Posts
Louis Egbe Mbua
A debate by Cameroonians in camnetwork, a popular Cameroonian discussion group, as to the origin of the Bantus was a heated and enlightened one with many open and inquisitive minds to the fore. Below is typical of that debate. The final part of this debate will dwell on the Origins of man and the Universe. Areas of the publications have been edited for ease of read; but the context have not been changed. Other participants were also involved but the quotations below captured the direction of the main argument.
The Bantu Migration patterns from: The first to throw a fiery salvo was Kenneth Fru Ndeh also known as Pa Fru. He was relentless in his stance when he wrote:
I am not one who would point to official Cameroon Government sources as an accurate source of the POST-colonial history of Cameroon: Not at all. However, this narrative from the OFFICIAL website of the Prime Minister of Cameroon accurately describes the history of the peoples of Cameroon. It corroborates several other sources that I have been reading; and sources I have spoken to who know about the Equateur-Zaire connection. See what it says below about the Dualas.
http://www.spm.gov.cm/showdoc.php?rubr=6000&srubr=6104&lang=en&tpl=2
Meanwhile Dr. SAF challenged the contents of this citation saying:
There were no human beings during the prehistoric times. The PM's website is no source for academic reference. Just see the gaffe they have made.
Dr. Rexon Nting was also sceptical retorting stiffly that:
I think those sort of narratives endorsed by an untrustworthy regime cannot be relied upon.
Meanwhile Professor James Ashu, responding to Dr. SAF and Living Lights, thought otherwise by resorting to the origins of words; and writing:
I am not one who would point to official Cameroon Government sources as an accurate source of the POST-colonial history of Cameroon: Not at all. However, this narrative from the OFFICIAL website of the Prime Minister of Cameroon accurately describes the history of the peoples of Cameroon. It corroborates several other sources that I have been reading; and sources I have spoken to who know about the Equateur-Zaire connection. See what it says below about the Dualas.
http://www.spm.gov.cm/showdoc.php?rubr=6000&srubr=6104&lang=en&tpl=2
Meanwhile Dr. SAF challenged the contents of this citation saying:
There were no human beings during the prehistoric times. The PM's website is no source for academic reference. Just see the gaffe they have made.
Dr. Rexon Nting was also sceptical retorting stiffly that:
I think those sort of narratives endorsed by an untrustworthy regime cannot be relied upon.
Meanwhile Professor James Ashu, responding to Dr. SAF and Living Lights, thought otherwise by resorting to the origins of words; and writing:
Look at the definition of prehistory per Wikipedia. It is a term used to describe the period before people started to write history. You agree with Dr. Egbe Mbua that humans did not exist during that period. You still stand by it. Let me now ask you a question: Following that definition, do you mean that when history was not written, there were no humans? I do not know much about other groups of people; but I know a lot about Bayangi people. They started writing history only a few years ago. Does it mean the Bayangis started existing just a few years ago? May be less than 50 years ago? Please, look again at the definition below. You may disagree with that definition and provide yours. No problem.
Prehistory (Latin, præ = before Greek, ιστορία = history) is a term often used to describe the period before written history
Prehistory (Latin, præ = before Greek, ιστορία = history) is a term often used to describe the period before written history
The Living Lights questioned this idea stating that:
The "pre-historic times" did not exist. That is based on Darwinian assumption that man began from animals which has been proven to be a fraud. So, who recorded the "pre-history" ? Man or beast? How can one talk of pre-history when they were not there?
Dr. SAF did not fully agree as well and challenged this definition with an extract:
"For example, in Egypt it is generally accepted that prehistory ended around 3200 BC, whereas in New Guinea the end of the prehistoric era is set much more recently, at around 1900 AD."
The statement above indicates that the term "prehistory" is culture bound. That is why I said the term is vague. Besides there have been no archaeological or anthropological studies done in the Central South Province of Cameroun to determine that the pygmies were the indigenous inhabitants of that part of Cameroun. Regardless of whether they were the first or not, they are Bantus. Bantu migration to the South and East from West Africa dates back to about 3000 BC. If Pygmies are Bantus, and we know they are because of the language they speak, then there were no people in the Central South of Cameroun before 3000 BC.
And then added with gusto:
After reading Mbua's statement, I must admit to you that I misread it. My earlier posting indicated that the term prehistoric is vague. For Egyptians, Prehistoric means 3,200 B.C. For your people in Manyu, prehistoric means something in the 20th century. That is why I said the term was not apt in the PM's website. Not only was it not apt, it is misleading.
You know the Homo sapiens (modern man, that is) were born around 190,000 years ago in East Africa. The pygmies are descendants of the modern humans. How could they have been living in South Central Province of Cameroon in Prehistoric times when we know they are Bantus? We know the Bantus were located in West Africa at about 3000 B.C. Some of the Homo Sapiens from E. Africa migrated north to Asia and Europe and the rest migrated to West Africa where they lived for a very long time. The Congo Bantus constitute one of several waves of the homo sapiens who left East Africa about 70,000 y. a. Recent studies have shown that they (Congolese Bantus) were in West Africa at about 3000 B.C.
Some time around 3000 B.C., there was a population explosion in West African, resulting in Bantu Migrations to the South and East of Africa. These migrations were not linear. Some bands of migrants made several U-turns back to their home of origin. That may explain why the Doualas who are a Bantu people think they came from the south. These are returnees. As I indicated earlier, not all Bantus migrated. Some stayed. Do you think all the Doualas left their home in the Congo? I am more than certain that some stayed behind. Those returnees came back to meet their cousins. Finally, no one knows for sure when the Bantu Pygmies left West Africa for the Congolese Forest and the South Central Province of Cameroun. It will be presumptuous of any one to think they were the first migrants because no studies have shown that they were the first bands of Bantus to leave West Africa for the Congolese forest.
The "pre-historic times" did not exist. That is based on Darwinian assumption that man began from animals which has been proven to be a fraud. So, who recorded the "pre-history" ? Man or beast? How can one talk of pre-history when they were not there?
Dr. SAF did not fully agree as well and challenged this definition with an extract:
"For example, in Egypt it is generally accepted that prehistory ended around 3200 BC, whereas in New Guinea the end of the prehistoric era is set much more recently, at around 1900 AD."
The statement above indicates that the term "prehistory" is culture bound. That is why I said the term is vague. Besides there have been no archaeological or anthropological studies done in the Central South Province of Cameroun to determine that the pygmies were the indigenous inhabitants of that part of Cameroun. Regardless of whether they were the first or not, they are Bantus. Bantu migration to the South and East from West Africa dates back to about 3000 BC. If Pygmies are Bantus, and we know they are because of the language they speak, then there were no people in the Central South of Cameroun before 3000 BC.
And then added with gusto:
After reading Mbua's statement, I must admit to you that I misread it. My earlier posting indicated that the term prehistoric is vague. For Egyptians, Prehistoric means 3,200 B.C. For your people in Manyu, prehistoric means something in the 20th century. That is why I said the term was not apt in the PM's website. Not only was it not apt, it is misleading.
You know the Homo sapiens (modern man, that is) were born around 190,000 years ago in East Africa. The pygmies are descendants of the modern humans. How could they have been living in South Central Province of Cameroon in Prehistoric times when we know they are Bantus? We know the Bantus were located in West Africa at about 3000 B.C. Some of the Homo Sapiens from E. Africa migrated north to Asia and Europe and the rest migrated to West Africa where they lived for a very long time. The Congo Bantus constitute one of several waves of the homo sapiens who left East Africa about 70,000 y. a. Recent studies have shown that they (Congolese Bantus) were in West Africa at about 3000 B.C.
Some time around 3000 B.C., there was a population explosion in West African, resulting in Bantu Migrations to the South and East of Africa. These migrations were not linear. Some bands of migrants made several U-turns back to their home of origin. That may explain why the Doualas who are a Bantu people think they came from the south. These are returnees. As I indicated earlier, not all Bantus migrated. Some stayed. Do you think all the Doualas left their home in the Congo? I am more than certain that some stayed behind. Those returnees came back to meet their cousins. Finally, no one knows for sure when the Bantu Pygmies left West Africa for the Congolese Forest and the South Central Province of Cameroun. It will be presumptuous of any one to think they were the first migrants because no studies have shown that they were the first bands of Bantus to leave West Africa for the Congolese forest.
Professor James Ashu asked two crucial questions:
Let me now ask two questions to tickle our minds:
(1) Was Bantu migration unidirectional?
(2) In the case of the Bakweries, Orokos, and Bakongo (Congolese), is it not possible that after 3000 BC, the Bakweris and Orokos migrated back from the Congo? (Around 450 BC)?
And again Dr. SAF answered:
Please keep in mind that during migrations, not every one from the same ethnic group migrates. Some stayed behind. It is also true that some of the migrants, in this case the Bantu speaking people in the Congo, after spending some time in the south migrated back north. The basic premise of the discussion here is that Bantu Migrations were from the North to the south. My people for example came from the north of Cameroon. If you listen to our oral history it will give you the impression that we came from the south. True, but that was a U-turn from the overarching migratory path we took from the north.
But according to Mola Richard Moki Monono:
But according to Mola Richard Moki Monono:
The Coastal Bantus of the Cameroon as Dr Ardener stated constitute the northern most community of Bantus in Africa, the bulk of the Bantus are actually in Central, East and of course Southern Africa. I don't know if the Coastal Bantus migrated from Congo . However, we Bakwerians or Doulas do not find anything shameful about being related to Congolese. Any Bakweri migration which existed must have occurred several centuries ago. I must point out that the migrations of the Chambas, the Nsos and the Bamouns from Nigeria are very recent. Even the Fulbes of North Cameroon migrated from Nigeria and established thier mastery over the indigenous Kirdis only a short time before french colonialism became entrenched, once more by using horses. These groups of Northern Nigerian origin were able to establish their hegemony over the area as a result of their mastery of cavalry raids and the use of horses. Pa Fru Ndeh, if we are congolese you are also Northern Nigerians. Pa Fru Ndeh and friends: do a bit of research even if you are not historians; and be more scholarly.
No comments:
Post a Comment