Talk:Table of Nations/Kush

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Codex has two main problems regarding Cush:

1) The reading "Nubians" for "Usual Identification", which he would prefer to say "Cushitic peoples".

2) The reading "Sudan", rather than of "East Africa" for "Associated Modern Area"

(ፈቃደ 19:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC))

[edit] "Nubians" vs. "Cushitic peoples" for "Usual Identification"==

The Cushitic peoples in East Africa are unquestionably named for Cush, and indeed, identify themselves as descendants of Cush to this day. They include people of Somalia, Djibouti, Ethiopia, and Eritrea - what is normally called the "Horn of Africa".

No, they are named after Cush by PRE-MODERN SCHOLARS in NOW DISCREDITED theories. Cushitic peoples WAS NOT the ancient name of these people, and it is a now heavily discredited theory. Continuing to use a widely discredited theory as the main identification is extremely POV and smacks of original research.

Nobody is disputing the connection here with the Ancient Empire of Kush or Cush in a region known as Nubia in what is now Sudan.

So I fail to see why Kush is in anyway a controversial identification of Cush.

In this case, it can equally be said that Ancient Kush, and modern Cushitic peoples, are "usual identifications"

No it cannot. The idea that there was a single Cushitic peoples was a post mediaeval invention in a now heavily discredited theory. Several of the peoples named as Cushitic are now regarded by a large majority to have had distinctly seperate origins. In a similar vein to Hamitic theories, several groups even view the term "Cushitic" as racist as well as imperialist. It is simply inaccurate, inappropriate, and there is a much better and more accurate term - Kush. In the academic world at large, next to no-one makes the connection between Cush and people of the wider horn of Africa, Kush is seen as the clear, and obvious, intent of the term.

--User talk:FDuffy 23:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Sudan" or "East Africa" for "Associated Modern Area"

What the currently locked version does is try to shift the entire identification of "Cush" to the Sudan, when "East Africa" would be far more accurate.

It identifies Cush, unsurprisingly as Kush. Kush is most accurately described as the Sudan, "East Africa" is woefully generalised, and covers several very large areas which Kush does not.

Yes, "Sudan", "Nubia" and "Cush" all overlapped at various times in history, but they do not all mean exactly the same thing.

Indeed, but Kush is closest to Nubia, predominantly North Sudan, and nowhere near constituting even a small majority of East Africa.

But there is a school of thought that uses such word games to try and disassociate modern Ethiopia, further up the Nile, from their own ancient civilisation.

Modern Ethiopia descends from the Axumites, who were more down the Nile than central Ethiopia today.

.......lots of off--topic argument concerning the existance of Ethiopia.......

Ive cut this because it has no relevance

Now it is one of the central poinst of their "doctrine" that if Cush was located in "Sudan", then he couldn't have been anywhere else in East Africa, for example in modern "Ethiopia"... But they can't have it both ways... Either Ethiopia really existed, or it didn't...

Ethiopia obviously existed, just as antarctica did. Someone clearly lived there. It wasn't the people of Kush. Kush was in the northern Sudan.

The word "Sudan" as applied to Cush is particularly inappropriate as an anachronism, because before 1900 the term "Soudan" applied to the entire Sahara belt as far west as Mali.

But the point is that it is in the "Associated Modern Area" column. The MODERN AREA of Sudan covers Kush and a few areas of under the same size in total to the south of it, and a few areas that don't quite overlap. It is IRRELEVANT what Soudan used to refer to when we are talking about where Modern Areas are now.

So if you want to tell where the "Associated modern area" is for Cush, you have to be all-inclusive and say "East Africa", including Sudan AND the entire region of the Horn out to the Red Sea where Sheba and Saba are -- and not just Sudan - a smaller part of East Africa...

No, that simply doesn't hold water. Just because the Sabaeans (Sheba/Saba) were seen by the bible as descended from Cush doesnt mean that modern academics have to interpret that Cush referred to somewhere right next to the Sabaeans. The bible claims that Israelites are ultimately descended from Abraham, who came from Ur, but that doesn't mean that Ur has to be somewhere right next to Israel, and it isn't. What academics view the bible as reflecting is where the Israelites thought people came from. Apparantly Nimrod, founder of Mesopotamian cities, came from Cush, but under your reasoning the only way that could work would be if Cush covered the entire middle east, including Israel. Clearly that is nonsense. --User talk:FDuffy 23:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

ፈቃደ 19:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)