aside, Say is literally sand. Check, check it:
(https://www.abibitumikasa.com/attachments/attachments/40/thumbnail/184-egypt-great-sphinx-1882-granger.jpg) (https://www.abibitumikasa.com/attachments/attachments/40/184-egypt-great-sphinx-1882-granger.jpg)
Do you get the sense that Nana Ipuwer or others were able to foresee that their preparations for the dwAt would come to this?
(https://www.abibitumikasa.com/attachments/attachments/40/thumbnail/185-images-14.jpeg) (https://www.abibitumikasa.com/attachments/attachments/40/185-images-14.jpeg)
I'm not sure we are understanding each other. So... Maybe it's best we take it to voice?
I can definitely agree that I see the anti-Kmtyw implications of the example you posted in attempting to Kmtywize eureurasian words...anything eureurasian for that matter.
I am understanding that in terms of dealing with our enemy there is no consideration to try to get them to accept an Kmtyw reality at all. Nana John Henrik Clarke told us "You have no friends". This is not and should not be an aspiration.
What my lingering question is then is how do we phrase what will be necessary to restore Ma'at on the continent and world if not to call it power? How do not use this term without the conceptual implications of it meaning the same thing? Is it to seperate it "having others belief reality as if it is their own" that is the issue? Is our lack of power the reason for our inability to rid krakkas from Kmt?
Me thinking out loud. Not ashamed to not know. Ashamed if I didn't know and didn't want to.
Very important discussion
This is a good thread...I recently started ya Hoch. I
Quote Posted by: @kevlew
This is a good thread...I recently started ya Hoch. I
How are you finding it in comparison with what text(s) you were using before?
@kevlew Would definitely like to hear your thoughts. His approach is very 'interesting' (based on other grammars I've looked at)