European science and technology, supposedly what sets the west apart from more "savage" peoples, is merely knowledge stolen from Indigenous peoples throughout history.
Western propaganda has established the view that historically the majority of the world's peoples have been passive recipients of Western science and technology. This has been achieved through silences and fabrications in scientific and historical texts. So let's set the record straight on a few of these "facts".
Thales (the "father of science") was of Indigenous Phonecian descent, as was Pythagoras.
Ancient Greek scientific and mathematical knowledge was built in partnership with African scholars from African universities.
Ptolemy and Constantine were both African, although they are conferred European identities in Western historical texts. Note the picture of Ptolemy above, drawn as a European.
Most of the famous scientists of the ancient world were Indigenous people, whose names have been westernised in history, eg. Alkindius was really al-Kindi.
Writing was invented in Africa.
The decimal point was invented by Hindu people.
Movable type printing was invented by African Ibn Yunus.
Many modern engineering concepts come from Northeast Nigeria.
The Hindu-Arabic numeric system that we use today was introduced to the West when Leonardo of Pisa learned it from scholars at an African university.
Western textile manufacture techniques (and other methods that enabled the Industrial Revolution) were stolen from Indian people.
World-wide use of, and western monopolisation of potatoes, cocoa, strawberries, corn, sunflowers and tomatoes are the result of intellectual property theft from Native American botanists and agricultural scientists.
But isn't that all in the past? Not at all. The theft continues, with IMF and GATT used to plunder Indigenous intellectual property worldwide through IPR's that allow Western corporations to steal and own genetic material. Read more about this in my article Intellectual Property .
The copyright of the article Indigenous Knowledge Theft in Aboriginal Rights is owned by Tyson Yunkaporta. Permission to republish Indigenous Knowledge Theft must be granted by the author in writing.
Comments
Aug 11, 2006 9:12 AM
Arnold Houston
:
Some corrections:
You refer to various NORTH AFRICAN civilizations as "indigenous". This is simply word play. The term indigenous refers to the people who are native to a given geographical area. So, the real question shouldn't be whether an ethnic group is indigenous, but: "Indigenous to where?"
You're forgetting several key facts:
*Africa is a big continent. Not all African cultures are disenfranchised or even black.
*The Phoenecians were NOTHING like Australian Aborigines. They were Semitic Canaanites. To you lay-people, that means that they had a similar culture to the Jews of the bible.
*The Phoenecians were a fairly advanced and respected civilization. Carthage was a Phoenecian colony (yes, you heard me; a COLONY!). It rivalled Ancient Rome, but was ultimately defeated. The key point that should be made was that the Phoenecians were an urban, sophisticated people, with imperial aspirations. In short: they were basically Israelis with elephants instead of tanks.
*Now we come to the Arabs. Like the Jews and Phoenecians, the Arabs were (and still are) a Semitic civilization. However, they were also fairly dogmatic and imperialistic, much closer to the British Empire than to Australian Aborigines. They kept slaves, conquered other cultures with the goal of spreading Islam, and forged their own empires. By the way, while Arabs inhabit most of the Middle East and much of North Africa, they aren't indigenous to most of that land. Yes, they have been orientalised and stereotyped by Western media and literature, but the point I'm trying to make is that Europeans and Arabs are closer to each other than either culture is to Australian Aborigines.
* Ditto most of that for the Hindus. Indian culture, though far removed from European culture, has a common Indo-European origin. Does the Taj Mahal strike you as an "indigenous" monument (I am misusing the I-word in the same way you do)? It was created to satisfy the whimsies of a single prince. I think that's evidence of a highly stratified, heirarchical, elitist society like the European one we live in. By the way, where did you find the claim that Industrial Revolution spinning technology was "stolen" from the Hindus. The Spinning Jenny was invented by an uneducated Englishman who never travelled overseas. The Water Loom, and Power Loom (the other two major spinning inventions), were both improvements on existing English technology. How exactly they can be traced to India escapes me. The Jenny
Aug 15, 2006 1:04 AM
Tyson Yunkaporta
:
<p>
</p>thanks for your response - very powerful. i appreciate your point of view and value your forthrightness. i often think half the violence in the world could be avoided if people spoke their minds as you have done, instead of just keeping things hidden.
much of what i write here should be challenged, as it is very subjective (more on this in the discussion "indigenous truth" - there's a guy in there i think you'd get on well with).
anyway, the only thing i'd really challenge in your response is the definition of indigenousness. i don't think it means "primitive" or less "developed", as you' ve said. i also don't think it means the opposite of "white man" (what you called me). i've written a lot of articles on this site about light skinned indigenous peoples in russia, scandinavia and the british isles etc. also, with different populations moving in all the time, often darker skinned peoples tend to lose melanin content pretty quick - but that doesn't mean people lose their ancestry or aboriginality or ethnicity along with it. also, the "predator or prey" thing is an inadequate definition. this is often used to deny the indigenousness of people like the zulu or the maori, who conquered other peoples.
i dunno. here's the danger of others defining us. the agenda always seems to be about placing us lower in a hierarchy. this kind of slays the "objectivity" that academics from "highly developed cultures" often claim. in the end, there is so much propaganda going around in colonial societies that seeks to portray us as "primitive", that it's hardly surprising that so much of this comes through in your discourse.
well, this site is a bit of our own propaganda, designed to challenge this colonial discourse. as it says in the welcome message - it is a place where we can define ourselves. this is an important space for us in terms of this - mostly because colonial/conservative definitions such as "primitive" and "prey" and "non-white" are usually used for the purpose of belittling us or diminishing us in some way, as your own excellent text attempts to do.
that said, i encourage you to keep posting more - mine is only one viewpoint, and i can't claim it to be the truth. who knows - perhaps i am a fool who hasn't seen the wisdom of western "development" yet. you might convert me.
oh, by the way, my own definition of "indigenous" is people who live within the land, rather than upon it.
