Talk:Generations of Noah/Cush

message: I have two main problems with the Tabular Version: 
1) The reading "Nubians", instead of "Cushitic peoples" for "Usual Identification".
2) The reading "Sudan", instead of "East Africa" for "Associated Modern Area".  ፈቃደ 19:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: 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".  
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.  As the article Kush states, these people are known from Egyptian records from 2600 BC, so Duffy's "1600" BC in the table is, to give the benefit of the doubt, another typo.
What I am disputing is the appropriateness of having a little Table try to convey all the information here.  Most of the Sons of Noah have numerous "Usual identification" depending on who the source is, and in most cases these "usual identifications" are really disputed.  In this case, it can equally be said that Ancient Kush, and modern Cushitic peoples, are "usual identifications"... but in order to make this point fully and not leave anything out, we need bullet points with text, not a table.   ፈቃደ 19:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Nubians" vs. "Cushitic peoples" for "Usual Identification"

message: 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.  The locked version appears to concede that several of the next generation of Cush's children are associated with both sides of the Red Sea, such as Sheba / Saba etc...  Yes, "Sudan", "Nubia" and "Cush" all overlapped at various times in history, but they do not all mean exactly the same thing. 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.  I have seen it argued by such people on their websites that Ethiopians were illiterate and had no religion or Church buildings whatsoever, until the virtuous and intelligent Europeans brought it to them in the year 1700.  Apparently these people did not learn anything about the lessons of such propaganda from Mussolini.  Anything Ethiopian sources have to say on the subject of their own history is automatically discredited and considered worthless because, well, they're Ethiopians...  And Europeans (at least certain ones you're supposed to be listening to) know all about Ethiopian history much better than Ethiopians possibly could...  Sorry, but as that argument loses more ground in recent times, its proponents are turning to desperation.  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...   I say it is time to reject nonsense and tell the truth...  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.  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... ፈቃደ 19:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Sudan" or "East Africa" for "Associated Modern Area"