Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Kush civilization flourished in Sudan nearly 5K years ago

smithsonianmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 145 posts

Re: The Kush civilization flourished in Sudan nearly 5K years ago

#121

Post by Natsu »

earthboundkid wrote: post #116
Natsu wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is just the euphamism treadmill in action. The name for an outgroup becomes a slur over time because it refers to an outgroup.

The treadmill stops when you actually change public attitudes. African American/Black have been the main terms in American language for 50 years now, with some back and forth between the two, but no further replacement.

It doesn't stop, it just shifts to a different outgroup.

I'm not aware of any societies without outgroups, are you?

Re: The Kush civilization flourished in Sudan nearly 5K years ago

#122

Post by notduncansmith »

nl wrote: post #109
phist_mcgee wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And here is a fact to add to your repertoire of non-factoids! Factoid, is in fact a fact which is not actually true, but has been so often repeated it is accepted as true! ( https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/factoid ) Unless of course you are referring to the other meaning of factoid, which is the opposite meaning..

I think the opposite meaning of factoid (ie: a small, very specific fact) is actually the more common usage. I've never heard anyone actually use the original meaning, but frequently hear the "small fact" usage - except to point out the opposite meaning. (I've done some work in question answering, and the "small fact" usage is exclusively the way I've seen it used in that field)

That’s also the more common usage in my experience, though the -oid suffix (derived from the Greek for “likeness”, cf humanoid/android, spheroid, etc) indicates that the other meaning, “something fact-like but necessarily a fact” is more etymologically correct.

Re: The Kush civilization flourished in Sudan nearly 5K years ago

#123

Post by casefields »

fortran77 wrote: post #50

According to the Hebrew Bible, a wife of Moses was from Sudan. And there are many references to a "Kingdom of Kush" which is taken to be where modern-day Sudan is. So at least 3500 years ago, we have some evidence of a thriving civilization there.

She even sells cosmetics today!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sephora

Re: The Kush civilization flourished in Sudan nearly 5K years ago

#124

Post by slim »

kbenson wrote: post #76

> The land south of Egypt, beyond the first cataract of the Nile, was known to the ancient world by many names: Ta-Seti, or Land of the Bow, so named because the inhabitants were expert archers; Ta-Nehesi, or Land of Copper; Oh, is that what Ta-Nehesi Coates is named after? I decided to look, and apparently his name is slightly different, Ta-Nehisi. What's weird just just how often he's miscredited with the wrong nam…

it's a transliteration from a language that's not written in latin alphabet. so all of the combinations you mentioned probably mean that historical region (and his name too, like you suspected)

Re: The Kush civilization flourished in Sudan nearly 5K years ago

#125

Post by theobeers »

phist_mcgee wrote: post #105
theobeers wrote: post #10

I was starting to worry that the author would omit one of the classic factoids on this topic: that there are more pyramids in what is now Sudan, than there are in what is now Egypt. And not by a small margin! (This is mentioned, pretty far into the article.)

And here is a fact to add to your repertoire of non-factoids! Factoid, is in fact a fact which is not actually true, but has been so often repeated it is accepted as true! ( https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/factoid ) Unless of course you are referring to the other meaning of factoid, which is the opposite meaning..

This question of usage has always been a tough one for me, since both senses are well attested and fill niches (though “would-be fact” has a stronger etymological basis). Oh well! I try to enjoy such cases of multivalence.

Re: The Kush civilization flourished in Sudan nearly 5K years ago

#126

Post by hoseja »

theobeers wrote: post #10

I was starting to worry that the author would omit one of the classic factoids on this topic: that there are more pyramids in what is now Sudan, than there are in what is now Egypt. And not by a small margin! (This is mentioned, pretty far into the article.)

I wonder what the volume ratio is.

Re: The Kush civilization flourished in Sudan nearly 5K years ago

#127

Post by usrusr »

liability wrote: post #115
usrusr wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And there's a simple rule that's obvious even in a superficial read of de bello gallico: don't cultivate wheat and the legions won't bother you.

It's my impression the Gallic Wars were more about building Julius Caesar's personality cult than anything else. Enriching his soldiers so they'd be loyal to him and winning the respect of Roman pyblic (hence the self-aggrandizing book written in Latin, not Greek.)

Few external wars haven't been fought for internal reasons

Re: The Kush civilization flourished in Sudan nearly 5K years ago

#128

Post by T-A »

edgyquant wrote: post #100
ryansmccoy wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Joe Rogan had some interesting guys, Graham Hancock & Randall Carlson, that talked about lost civilizations due to asteroid in 10,000 BC. Sounded like there is some controversy around it though, so take it however you'd like. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDejwCGdUV8&t=781s

This is pseudohistory at best

Wikipedia calls it "pseudoarchaeology". The underlying Younger Dryas impact hypothesis is not nuts though:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas_impact_hypothesi...

Re: The Kush civilization flourished in Sudan nearly 5K years ago

#129

Post by names_are_hard »

legerdemain wrote: post #64

"Kushi" is still a current slur against black people in Israel and other Hebrew-speaking areas.[1] It's a bit like calling someone a "chinaman." Also, some people point out the sound similarity of קוֹף (monkey) and כושי (Kushite). [1] https://www.timesofisrael.com/chief-rabbi-compares-african-a...

Agreed that "Kushi" is a slur in 2020 and should not be used.

Never heard the connection with קוף before, though. Who are these some people that point this out? The linked article does not draw a connection between these two words because they ostensibly sound the same (barely), the only connection is that Yitzhak Yosef used the term כושי and in the same sermon compared black people to monkeys. The conclusion is that he's a racist and uses a comparison that I'm pretty sure is not restricted to a particular language.

Re: The Kush civilization flourished in Sudan nearly 5K years ago

#130

Post by names_are_hard »

drorco wrote: post #78
legerdemain wrote: post #64

"Kushi" is still a current slur against black people in Israel and other Hebrew-speaking areas.[1] It's a bit like calling someone a "chinaman." Also, some people point out the sound similarity of קוֹף (monkey) and כושי (Kushite). [1] https://www.timesofisrael.com/chief-rabbi-compares-african-a...

I wouldn't say this is accurate. Well, some might use it that way, but as a kid this is the word we were taught for black folk with no harm intended, it's also the name used in the bible--I believe it's originally from the bible.

The term כוש as a reference to a place is indeed biblical. And it's quite possible you grew up before it was a slur. But language shifts, and in 2020 using the term כושי (kushi) to refer to a black person is not ok.

Same for the term shvartze in Yiddish, referenced elsewhere in this thread. I grew up with this term in my vocabulary and no harm was meant. But I wouldn't say it today, at least not if I was speaking English otherwise. In a fully Yiddish conversation I'd cut the speaker slack, though, especially if the speaker comes from a relatively secluded community that isn't experiencung the same drift in language the rest of society is.

Point is, context matters. You need to pay attention to how words change over time and how they'll be perceived by your audience.

Post reply on HN