posted
There has been allot of arguing about where African Americans (United States) come from.
According to one statistic "2 to 3% of the population who were slaveholders; three hundred and fifty thousand slaveholders in a population of 11 million". I doubt the slave owners put that many genes into the African American population. I doubt this intermixing can account for the insane growth in the African population either. There is evidence that abolition encouraged the slave trade because it had the effect of raising prices. Abolition would then also aid the elite because with higher prices lower class whites would not get the chance to invest in slaves. The United States was apparently taking in a great share of the slave trade just before it was illegal and this would indicate it was still taking in a large share of the illegal slave trade. In more than one way the British were able to encourage the slave trade after making it illegal. The slave states in the United States were:
"totally dependant on British markets, and totally indebted to British or British allied finance."
The brutal system of slavery plus the slow rate of population growth in the slavery states does make it seem possible that the increase in the African American population was due to continued slave imports. These would have come from places all over Africa including the "Zanzibari" slave trade which was also controlled by the British.
Virginia relied on exporting slaves to other slave holding states and this is why they were against the overseas trade being legal
"Virginia, for example, was so exhausted economically, that while the rest of the south renewed the call for reopening the African slave trade, Virginia consistently opposed such a measure, for an alternative supply of cheap slave labor to the rest of the south would have bankrupted her."
Book Reviews : P. D. Curtin, The Atlantic Slave Trade : A Census. Madison, University...Green International Journal of Comparative Sociology.1972; 13: 269-270
This is from the very bottom of the abstract (Talking about the overall trade not the United States)
quote:Although imports began to tail off in the final decade of the eighteenth century, there was a growth in the trade in the 1820’s, and contrary to the traditional view, the elimination of the British slave trade in 1808 had little apparent effect upon the rate of slaves transported. Curtin’s figures do confirm the view that British, French, and American naval squadrons had only modest….
Cuts off there but I’m sure it said only modest success
“The slave trade: the story of the Atlantic slave trade, 1440-1870” By Hugh Thomas
quote:As many Africans were probably introduced into the United states in the last twenty years of the eighteenth century and the first eighty years of the nineteenth century as in the entire era since the 1620s. ….
….In 1806, the United States slaving fleet was said to have been almost three-quarters the size of the British one. These vessels of the former, unlike those of the latter, were, of course, unregulated by anything like the Dolben bill, and so could carry as many salves as their captains saw fit.
“The transatlantic slave trade: a history” By James A. Rawley, Stephen D. Behrendt
quote:Between the recognition of independence (1783) and the abolition of the trade (1808), the United States imported a sizable share of its whole trade, perhaps upward of 55,000 Africans.
"Free Trade, The Confederacy, and the Political Economy of Slavery"
That precisely this had occurred in the better part of the South, was obvious to those "American System" Whigs, allied with Carey, who fought for an alternative policy during the 1840's and 50's. The southern economy had become almost exclusively a slave based, cash crop agricultural one, totally dependant on British markets, and totally indebted to British or British allied finance. As a result, close to between 80 to 90% of all land in the slave states was owned by the approximately 2 to 3% of the population who were slaveholders; three hundred and fifty thousand slaveholders in a population of 11 million. Of these no more than one hundred thousand owed two-thirds of all the land and 90% of all the enslaved black population of 4 million. The bulk of the remaining white population were either landless or struggled to etch out an existence on small farms generally located in the regions poorest agricultural area's. What little industry that existed was rudimentary and primitive in character. The southern economy was totally dependant on outside markets for the sale of its two major export commodities, raw, unfinished cotton and to a lesser degree rice; it was similarly totally dependant on outside markets for the bulk of its foodstuffs, almost all consumer goods, and virtually all capital goods. Almost no other of the extensive mineral and natural resources in these southern states were developed or harnessed. As Thaddeus Stevens, a close ally of Henry Carey, would argue in 1850, comparing Virginia, as an example of the all the southern states, the disparities between north and south were striking.
At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, she was the most populous state--her population was double that of New York. It was the boast of her statesmen that she was prima inter pares, first among equals. What is she now? The population of New York is more than double--I think the next census will show nearly treble hers. Her land, cultivated by unwilling hands, is unproductive. Travel through the adjoining states of Ohio and Pennsylvania, and you will see that the land produces more than double as much as the same kind of land in Virginia. In the free states new towns are everywhere springing up and thriving; the land is becoming more productive; smiling habitations are within hail of each other; the whole country is dotted with school-houses and churches almost within sight of each other; and except under peculiar circumstances, their manufactures and mechanic arts furnishing lucrative employment to all their people; and their population is steadily and rapidly increasing. Turn again to Virginia. There is scarcely a new town within her whole borders. Her ancient villages wear the appearance of mournful decay. Her minerals and timber are unwrought. Her noble water-power is but partially occupied. Her fine harbors are without ships except from other ports; and her seaport towns are without commerce and falling to decay. Ask yourself the cause, sir, and I will abide the answer." [/b]
A few simple statistics abundantly confirm Steven's description of the lack of southern development. In 1790, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, Virginia was the most populous state in the nation; her population, as Steven's notes, was double that of New York. By 1860 her population had barely doubled, while that of every northern state had increased by between nine and ten fold. Such was the case throughout all of the south, demonstrating the stagnant character of economic activity in the region. More dramatically, the value per acre of farmland in the north was almost three times that of the south, yet only 40% of its labor force, as compared to 84% in the south were engaged in agriculture….
As this brutally primitive style of agriculture depleted the soil, for southern capital was tied up in land and slaves, and therefore barred any investment in improvements in cultivation, diversification, or new technologies, the surge for yet new and untapped land in the deep south, the so-called "black belt" states of Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas, along with the demand for even greater numbers of slave laborers, turned the older planter states like Virginia into slave breeders. By the mid 1850's slaves were Virginia's primary export, and the supply of such slave laborers for deep south plantations became the major economic activity of the old south.
…… Virginia, for example, was so exhausted economically, that while the rest of the south renewed the call for reopening the African slave trade, Virginia consistently opposed such a measure, for an alternative supply of cheap slave labor to the rest of the south would have bankrupted her. In South Carolina, the oldest of the cotton states, agricultural yields per laborer had dropped to levels that were staggering, producing a black slave population that was 125,000 or 20% greater than that of whites; and this despite the export of slave laborers to the deep south…..
Dreams of Africa in Alabama: The Slave Ship Clotilda and the Story of the Last Africans Brought to America. Sylviane A. Diouf. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. 340 pp.
quote:In July 1860, the schooner Clotilda carried to Mobile, Alabama, the last African slaves imported into the United States. Sylviane Diouf carefully reconstructs the experiences of the 110 captives from their origins in Dahomey to their life on the outskirts of Mobile. Half were women. Half were under fifteen years old. Through an impressive study combining a historian's analysis of archival and published sources with an anthropologist's fieldwork in Africa and Alabama, Diouf provides a narrative of the Clotilda Africans and an insightful discourse on race within the United States.
Diouf begins with a rich description of conditions along the Bight of Benin and in the American South. As sectional tensions heightened and as rising slave prices generated class fissures among white southerners, voices calling for resumption of the international slave trade, closed in the United States since 1808, grew louder. Illegal importation likely brought thousands into bondage each decade of the antebellum period, particularly through the Republic of Texas and along the Gulf Coast. The trade persisted through a combination, according to Diouf, of "Southern justice, Northern complicity, and Federal apathy" (p. 23). Nevertheless, a federal crackdown after the seizure of the Wanderer's over 200 captives in 1858 inspired Mobile slaveholder Timothy Meaher to import a shipment of Africans on principle. Involved in economic enterprises ranging from shipbuilding to cotton cultivation, Meaher arranged for Captain William Foster to sail to Dahomey. British efforts to foster palm oil production and wean the Dahomey economy from the profitable international slave trade in the early 1850s actually increased the domestic trade. By the late 1850s, King Ghezo, lured by Napolean III's "free immigrants" scheme in Martinique and Guadeloupe, the resurgence of the Cuban slave trade, and American slaveholders' smuggling efforts, openly resumed the trade. Diouf reminds readers of the international similarities of these slave societies, noting for instance how slaveholders used threats of sale – from being sold "down the river" in the United States to being sold overseas in Africa – to maintain stability. Furthermore, both African and European societies shared a sense of cultural superiority, considering the other ugly and cannibalistic.
Sectional Crises and the Fate of Africans Illegally Imported into the United States, 1806-1860
quote:The problem of how to dispose of Africans illegally imported as slaves into the United States, and its part played in the destruction of the Union, has been neglected by historians. First arising in 1806-07, it caused immediate sectional antagonism provoking threats of Civil War. Why? Because it involved more than just the broadly unanimous desire to end the slave trade but touched the much more sensitive issue of slavery as well. The issue of illegal slave imports underscored sectional differences, pitting Northerners against Southerners in their attitudes to slavery. Its ability to inflame politics was such that both sides acquiesced in an imperfect solution to the problem that tacitly supported the efforts of the controversial American Colonization Society to establish a colony in Africa which could be used to dump illegal slave imports. Yet appropriating money to carry out the terms of this solution gave rise to further sectional rhetoric reflecting deteriorating relations, which the problem itself contributed to, after Missouri. Cases of slave ships and debates centred on the fate of Africans found aboard them contributed to Southern anxiety and aggressiveness about federal interference in slavery and provoked the North into making clear anti-slavery statements. Successive debates provided an opportunity for both sections to articulate, and in turn, develop, radically different ideological standpoints: the North implacably anti-slavery and the South overwhelmingly pro-slavery. The fruition of pro-slavery ideology ultimately convinced the South to see the compulsory return of illegal slave imports to Africa as a slur against their institution and supported a revision of the terms of disposition. It was a compromise solution to their own struggle to marry a continuing commitment to ending the slave trade with a pride in slavery.
markellion Member # 14131
posted
argyle104 Member # 14634
posted
I'm going to take a wild guess about you.
You play with yourself nightly don't you?
markellion Member # 14131
posted
This is baffling. Supposedly the slave population was only 679,679 before 1790....
quote: In the year 1619, a memorable in the history of the United States, a Dutch trading vessel carried to the colonists of Virginia twenty Negroes from the West Indies and sold them as slaves, thus laying the foundation of slave society in the American colonies. In the seventeenth century slavery made but little progress in these parts of America, and during that whole period not more than twenty-five thousand slaves were brought to the colonies to work in the tobacco and rice fields of the South or to serve as maids, butlers, and coachmen in the North. The eighteenth century, however, saw a rapid increase in slavery, until the census of 1790, much to the surprise of most observers, showed a slave population of 679,679 living in every State and territory of the country except Massachusetts and Maine.
"History of domestic and foreign commerce of the United States" 1922
quote: The number of slaves annually imported into the American colonies increased as the eighteenth century advanced. Bancroft places the s slave population of the continental colonies at 59,000 in 1714, 78,000 in 1727, and 293,000 in 1754. Bancroft's figures were probably conservative, the estimate of Doyle, as stated in the early part of this chapter, being 96,000 blacks in 1720. The estimate of Channing for 1760 was 386,000 negroes. In 1790, when the first census of the United States was taken, there were 697,877 slaves in the country. - This steady growth in the number of the slave population in the continental colonies was due in part to natural increase, this being particularly true of the negroes in the Chesapeake colonies; and in the colonies further south, with the exception of the slaves on the rice plantations, the negroes lived under healthy conditions. The condition of the negroes was quite otherwise in the sugar islands, where the mortality was high and the importation of a large number of slaves each year was necessary.
markellion Member # 14131
posted
This proves that the British were planning on creating a slave system in the colonies so that they could continue controlling this trade after the "war of independence". The colonies were originally trying to do everything they could to limit the trade while the British did everything they could to force the slave trade on the colonies. This is extremely important
"Indeed, the British slave-traders seem to have had no great difficulty in persuading the British government to check the efforts of the American colonies to restrict the slave trade."
"History of domestic and foreign commerce of the United States"
There were five causes, economic and social, that accounted for the existence and growth of this traffic in human beings:
1. The planters in all the colonies south of Pennsylvania depended mainly upon slave labor and required an increasing number of negroes with the progress of each colony in industry and population. In Maryland alone of the southern colonies was there any dependence upon free labor, and there the slaves outnumbered the hired hands.
2. In the middle colonies, and to a small extent in New England, negroes were in demand as domestic servants, and were sometimes used for farm labor; but the number of slaves in Pennsylvania before the war did not exceed 11,000, and in New Jersey the maximum was less than half that figure. New York had a relatively large slave population amounting to 21,149 in 1774. The relative unimportance of slavery in New England is indicated by the fact that the maximum negro population in Connecticut was about 6,500, and in Massachusetts about 5,800. Little Rhode Island, on account of the active slave trade carried on at Newport, had only a thousand less slaves than did Massachusetts; whereas in New Hampshire slavery was almost nonexistent, there never having been as many as 700 slaves in the colony at any one time.
3. While the slave trader, and particularly the American slave trader, was not responsible for the existence of slavery in America, and was not the chief cause of its continuance and growth, yet the profits which American shipowners and captains derived from the traffic in African negroes caused them and the commercial interests in general to condone slavery throughout the colonial period, even in the northern colonies, and, except in Pennsylvania, to oppose successfully, until after the Revolution, the placing of any serious restrictions upon the slave trade. The abolition of slavery by the northern colonies in most instances antedated the prohibition of the slave trade." The last anti-slave-trade laws to be passed-by the celoniai or State governments were those forbidding their'citizens to engage in the traffic outside of the colony or State. Most of the northern colonies passed such laws before the end of the eighteenth century; but New York did not, and some of her citizens continued in the slave trade until the Civil War—of course clandestinely after the passage of the federal act of 1808. 4. The commercial interests of Great Britain, as well as those of America, were opposed to the colonial laws restricting the importation of negroes. From time to time the southern colonies felt, as did South Carolina as early as 1698, that "the great number of negroes which of late have been imported into this colony may endanger the safety thereof," and various steps were taken to mitigate the evil. Special encouragement was given white immigration; per capita taxes were placed upon imported negroes, the amount of the tax varying with the degree of public alarm. Occasionally this tax was made so high as to be prohibitive, and in one instance, South Carolina in 1760, the importation was prohibited. This act of South Carolina was vetoed by the British government, as were numerous of the colonial laws imposing high duties on imported negroes, as for example, the Virginia acts of 1723 and 1727 and the Pennsylvania act of 1713 imposing a head tax of £20. Many similar laws were nullified by the veto of the royal governors or by the disapproval of the mother country. Indeed, the British slave-traders seem to have had no great difficulty in persuading the British government to check the efforts of the American colonies to restrict the slave trade.
5. Another economic reason, even more determinative than the profitableness of buying negroes in the cheap slave markets of Africa and selling to the slave-dealers and planters of the West Indies or the American continental colonies, accounting for the prominent place held by the slave traffic in the commerce of the northern colonies, was the intimate connection of this traffic with both the West Indian trade and with the rum-manufacturing business of New England. What this connection was can best be described by the account of the voyage and traffic of a typical slave-ship, the brigantine Sanderson, of Newport, Rhode Island. The vessel was fitted out from her home port in March 1752, having, besides the captain (a Mr. Lindsay), two mates and six men in her crew, and carrying a cargo of 8,220 gallons of rum and also some short iron bars ("African" iron), flour, pots, tar, sugar, provisions, shackles, shirts, and water. Upon reaching Africa the cargo was, with some difficulty, exchanged for slaves and for some gold dust and pepper. Captain Lindsay then proceeded to the Barbados, where he arrived June 17, 1753, and where he sold his-cargo of 56 slaves, "all in helth and fatt," from £33 to £56 per head, and also disposed of 40 ounces of gold dust and 8 or 9 hundredweight of pepper. The net proceeds of these sales above expenses was £1,324. From this sum the captain spent £911 17s. in purchasing 55 hogsheads of molasses and 3 hogsheads 27 barrels of sugar, the remainder due the captain being paid him in bills of exchange on Liverpool. From the Barbados the Sanderson returned to Newport, and her owners were so well pleased with the success of her captain that they at once fitted out another vessel and sent Captain Lindsay forth on another trip.Most of the slave vessels like the Sanderson were small, their usual size being less than 100 tons.
markellion Member # 14131
posted
I'd like again to point out that in 1790 the slave population was supposed to be bellow 700,000 and by the time of the civil war the slave population was supposed to be at about 4,000,000. A huge number of Africans must have been imported in this time and with a small population of slave owning whites. In fact the colonies were in a state of panic because so many Africans were being brought in, forced on them by the British. I'm sure most race mixing involved poor whites or white slaves.
They want to say most race mixing was between master and slave as a way to keep people in the United States racially divided. We poor folk are all in this together. In fact race mixing might have involved African royalty and poor whites
TruthAndRights Member # 17346
posted
Greetings. Race-mixing in the U.S. was going on prior to slavery; and contrary to popular beLIEf, a good part of it was 'White' women and Black men because prior to the 'White' man elevating the 'White' woman to some imagined pedestal, he worked her right along with the Black servants- they lived and worked together so it's only natural that other things would follow as Nature knows no 'color line'.... As a matter of FACT the first anti-miscegenation laws were SPECIFICALLY to keep 'White' men and women away from Black men and women- ESPECIALLY the 'White' women; lol, 'White' men were NOT happy with the way the English women seemed to prefer Black men back then! Not just a few 'White' people were willing to end up whipped or jailed or made a slave for life as punishment for their love and/or marriage, etc., of a Black Man/Woman. This is just the very very short version of it....oh, and a good source of this info is Lerone Bennett's BEFORE THE MAYFLOWER- if I was home I could provide chapter and page(s)...yep, I'm a "book gal"
htp.
markellion Member # 14131
posted
Thank you very much for the info . While this mixing in the early period was significant also remember that there continued to be huge numbers of Africans brought in after 1790. The astonishing growth of the black population under brutal slavery vs. the slow growth of the population overall does indicate that continued imports were important even though it was illegal. South Carolina, for example, was very dependent on selling slaves to other states but still continued to have a black population that was greater than the white population even while exporting large numbers of these unfortunate people. As I said in my first post the motivation behind having the slave trade illegal was so that slave prices would be higher. I'd like to learn more about this phenomenon. Most scholars seem to accept these statistics of 700,000 slaves 1790 and 4,000,000 during the Civil War.
These are things I want people to notice so repeating what I put on the first post. This thread shows that there was an illegal trade that was controlled by British subjects:
The bold bellow shows the number of slaves that existed at the time and the slow overall population growth plus the importance of the slave trade amongst the southern states. Also these states were totally dependent on Brittan, just like with the "Zanzibari" slave trade
"Free Trade, The Confederacy, and the Political Economy of Slavery"
quote: The southern economy had become almost exclusively a slave based, cash crop agricultural one, totally dependant on British markets, and totally indebted to British or British allied finance. As a result, close to between 80 to 90% of all land in the slave states was owned by the approximately 2 to 3% of the population who were slaveholders; three hundred and fifty thousand slaveholders in a population of 11 million. Of these no more than one hundred thousand owned two-thirds of all the land and 90% of all the enslaved black population of 4 million. ....
....A few simple statistics abundantly confirm Steven's description of the lack of southern development. In 1790, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, Virginia was the most populous state in the nation; her population, as Steven's notes, was double that of New York. By 1860 her population had barely doubled, while that of every northern state had increased by between nine and ten fold. Such was the case throughout all of the south, demonstrating the stagnant character of economic activity in the region. More dramatically, the value per acre of farmland in the north was almost three times that of the south, yet only 40% of its labor force, as compared to 84% in the south were engaged in agriculture….
....As this brutally primitive style of agriculture depleted the soil, for southern capital was tied up in land and slaves, and therefore barred any investment in improvements in cultivation, diversification, or new technologies, the surge for yet new and untapped land in the deep south, the so-called "black belt" states of Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas, along with the demand for even greater numbers of slave laborers, turned the older planter states like Virginia into slave breeders. By the mid 1850's slaves were Virginia's primary export, and the supply of such slave laborers for deep south plantations became the major economic activity of the old south.....
.... Virginia, for example, was so exhausted economically, that while the rest of the south renewed the call for reopening the African slave trade, Virginia consistently opposed such a measure, for an alternative supply of cheap slave labor to the rest of the south would have bankrupted her. In South Carolina, the oldest of the cotton states, agricultural yields per laborer had dropped to levels that were staggering, producing a black slave population that was 125,000 or 20% greater than that of whites; and this despite the export of slave laborers to the deep south…..
markellion Member # 14131
posted
Again, remember that the overall population growth for these states was very low. This site has an interactive map which shows how many slaves existed and where they were located by year
Map: Lewis C. Gray History of Agriculture in the Southern United States to 1860 (Washington, D.C., 1933). 652-55
posted
Actually I am confused as to why this topic is in a forum that is specifically for topics related to Ancient Kmt....and no, this isn't the only topic that I am wondering about its placement....but I have just joined and have much reading to do here on this forum....
htp.
markellion Member # 14131
posted
The description says:
"Non-Egyptology related discussion. African roots, race, origin of man etc."
Look at Virgenia and South Carolina and some at North Carolina through the years on that map. Their population densities go way up even though they are major exporters to the deep south.
The British controlled the trade in Africans all over the world I hope people start realizing this. This is also absolutely essential if someone is looking into the origins of African Americans. It is also essential to know when looking at other parts of history like the development of globalization
MindoverMatter718 Member # 15400
posted
quote:Originally posted by TruthAndRights: but I have just joined and have much reading to do here on this forum....
Indeed. I made sure that I specifically read through older threads (atleast 2 or more years old) for a while, before I posted here, perhaps you should too.
markellion Member # 14131
posted
The African slave trade and Brittan. "White supremacy" is basically all about controlling trade so what was going on in the mid-seventeenth century is still going on today. Religion has some importance but this goes way above religion. The bold bellow shows how this goes above religion
The adventurers in this trade, who have seen for near a century past, the Society for propagating Christianity, composed of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of London, and many pious doctors of the established church, deriving, as masters, a yearly income from the labor of their Negroe slaves in the West Indies, which is appropriated to the increase of Christianity in the world, could not consider it as contrary to the spirit of the Scriptures, or to the principles of morality: nor could the adventurers regard this traffic as inconsistent with the natural rights of mankind, when they read in the statute of 9 and 10 of King William (which was made avowedly for extending the trade to Africa), "That this trade was highly beneficial to this kingdom;" a declaration of a king, who was the patron of liberty, and of a parliament that had vindicated the natural rights of mankind; and when they read also in the stat. of 23 Geo. II. "That the trade to Africa is very advantageous to Great Britain, and necessary to the plantations," Which act was made by a whig king, and a whig parliament; who, when they dissolved the late African Company, granted a large sum of money as a compensation for their rights, in order that a trade thus necessary and advantageous, might be carried on with greater energy and success.
TruthAndRights Member # 17346
posted
I personally feel that without reLIEgion- i.e., Christianity, there would not be the racism that we know today....but this is just my humble opinion.
htp
markellion Member # 14131
posted
According to Robert Norris it was not until the reign of Charles II and the Royal African company that the British slave trade became important. And then it experienced another boom after the revolution of 1688. This was due to a national debt funding African wars. These are things that occurred long after Jesus Christ died
quote:The transformation from indentured servitude (servants contracted to work for a set amount of time) to racial slavery didn't happen overnight. There are no laws regarding slavery early in Virginia's history. By 1640, the Virginia courts had sentenced at least one black servant to slavery . . .
It wasn't until 1661 that a reference to slavery entered into Virginia law, and this law was directed at white servants -- at those who ran away with a black servant. The following year, the colony went one step further by stating that children born would be bonded or free according to the status of the mother.
The transformation had begun, but it wouldn't be until the Slave Codes of 1705 that the status of African Americans would be sealed.
British possess, at present, the greatest share. It was during the government of the commonwealth, that Negroes were carried, in any numbers, to the British West Indies, and then, chiefly to Barbadoes: a few indeed were brought to Virginia, by a Dutch ship, as early as 1620; but it was the Royal African Company, that first carried on, from England, a vigorous commerce to Africa, during the reign of Charles II. We may form an opinion of the magnitude of it, in its most flourishing state, prior to the revolution in 1688, by considering that the company employed thirty ships annually, which delivered about five thousand Negroes in the West Indies. The increase of it to its present state, may be attributed to the enterprizing spirit of the merchants; to the superior address of those employed in the executive part of it; to the opulence of the manufacturers, which enables them to extend a credit to the former, beyond what can be had in any other country; and to the annual grants of parliament, for the maintenance of several forts, and factories in Africa. From these concurring circumstances, the British planters are supplied with Negroes, on more reasonable terms than their neighbours; and a large surplus is left, which is disposed of to the French and Spaniards for specie, and other valuable commodities.
TruthAndRights Member # 17346
posted
quote:Originally posted by markellion: According to Robert Norris it was not until the reign of Charles II and the Royal African company that the British slave trade became important. And then it experienced another boom after the revolution of 1688. This was due to a national debt funding African wars. These are things that occurred long after Jesus Christ died
quote:The transformation from indentured servitude (servants contracted to work for a set amount of time) to racial slavery didn't happen overnight. There are no laws regarding slavery early in Virginia's history. By 1640, the Virginia courts had sentenced at least one black servant to slavery . . .
It wasn't until 1661 that a reference to slavery entered into Virginia law, and this law was directed at white servants -- at those who ran away with a black servant. The following year, the colony went one step further by stating that children born would be bonded or free according to the status of the mother.
The transformation had begun, but it wouldn't be until the Slave Codes of 1705 that the status of African Americans would be sealed.
British possess, at present, the greatest share. It was during the government of the commonwealth, that Negroes were carried, in any numbers, to the British West Indies, and then, chiefly to Barbadoes: a few indeed were brought to Virginia, by a Dutch ship, as early as 1620; but it was the Royal African Company, that first carried on, from England, a vigorous commerce to Africa, during the reign of Charles II. We may form an opinion of the magnitude of it, in its most flourishing state, prior to the revolution in 1688, by considering that the company employed thirty ships annually, which delivered about five thousand Negroes in the West Indies. The increase of it to its present state, may be attributed to the enterprizing spirit of the merchants; to the superior address of those employed in the executive part of it; to the opulence of the manufacturers, which enables them to extend a credit to the former, beyond what can be had in any other country; and to the annual grants of parliament, for the maintenance of several forts, and factories in Africa. From these concurring circumstances, the British planters are supplied with Negroes, on more reasonable terms than their neighbours; and a large surplus is left, which is disposed of to the French and Spaniards for specie, and other valuable commodities.
Respectfully, this is where I must respectfully agree to disagree on a point or two...Christ is a title, not a part of Jesus' or anyone else's name...it is actually Jesus the Christ...moreover, I personally don't beLIEve that this individual actually existed- I am not a Christian; I just respect others' views/beLIEfs/KNOWledge.... I know there is a Creator/Higher Power/GOD/however one would like to put it- I have no doubt of this but I just happen to think that reLIEgion is one of the worst things to happen to HUEmanity....
Btw, as I promised, the information I gave previously regarding miscegenation, the real reason for the laws against it, etc., can be found in Lerone Bennett, Jr.'s BEFORE THE MAYFLOWER A HISTORY OF BLACK AMERICA, Chapter 10 Red, White and Black: Race and Sex pp273-299.
htp
markellion Member # 14131
posted
lol will I don't think "The Christ" was originally a lie to bring down black people, even if it was a lie.
See alTakruri's thread
"Catholic Europe biggest Afronuts for Black Jesus and Mary"
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: A German correspondent, resident in New York City, wrote me as regards the Black Virgin of her native land Bavaria, saying that for years she has been trying to tell Americans that Christ and the Virgin Mary were black but they would not believe her, "Every Catholic knows that Santa Maria was an Aethiopan."
markellion Member # 14131
posted
The "Nordic" races, or "Homo Europaeus", were the ones most obsessed with genocide. The Spanish might have been on a far greater scale when it came to destruction compared to the ancient Romans and Mongols but were bellow the English
I'm guessing most Catholics belong to the "swarthy" race and Irishmen are supposedly similar to Negroes (and should be extinct).
For this reason Catholics had less of a problem with black Jesus (as seen in previous post) and did not do as thorough a job in exterminating native Americans
quote: The Teutonic race resided in Scandinavia, in northwestern Germany, and in Britain and Ireland, and was typified by "very light" hair, blue eyes, tall stature and a narrow, aquiline nose. Georges Vacher de Lapouge had called this race "Homo Europaeus", while Joseph Deniker had used the term "Nordic"......
....From the 17th century onwards, as Northern European countries became more powerful, Northern peoples began to adapt such aesthetic traditions into arguments for their own superiority. Benjamin Franklin proposed a clear distinction between "white" Europeans and "swarthy" Europeans, stating that immigration to the newly-born United States should favour the "white" Saxons and Englishmen rather than the "swarthy" Germans (except for the German Saxons), Italians, French, Russians, Spaniards and Swedes.[16] Franklin believed the white Europeans to be more "lovely", at least to his taste.
quote:DOES THE FOLLOWING SOUNDS FAMILIAR? 90-95 % OF THE INDIAN POPULATION OF MEXICO PERISH? THERE ARE NO MORE MEXICAN INDIGENOUS PEOPLES BUT JUST MESTIZOS?
"The Mestizo Concept: A Product of European Imperialism"
posted
It needs to be understood that the British and earlier the Dutch controlled the African slave trade to "Latin America". They benefited from the trade because they could sell their products and also because of the products produced by slave labor. The Americans (Natives) could only be dominated because of the crippling effects of disease but mankind was brought under the yoke of globalization. This is of the highest importance and is something that needs more research.
Also as I pointed out it seems that most slave imports into the United States occurred after 1790, that needs to be looked into. If anyone is still skeptical about there being a massive illegal slave trade in the United States also remember the British had a great deal of trade with Brazil which was taking in large numbers of slaves
"A dictionary, practical, theoretical, and historical, of commerce" 1852
quote:In order still better to illustrate the trade of Brazil, we take leave to subjoin the following details from Mr. Caldelugh’s Travels in South America. They are neither, however, so recent, nor of such authority, as those already laid before the reader:- “The colonial system, which was strictly preserved until the arrival of the court, kept the country in a state of ignorance of many of those beautiful articles of English manufacture, now so greedily purchased by all. The Brazil trade may be considered as entirely in the hands of the British, as if an exclusive monopoly existed in their favor. Brazil takes from us every thing she requires, excepting wine from Portugal; and the importance this trade to England may be well conceived, when it is mentioned that, after the East and West Indies and the United States, it forms the greatest mart for our fabrics, and one that is most rapidly increasing.
TruthAndRights Member # 17346
posted
quote:Originally posted by markellion: lol will I don't think "The Christ" was originally a lie to bring down black people , even if it was a lie.
See alTakruri's thread
"Catholic Europe biggest Afronuts for Black Jesus and Mary"
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: A German correspondent, resident in New York City, wrote me as regards the Black Virgin of her native land Bavaria, saying that for years she has been trying to tell Americans that Christ and the Virgin Mary were black but they would not believe her, "Every Catholic knows that Santa Maria was an Aethiopan."
Good morning.
I am quite sure that you did not see where I typed anything about "The Christ" originally being a lie to bring down Black people...because I didn't.
As far as the Black Madonna and Child, yes, I am well studied on that topic, thanks for sharing. The Black Madonnas are the most venerated Madonnas in Europe; Black saints are also found in no shortage within some old European churches
Btw, on another note.....Allow me to share, please:
Image below is said to be Pre-sumerian-
AUSET AND HERU (aka Isis and Horus), below-
and then came Madonna and Child....I would say note the similarities among the three pictures, but I could not post the third picture that I have with these two; the board wouldn't allow me to....
htp
markellion Member # 14131
posted
quote:Originally posted by TruthAndRights: I personally feel that without reLIEgion- i.e., Christianity, there would not be the racism that we know today....but this is just my humble opinion.
htp
Today Biology is used to justify racism. In fact the curse of Ham, curse of Cain, Pre-Adamites ect. were all ways to explain a perceived biological inferiority. Today genetics rather than scripture is used to explain a perceived biological inferiority. Racism doesn't need reLIEgion
TruthAndRights Member # 17346
posted
quote:Originally posted by markellion:
quote:Originally posted by TruthAndRights: I personally feel that without reLIEgion- i.e., Christianity, there would not be the racism that we know today....but this is just my humble opinion.
htp
Today Biology is used to justify racism. In fact the curse of Ham, curse of Cain, Pre-Adamites ect. were all ways to explain a perceived biological inferiority. Today genetics rather than scripture is used to explain a perceived biological inferiority. Racism doesn't need reLIEgion
Respect.
I was saying that if it was not for the racism that reLIEgion brought with it in the first place we would not have racism as we know it today.
htp
markellion Member # 14131
posted
Whatever the case may be my motivation behind making this thread is so people will look into Africans being brought into the United States after 1790 as this is a crucial but ignored aspect of history
TruthAndRights Member # 17346
posted
Good morning.
It was not my intent to derail the thread, my apologies.
Back on topic, I recommend this book if you haven't read it already:
Dreams of Africa in Alabama: The Slave Ship Clotilda and the Story of the Last Africans Brought to America by Sylviane A. Diouf
If you have not read it, I am quite sure you will find it to be a very interesting and informative read....
htp
markellion Member # 14131
posted
You didn't derail the thread but I made it sound that way so I apologize. What I meant was just to say that people should look into the history of African Americans coming to the U.S. after 1790 in their own personal research. I meant to just say that in between the discussion we had. When it comes to talking over the internet it is so easy to misrepresent oneself
Anyway with all the statues of Black Madonna how could it be said racism needed Christianity. Isn't it more likely that Christianity was molded to fit racism?
quote:Originally posted by TruthAndRights:
As far as the Black Madonna and Child, yes, I am well studied on that topic, thanks for sharing. The Black Madonnas are the most venerated Madonnas in Europe; Black saints are also found in no shortage within some old European churches
markellion Member # 14131
posted
quote:Originally posted by TruthAndRights: I recommend this book if you haven't read it already:
Dreams of Africa in Alabama: The Slave Ship Clotilda and the Story of the Last Africans Brought to America by Sylviane A. Diouf
I have a reference to it in the first post on this thread talking about as a reaction to a crack down against the slave trade a slave owner sought to attain a shipment of slaves from Dahomey on principle. What should be stressed here is that various policies were implemented that were actually encouraging the slave trade even though they were pretended to be Anti-Slavery policies.
I should check out the book.
Friedrich Forbes, an abolitionist, also wrote about how the slave trade was being encouraged. This shows that there was a massive conspiracy to bring large numbers of Africans to the Americas including the United States in the guise of abolitionist policies!
Dahomey and the Dahomans by Friedrich Forbes Volume 1 1850-1851
quote:These wars are directly and instrumentally the acts of the slave-merchants of Whydah and its neighbouring parts; but have they no higher parties on whom to lay the blame of their actions? are these, the agents of larger houses, the instruments in the hands of parties who have other means of disposing of their goods, to bear the whole blame? Truth is strange but a truth it is, that the slave trade is carried on in Dahomey and the neighbouring kingdoms with British merchandize, and, at Porto Novo, the residence of the monarch of slave dealers, by British shipping direct. I do not mean to say that if British goods were not obtainable, the traffic would cease to exist; but the taste for British goods runs high, and if these could not be purchased with slaves, palm-oil would be manufactured to obtain them.
"Dahomey and the Dahomans" By Fredrick Forbes Vol 2 1850-1851
quote:The amazons now advanced in the same order, and having saluted the king he joined them, and again performed a war dance. They also sang in praise of the liberality of the slave-dealer, who gave them muskets and powder to make war upon innocent neighbors; to enrich himself by supplying the market with slaves. These are the evils to uproot: and yet this very man is directly trading with, and receives these muskets and this powder from, British agents in British shipping.
markellion Member # 14131
posted
A great deal of the wars were motivated by the slave trade rather than the other way around where the slave trade is merely a side effect of wars. This also reveals what the origins of many African Americans would be "A country living in peace with all around, and pursuing trade in the endeavour to become rich, is suddenly surrounded by a ruthless banditti"
Dahomey and the Dahomans by Friedrich Forbes Volume 1 1850-1851
quote:I had been often a day or two journeying into various parts of the interior of Africa, and had seen the state of the slave trade in its advanced systematic stage, and had considered the horrors of that division of it disgusting enough. I have visited baracoons, and seen men so fearfully attenuated, from want and over-exercise in the march to the coast, as to render nature unable to support the frame. I have seen the hold of a slave ship, and the horrors consequent on diseases arising from the crowded state and want of wholesome food to alleviate the cravings of hunger and thirst. I have seen the slave toiling in South America, and known that the labour of these was a matter of calculation to the master, whether, by continual toil and short life, he would gain more money than by light work and protracted miserable existence. But what are all these to the tragic scenes that introduce the slaves to slavery? A country living in peace with all around, and pursuing trade in the endeavour to become rich, is suddenly surrounded by a ruthless banditti; and how changed the scene! The old would be rejected if brought to market, they are sacrificed ; the whole nation are transported, exterminated, their name to be forgotten, except in the annual festival of their conquerors, when sycophants call the names of vanquished countries to the remembrance of the victors.
This state of society will last as long as the slave trade exists. The question that should be asked is: Is it in the power of this country to stop it? I will not confine myself to opinions, but relate facts.
markellion Member # 14131
posted
William Pitt, the Younger. From His Speech On The Abolition Of The Slave-trade . April 2, 1792.
quote: Yes, we give them enough of our intercourse to convey to them the means, and to initiate them in the study, of mutual destruction. We give them just enough of the forms of justice to enable them to add the pretext of legal trials to their other modes of perpetrating the most atrocious iniquity. We give them just enough of European improvements to enable them the more effectually to turn Africa into a ravaged wilderness......
.....Do you think nothing of the ruin and the miseries in which so many other individuals, still remaining in Africa, are involved, in consequence of carrying off so many myriads of people? Do you think nothing of their families which are left behind of the connections which are broken? of the friendships, attachments, and relationships that are burst asunder! Do you think nothing of the miseries in consequence, that are felt from generation to generation? of the privation of that happiness which might be communicated to them by the introduction of civilization, and of mental and moral improvement? A happiness which you withhold them so long as you permit the slave-trade to continue. What do you know of the internal state of Africa? You have carried on a trade to that quarter of the globe from this civilized and enlightened country. but such a trade, that, instead of diffusing either knowledge or wealth, it has been the check to every laudable pursuit. Instead of any fair interchange of commodities; instead of conveying to them, from this highly favored land, any means of improvement; you carry with you that noxious plant by which everything is withered and blasted; under whose shade nothing that is useful or profitable to Africa will ever flourish or take root. Long as that continent has been known to navigators, the extreme line and boundaries of its coasts is all with which Europe is yet become acquainted; while other countries in the same parallel of latitude, through a happier system of intercourse, have reaped the blessings of a mutually beneficial commerce. But as to the whole interior of that continent you are, by your own principles of commerce, as yet entirely shut out: Africa is known to you only in its skirts. Yet here you are able to infuse a poison that spreads its contagious effects from one end of it to the other, which penetrates to its very center, corrupting every part to which it reaches. You there subvert the whole order of nature; you aggravate every natural barbarity, and furnish to every man living on that continent motives for committing, under the name and pretext of commerce, acts of perpetual violence and perfidy
Jari-Ankhamun Member # 14451
posted
quote:Originally posted by TruthAndRights: I personally feel that without reLIEgion- i.e., Christianity, there would not be the racism that we know today....but this is just my humble opinion.
htp
Don't Forget about Islam and A-LIE aka Allah...the Arab form of African slavery and racism.
markellion Member # 14131
posted
This is annoying because no one gives any real evidence of significant "Arab" racism before European colonalism. Nor do they give evidence that Arabs were even necessarily dominate.
Edit: And how do black Arabs come into play and mostly dark skinned Arabs come into play
markellion Member # 14131
posted
You mentioned this on the thread "Debt, credit, and the Zanzibari slave trade" and you gave a website, which was fair enough, but when I showed Ibn Khaldun was not racist you didn't say anything after that. You are only making people look weak and inferior
markellion Member # 14131
posted
Concerning the assumption that "Arabs" were all powerful see the first item bellow. As for the 2nd article it shows how stereotypes work, something that needs no proof but somehow can't really be proved. Thats what your doing when your talking about some "Arab" racism especially when a great part of the Arabs are black or dark skinned
"Medieval West Africa: Views From Arab Scholars and Merchants"
page 98 by Ibn Khaldun is talking about Takedda and the lands of the "veiled people" being subject to Mali
quote:
In the year 1353, in the days of sultan Abul 'Inan [of Morocco], I went to Biskara on royal business and there encountered the ambassador of the ruler of Takedda at the residence of Yusof al-Muzani, emir of Biskara. He told me about the prosperous state of this city and the continual passage of wayfares and said: "This year there passed through out city on the way to Mali a caravan of merchants from the east containing 12,000 camels." Another [informant] has told me that this is a yearly even. his country is subject to the sultan of Mali of the Sudan as is the case at present with the rest of the desert regions known as [the land of] the veiled people
"Unnatural and ever prejudicial Constructions of Race and Colonial Hierarchies by British observers" in 19th century Zanzibar Electronic pages 13
quote: In a discussion of race and colonial discourse, Homi Bhabha has described the stereotype as "a form of knowledge and identification that facilitates between what is always 'in place', already known, and something that must be anxiously repeated As if the essential duplicity of the Asiatic or the bestial sexual license of the African that needs no proof, can never, in discourse, be proved." In dual character as that which is already known and yet dependent on being anxiously repeated suggests an important aspect of the racial stereotype that is revealed in its use and function in many colonial sources......
page 14
"....We always already know that blacks are licentious, Asiatics duplicitous The stereotype becomes an element of unproven prior knowledge that needs no proof of its veracity for its employment as explanation for racialized difference.
Jari-Ankhamun Member # 14451
posted
quote:Originally posted by markellion: You mentioned this on the thread "Debt, credit, and the Zanzibari slave trade" and you gave a website, which was fair enough, but when I showed Ibn Khaldun was not racist you didn't say anything after that. You are only making people look weak and inferior
Icon 1 posted 16 January, 2010 12:33 AM Profile for Black Belt Jones Edit/Delete Post Reply With Quote
quote:Originally posted by GlobalAfrikanSupremacy:
The Nation of Islam claims that Muhammed(the real one, not Fard) was a coal-black Negro of Ethiopian ancestry. This is blatantly false. In reality, the "Prophet" Muhammed was a lying, thieving, raping, mass murdering, child molesting Arab, who hated Blacks. In the Quran, Muhammed refers to Blacks as "raisinheads" and justifies enslavement of Blacks on a racial basis.
Almost all of the early Islamic "scholars" were racist against the Black Master Race, and described us as, among other things, ugly; stupid; violent; greedy; inferior; selfish; superstitious; barbaric; brutish; spirtually, physically, and intellectually weak; closer to apes than men; and fit only for enslavement or death.
In Medieval times, the Arabs enslaved huge numbers of Blacks. In order to stop us from "defiling" their women(as though any Black man would ever get his private part dirty by sticking it in some ugly Arab's nasty snatch), all male African slaves were castrated. The Arabs males regularly raped their female black slaves. In order to stop us from multiplying and overrunning them, any child born to a Black woman from her Arab master would have it's brains bashed out against the wall immediately after birth.
Even today, Arabs hate Blacks. Hatred against Blacks is particularly strong in Iran, Iraq, and Egypt.
These are just a few reasons why we Blacks should reject the vile, Arabs cult of Islam.My mom is African American but my dad is from Somali and I was raised as a Muslim( a real one, not an NOI one). Later, when I read history and learned about how the filthy inferior Arab dogs enslaved, raped, and killed the Black Master Race, using their demonic "religion" as a justification, I rejected Islam. Thus, I speak from experience when I say that freeing your mind from that evil cult is spiritually liberating. If any of my fellow Black brothers on this site are Muslim(NOI or otherwise) I encourage you to immediately renounce that false, anti-Black religion. You'll be glad you did.
Islam has no Place in Africa!
But you have failed to see that Islam is a kinder, gentler thing where blacks are concerned. Examine the case of black Bilal.
there still seems to be the implicit, deep-rooted assumption of black inferiority in various hadiths, some Pan Africanists argue.
WHEN BLACKS BECOME WHITE, ALL WILL BE WELL WITH THEM IN MUSLIM PARADISE In one hadith an Ethiopian says to the Prophet: "You Arabs excel us in all, in build, color, and in possession of the Prophet. If I believe, will I be with you in paradise?" The prophet answere, "Yes, and in Paradise the whiteness of the Ethiopian will be seen over a stretch of a thousand years."
SURPRISE EXPRESSED THAT A MERE NEGRESS SHOULD ENTER PARADISE According to al-Maarri another illustration is given of the narrator entering paradise where be meets a beautiful houri [female promised the faithful Muslim in paradise], who tells him that in life she was Tawfiq, the Negress who used to fetch books for copyists in the Academy of Baghdad. "But you are black" he exclaims, "and now you have become whiter than camphor!" To which she relies quoting a verse: "If there were a mustard-seed of God's light among all the blacks, the blacks would become white." (Lewis, Race and Slavery in the Mideast," pg 34-37)
WHEN BLACK BILAL BECAME MUEZZIN, HE ENDURED RACIST INSULTS- to be called 'son of a black woman' was one of the biggest contemporary insults of the era. In both examples some Pan Africans have said, white= right, but black= "get back" unless by piety the negro eventually became white. Even Bilal the Ethiopian, a black slave freed by Muhammed, the first muezzin, endured racist attacks by his Arab brethren, so perhaps indeed some jealously was involved. Some of the prophet's companions objected to the black man being named muezzin and in another hadith the black man is taunted with what was considered a stinging insult at the time: it is reported after a disagreement between Abu Dharr and Bilal, Abu Dharr in an attempt to insult Bilal said, "You son of a black woman."
PROPHET MUHAMMED SAYS BLACKS THIEVES AND FORNICATORS
In another hadith quoted by Lewis, the Prophet is quoted as saying of the Ethiopians: "When he is hungry he steals, when he is sated he fornicates."
PROPHET MUHAMMED SAYS UGLY BLACK THUGS WILL TRASH SACRED MUSLIM KA'BA AS THE WORLD COMES TO AN END. Another hadith holds that the Prophet predicts that the Ka'ba, the sanctuary in Mecca, will be destroyed by black-skinned, short-shanked men," who will tear it apart and thus begin the destruction of the world.
MUSLIM WRITER JAHIZ, MAY NOT AT ALL BE BLACK FRIENDLY. HIS 'PRIDE OF BLACKS' MEANT TO RIDICULE PERSIANS NOT SUPPORT BLACKS.
Leiws notes that Jahiz himself also uttered numerous negative, anti-black statements, and that Jahiz was a fierce defender of Arab culture against the Persians. His "Pride of the Blacks" according to this argument is thus meant partially as a parody, intending to throw ridicule on Persian pretensions by advancing similar arguments on behalf of the lowly and despised Zanj. Thus we have to ask if jahiz was 100% interested in defending a blacks or running in part at least, a parody of them- something like hell the Persians may not be too bad, they are like the Zanj in several ways, and wink wink, we know how THOSE negroes are.. So jahiz says:
BLACKS LEAST INTELLIGENT OF HUMANS SAYS CLASSIC MUSLIM WRITER "We know that the Zanj are the least intelligent and the least discerning of mankind, and the least capable of understanding the consequences of actions,"
"Like the crow among mankind are the Zanj for they are the worst of men and most vicious of creatures in character and temperament."
"They [the Shu`ubiyya Persian group] maintain that eloquence is prized by all people at all times -- even the Zanj, despite their dimness, their boundless stupidity, their obtuseness, their crude perceptions and their evil dispositions, make long speeches."
LATER ERA STRONG DEFENSES OF BLACKS BY SOME WRITERS INDICATE HOW DIFFICULT THE ARAB ANTI-BLACK RACISM THEY HAD TO STRUGGLE AGAINST. Later writers are more forthright than Jahiz and offer a strong defense of the Zanj, leading Lewis to wonder why such a strong defence of blacks was necessary by these writers, if they did not have a lot of racist opposition to overcome. If Arab racism was a minor problem, why did these writers find it necessary to defend black people so extensively?
MUSLIM WRITINGS RECORD SOME BLACKS LAMENTING ON HOW THEY WERE TREATED BECAUSE OF THEIR COLOR In one for example by Jamal al Din Abul-Faraj ibn al-Jawzi, (d. 1208) the psychological pain caused by racism is mentioned. "I have seen a number of outstanding Ethiopians whose hearts were breaking based in their black color..."
RACIST ARABS DISSED BLACK BILAL AND WISHED HE WERE DEAD Some Muslims objected to the dark-skinned Ethiopian leading the call to prayer [i]"But some Muslims could not bear to accept Bilal as a rightful Muezzin because he was black- skinned, and when they heard him call -- which was often -- they even prayed that they could die, so as not to have to hear the Ethiopian's voice (Azan) ever again. [Tabaqat Ibn Sa‘ad, vol. III:1, p. 166; Abu Na'im, op. cit., vol. 1, p. 148; Ibn Hajar, op. cit., vol. 1, p. 336.]
Common insults suggest that dark-skin was viewed unfavorably by the Arabs. "It is reported after a disagreement between Abu Dharr and Bilal, Abu Dharr in an attempt to insult said, "You son of a black woman." [(Bukhari, “Iman,” 22)].
Black Bilal stands up for himself after Muhamed's death. The new regime exiles the black man to Syria. It is written in Kamil Baha'i that Bilal did not say adhan or iqamah for Abu Bakr,[81] and did not pay allegiance to Abu Bakr as a caliph. Shaykh Abu Ja'far al-Tusi has narrated in lkhtiyar al-Rijal a report that Bilal refused to pay allegiance to Abu Bakr; and 'Umar caught hold of his dress made of hide and said, "Is this the reward of Abu Bakr; he emancipated you and you are now refusing to pay allegiance to him?".
Bilal said, "If Abu Bakr had emancipated me for the pleasure of Allah, then let him leave me alone for Allah; and if he had emancipated me for his service, then I am ready to render him the services required. But I am not going to pay allegiance to a person whom the Messenger of God had not appointed as his caliph." 'Umar then dealt harshly with him and said, "You should not remain here among us." That is why after the Prophet's death, Bilal could not remain in Medina; and migrated to Syria." [Shustari, Nurullah, Majalisu'1-Mu'minin (Tehran, 1268 AH) p. 54; and also see Ibn Sa'd, op. cit., vol. III:1, p. 169.]
In another incident al-Harith ibn Hisham expresses shock and amazement that the honour of calling the adhan should have been conferred upon Bilal, a black Abyssinian. [ Tabaqat Ibn Sa‘ad, vol.3, p.233 and Furugh Abadiyat, vol.1, p.277]
In another incident Arab delegates came to see the Prophet and scorned to sit with the black man and those with him. They urged that the negro and others depart until the delegates business had been conducted. The Prophet brushed aside their urgings. “O Allah’s Apostle, put these [people- Bilal and the others] aside, that we may be alone with you. The Arabs delegates come to you, and feel shame when they see us sitting with these (people). When we go away, then you sit with them.” [Majjma' al-Bayyan, vol. 7, p. 305.]
In another incident insults by Abu-Bakr towards Bilal and his friends drew the Prophet's rebuke. Abu-bakr later apologized to Bilal and his friends. [Summary of History of Damascus, Vol. 5, p. 261.]
Upon his final triumph in Mecca, Muhammed ordered Bilâl to make the adhaan on the rooftop of the Kab'ah. Hearing his voice, doubters made contemptuous remarks towards the negro- dismissing the black man as a 'black crow'. Muhammed appeared however to repeat their conversation word for word. The doubters converted upon witnessing this evidence of the Prophet's wide-ranging powers.
After the conquest of Makka. Bilal al-Habashi stood on the Ka'ba's roof and called the people to prayer (adhan). Several Qurayshi leaders. namely. Abu Sufyan. 'Attab ibn Asid. and Harith ibn Hisham. were sitting together near the Ka'ba. 'Attab said: "My father is fortunate not to witness this moment." Harith asked contemptuously: "Could not Muhammad find someone other than this black crow to be the mu'azzin?" Abu Sufyan did not comment. saying: "I am afraid that he will come to know whatever I say. and so will say nothing. Even if no one informs him. the rocks of this Batha (i.e.. Makka) will do so." Shortly thereafter. God's Messenger came to them and repeated their conversation word for word. At that very moment 'Attab and Harith embraced Islam. [Ibn Hajar. al-Matalib al-'Aliya. 4366; Ibn Hisham. Sira. 2:413.]
exclaimed, "Look at this black man!" His friend replied, "When Allâh hates someone he turns him to the worst."
Picture of a noble Bilal, may not be all that noble when Islamic writings are examined in detail. If anything, they show the black man was an oppressed man, contradicting glowing Muslim claims of racial "brotherhood."
Ibn Umar reported: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) had two Mu'adhdhins, Bilal and 'Abdullah b. Umm Maktum, who (latter) was blind. Bilal was a black slave belonging to Umayyah ibn Khalaf. He was tall, thin, and slightly hump-backed. Thick grayish hair crowned his head. He moved about silently - speaking only in reply. He was born to two slave parents, making him a slave. He used to travel to ash-Sham for Umayyah's trading caravan, braving the bitter cold of winter and the extreme heat of summer. His only recompense was a handful of dates each day that he ate to strengthen his body. At his master's house he would serve the guests while going hungry. He was overworked and mistreated as were Umayyah's other slaves.
The Muslim hadiths have some very unflattering things to say about blacks, including not only later scholars, but Islam founder Mohammed hisself. "The famous Muslim scholar Dr. Mohammed Hamidullah, in his book Introduction to Islam states that “the custodian and repository of the original teachings of Islam” are found “above all in the Qur’an and the Hadith.”[3] To this he adds that “the Qur’an and the Hadith” are “the basis of all [Islamic] law.”[4] According to Dr. Hamidullah, the reason that Muslims revere the Hadith as well as the Qur’an is that “the Hadith is as divinely inspired as the Qur’an itself. The teachings of Islam are based primarily on the Qur’an and the Hadith."
In said Hadith, Mohammed founder of Islam, is clearly identified as a white man. There are so many references to Mohammed's whiteness, some observers claim they are in place to assure readers that he was NOT black. Indeed there even appear to be references to Mohammed's penis as "the white thing", perhaps again, as added reassurance to readers. Muhammed hisself appears to have dismissed blacks as "raisin heads" on more than one occasion, and believed that "dreaming of a black woman meant an evil omen of a coming epidemic of disease.[14]" see http://islamreview.blogspot.com/2005/02/was-muhammad-white-man.html ---------------------
Volume 1, Book 3, Number 63: Narrated Anas bin Malik: While we were sitting with the Prophet in the mosque, a man came riding on a camel. He made his camel kneel down in the mosque, tied its foreleg and then said: "Who amongst you is Muhammad?" At that time the Prophet was sitting amongst us (his companions) leaning on his arm. We replied, "This white man reclining on his arm." The an then addressed him, "O Son of 'Abdul Muttalib." ---
Volume 4, Book 56, Number 744: Narrated Isma'il bin Abi Khalid: I heard Abii Juhaifa saying, "I saw the Prophet, and Al-Hasan bin 'Ali resembled him." I said to Abu- Juhaifa, "Describe him for me." He said, "He was white and his beard was black with some white hair. He promised to give us 13 young she-camels, but he expired before we could get them."
Volume 2, Book 17, Number 122: Narrated 'Abdullah bin Dinar: My father said, "I heard Ibn 'Umar reciting the poetic verses of Abu Talib: And a white (person) (i.e. the Prophet) who is requested to pray for rain and who takes care of the orphans and is the guardian of widows." ---
Volume 2, Book 17, Number 141: Narrated Anas bin Malik The Prophet never raised his hands for any invocation except for that of Istisqa' and he used to raise them so much that the whiteness of his armpits became visible. ---
Volume 1, Book 8, Number 367: He uncovered his thigh and I saw the whiteness of the thigh of the Prophet.
---------
Volume 9, Book 89, Number 256: Narrated Anas bin Malik: Allah's Apostle said, "You should listen to and obey, your ruler even if he was an Ethiopian (black) slave whose head looks like a raisin." Blacks called "raisin heads" (Sahih Al Bukhary vol. 1, no. 662 and vol. 9, no. 256).
Mohammed calling blacks "pug-nosed slaves". (Sahih Moslem vol. 9 pages 46 and 47).
By the way, Islam mentions that whenever Mohammed dreamed of a black woman then it was an evil omen of disease (Hadith vol. 9, nos. 162, 163). ------------------------
But as far as "policy" goes, the founder of Islam, Mohammed, was himself a slave trader, and indeed Mecca was in his time, and until recent centuries, one of the largest slave trading centers in the Islamic world. Muslims shipped millions of blacks to the Middle East with loss rates many times higher than the Atlantic trade. Indeed Muslims shipped more blacks to the Islamic lands that Europeans shipped to areas under their dominion. As for the notion of "national" policy it is a shaky one. The Islamic world has been split into several nations, and regimes historically and at present, from the Turks of Central Asia, to the rulers of various Russian steppe entities, to the Middle East region, to kingdoms in Southeast Asia. Nevertheless one bottom line seems to cut across all groups when blacks enter the picture- much (I don't say all) of the "policy" on the ground was to enslave, oppress or destroy black culture.
Such "policy" by certain genocidal followers of the "religion of peace" continues today in the Sudan, where the bones of over 1 million dead blacks gather dust.
As regards the celebrated Bilal, he has an honored place in Islam as a freed slave who became the muezzim or caller to prayer, but whether he is a "progenitor" or ancestor/founder of Islam is disputable. His primary importance is as a symbol of the Prophet's ranking of piety above social status, not as a "progenitor" although Black Muslims especially pump him up as such. It all sounds good, BUT it should be noted that said Prophet Mohammed did not then go on to free many OTHER of Bilal's black brothers while he was in such a generous mood. They remained slaves. Nor did Mohammed feel so generous that he reimbursed Bilal for his prior years of toil, a stipulation required for freed slaves under the laws of Moses who were not to go away uncompensated. See Exodus. Nor did Mohammed provide him with a wife to continue his line, again in contrast to the laws of laid down by Moses. Indeed it should be noted that the founder of Judaism hisself married a black woman. Apparently he did not feel black women were habringers of some "evil disease" as did Mohammed. When the big picture is considered, Bilal seems to be primarily a one shot deal. Much of Bilal's actual history is shrouded in obscurity. Black Muslims make a lot nice claims about him, but how many are actually true, and not just pumped up history to have some blackface, any black face, be associated with a Caucasian slave-trader? In similar vein, it is popular in the Islamic world to manufacture bogus genealogies of kinship to Mohammed.
And contrary to some nice-sounding Muslim claims, all was not hunky-dory when the black man issued his call to prayer. Indeed one PRO Islamic website tells a different story. When the black man tried to do his job, a lot of his Arab "brothers" apparently tried to stab him in the back. Maybe they felt he was "too black". QUOTE: But some Muslims could not bear to accept Bilal as a rightful Muezzin because he was black- skinned, and when they heard him call—which was often—they even prayed that they could die, so as not to have to hear the Ethiopian’s voice (Azan) ever again. Hardly a ringing endorsement of "brotherhood" among contemporaries of the Prophet. http://www.world-crisis.com/analysis_comments/408_0_15_0_C37/
Generous as Mohamed is claimed to be, Mecca still remained a major slave trading center in black flesh, and millions of blacks still made the dismal trek to Islamic lands, with few surviving, necessitating constant replenishment. And the notion of "kindler, gentler" Islamic slavery and blacks is a hollow myth. One of the biggest black slave rebellions of all time was against Arab oppressors, the Zanj rebellion in Iraq, circa 869, where thousands of black slaves beaten down in the malarial salt marshes of Iraq by their Arab "brothers", struck for freedom. The "uppity" Negroes kicked azz for 14 years, even invading Iran and seizing a number of Iranian towns, before falling to massive counterattacks by Persian, Arab and Egyptian troops. Hardly folks living under a supposedly "beneficient" Islam.
------------------- A cmparison of Muslim oppression of blacks hardly confirms the picture of a kinder, gentler Islam in comparison to the "white devils." What happened when Muslims DID appear in Africa and various places, compared with the white man? They raped, murdered and enslaved with abandon. Indeed, Muslim slavers shipped more blacks to Arabia and the Middle East than the white man did over the Atlantic passage, and it was the white nations like Britian, that FORCED Muslims to stop slavery at gunpoint, from Zanzibar to the Sudan. The Muslim prophet Muhammed himself was a slave trader. One of the biggest black slave rebellions of all time was against Muslim rulers- the Zanj Rebellion. So the notion of kindler, gentler, "mo betta" Mulsims is total BS.
The end of slavery offers an instructive example. It was the mostly Christian led Abolitionist movement that primarily was repsonsible for applying the moral pressure that forced goverments like Britain to end slavery, even though British merchants and governments LOST MONEY as a result. In fact, the British nation paid out about 5% of its annual output (a massive amount in the 19th century- some 20 million pounds) to hasten the end of slavery, buying out slaveowners to help speed the process up. It also undertook numerous military operations even during the height of the War against Napoleon to continue suppressing the slave trade.
Muslim countries by contrast never produced any abolitionist movement and indeed fought tooth and nail to preserve slavery. They had to be forced at gunpoint to stop trading in black flesh. And even then, well into the 20th century they were still conducting small scale slavery under the table. In the United States, a massive Civil War between mostly white people, costing over 500,000 white lives was undertaken to end slavery. By contrast Muslims conducted nothing comparable, and indeed carried out wars to ACQUIRE EVEN MORE slaves.
By the way, Muslims also enslaved over 1 million white people as the history of the Barbary pirates and those before them show. Any notion of "mo betta" Muslims needs to be compared against the hard facts.
One thing Africans and Europeans have in common is the destruction of Glorious Empires by Arabs and their Persian Moon Goddess A-Lie aka Allah
markellion Member # 14131
posted
These are mostly mis-translations.
"The Negroland of the Arabs examined and explained" 1841
quote:When the conquest of the West (by the Arabs) was completed, and merchants began to penetrate into the interior, they saw no nation of the Blacks so mighty as Ghanah, the dominions of which extended westward as far as the Ocean. The King's court was kept in the city of Ghanah, which, according to the author of the Book of Roger (El Idrisi), and the author of the Book of Roads and Realms (El Bekri), is divided into two parts, standing on both banks of the Nile, and ranks among the largest and most populous cities of the world.
"Medieval West Africa: Views From Arab Scholars and Merchants"
The king of Zafun is stronger than the veiled people of the Maghreb and more versed in the art of kingship. The veiled people acknowledge his superiority over them, obey him and resort to him in all important matters of government. One year the king, on his way to the pilgrimage, came to the Maghreb to pay a visit to the commander of the Muslims, the veiled king of the Maghreb, of the tribe of Lamtuna. The Commander of the Muslims met him on foot, wheras the king of Zafun did not dismount for him. He was tall, of deep black complexion and veiled
page 45 From Ibn Sa'id 13th century
In the same latitude is Zafun, which belongs to pagan Sudan and whose ruler enjoys a good reputation among (other) kings of the Sudan
markellion Member # 14131
posted
Jari, how do you factor in the Saharan trade and these great empires into this equation? This seems to be completely missing from the whole idea of "Arab" (who are already dark folk) being racist how does it fit together? If these great empires existed and were part of and influential in the Muslim world how could "Arabs" be racist?
Edit: Of course there was racism by everyone and against everyone in the Muslim world so this anti-"black" racism shouldn't be taken too seriously
markellion Member # 14131
posted
The British were the ones that controlled the slave trade in the first place it is extremely silly to think of them abolishing it
quote:Seventy years later (1884=85) anxiety to promote the welfare of the Negro was announced as one of the motives for the Berlin conference. Europe and America undertook to employ every means to end the inland slave= trade. Muhammadan states for the first time in history participated with Christian powers in an enterprise of philanthropy. Their presence recalls the homely rhyme that "when the devil was sick, the devil a monk would be", for the sincere endeavors of Egyptian and Zanzibari rulers of Islamry were inspired by European influences. Though Christendom succeeded between 1817 and 1877 in ending the export of slaves to America and in hampering that to the orient, the inland traffic grew worse. From 1875 to 1890 Africa lost sometimes five hundred thousand, sometimes one million inhabitants annually. In 1890 America, Europe, Persia and Zanzibar "in the name of God" confessed that the European powers were morally accountable for the devastation, and resolved at Brussels to secure peace for Africa, to complete such slight results as they had already obtained since 1885 and to guarantee the extermination of the traffic. Belgium has since accomplished something, Britain a little, the others less toward the redemption of their pledges for their respective realms.
quote: Zanguebar until 1884 remained a self=governing sultanate, its sovereign ruling in 1861 from Mukhdisho to Cape Delgado and his influence extending to Lake Tanganika, five hundred miles west. British influence was supreme, British subjects among Zanzibari slave=dealers
Jari-Ankhamun Member # 14451
posted Jari, how do you factor in the Saharan trade and these great empires into this equation? This seems to be completely missing from the whole idea of "Arab" (who are already dark folk) being racist how does it fit together? If these great empires existed and were part of and influential in the Muslim world how could "Arabs" be racist? The Trade existed prior to Islamic forces invading Africa, considering that prior to the Arab rise in power the African Empires was at a height in power. Mali and Ghana which were not Islamic states in the way we consider it today did fine with out Arab influence...and the rise of the scholarship at Timbuctu was the result of the Arabs capturing the Library at Alexandria and the Jews, Egyptians and many other non Arabs translating and setting the Ground of Knowledge for the so called Islamic scholrship. Therefore Timbuctou was more African in its origin than Arab.. Edit: Of course there was racism by everyone and against everyone in the Muslim world so this anti-"black" racism shouldn't be taken too seriously Arab racism existed and should be given fair debate just as White Supremacy is. Arabs are not our brothers, and let make it clear We are not of Ishmael's seed at all..Islam is nothing but another form of slavery. If blacks want to really free our minds free our mind of the Arab and Euro propaganda.
markellion Member # 14131
posted
My point wasn't that they needed Arab influence my point was that they (these African empires) were influencing the Islamic world.
Jari-Ankhamun Member # 14451
posted
quote:Originally posted by markellion: My point wasn't that they needed Arab influence my point was that they (these African empires) were influencing the Islamic world.
I never disagreed with that...
markellion Member # 14131
posted
Your idea of "Arab racism" requires that Arabs were all powerful and that influences went in one direction. If influences went in both directions then there was not an equivalent of "white supremacy"
There is no Arab propaganda "Arabization" comes from European colonialism
quote:Originally posted by Jari-Ankhamun: Arabs are not our brothers, and let make it clear We are not of Ishmael's seed at all..
This sounds like Hutu-Tutsi dividing people
Evergreen Member # 12192
posted
quote:Originally posted by markellion: This is baffling. Supposedly the slave population was only 679,679 before 1790....
Evergreen Writes:
How does this correlate with the ending indentured servitude in the U.S., the Atlantic Creoles, the chesapeake bay colonies, tri-racial isolates and the rise of west African slavers such as John Ormond(AKA "Mongo John")?
Folks this boy is a prime example of a beatdown AA who watches waaaay too much hollyweird movies and tv shows. Look at how in Jari-Ankhamun's world so called blacks are just outcast helpless victims and slaves.
You are very sick in the head.
Look boy hollyweird ain't history and it ain't real life. Hollyweird exists only to make a profit by telling fiction to its white audience in order to make a profit.
argyle104 Member # 14634
posted
Why don't you non-degreed white propagandists loving fools explain how all of these tens if not hundreds of millions of people could come from so called "west" Africa.
You losers don't make any sense.
markellion Member # 14131
posted
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by markellion: This is baffling. Supposedly the slave population was only 679,679 before 1790....
Evergreen Writes:
How does this correlate with the ending indentured servitude in the U.S., the Atlantic Creoles, the chesapeake bay colonies, tri-racial isolates and the rise of west African slavers such as John Ormond(AKA "Mongo John")?
Will a very large portion of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade was actually going to the United States before the time it became illegal and would have continued to receive a good portion of the illegal slave trade. The slave trade being thus encouraged by British policies both before and after the slave trade became illegal. I appreciate any input you can give.
Again it is very significant to note that a good portion of the total trade was going to the United States before it became illegal
Posting this again concerning Brittan encouraging the African slave trade:
"History of domestic and foreign commerce of the United States"
4. The commercial interests of Great Britain, as well as those of America, were opposed to the colonial laws restricting the importation of negroes. From time to time the southern colonies felt, as did South Carolina as early as 1698, that "the great number of negroes which of late have been imported into this colony may endanger the safety thereof," and various steps were taken to mitigate the evil. Special encouragement was given white immigration; per capita taxes were placed upon imported negroes, the amount of the tax varying with the degree of public alarm. Occasionally this tax was made so high as to be prohibitive, and in one instance, South Carolina in 1760, the importation was prohibited. This act of South Carolina was vetoed by the British government, as were numerous of the colonial laws imposing high duties on imported negroes, as for example, the Virginia acts of 1723 and 1727 and the Pennsylvania act of 1713 imposing a head tax of £20. Many similar laws were nullified by the veto of the royal governors or by the disapproval of the mother country. Indeed, the British slave-traders seem to have had no great difficulty in persuading the British government to check the efforts of the American colonies to restrict the slave trade.
“The transatlantic slave trade: a history” By James A. Rawley, Stephen D. Behrendt
quote:Between the recognition of independence (1783) and the abolition of the trade (1808), the United States imported a sizable share of its whole trade, perhaps upward of 55,000 Africans.
posted ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
. While this mixing in the early period was significant also remember that there continued to be huge numbers of Africans brought in after 1790. The astonishing growth of the black population under brutal slavery vs. the slow growth of the population overall does indicate that continued imports were important even though it was illegal. South Carolina, for example, was very dependent on selling slaves to other states but still continued to have a black population that was greater than the white population even while exporting large numbers of these unfortunate people. As I said in my first post the motivation behind having the slave trade illegal was so that slave prices would be higher. I'd like to learn more about this phenomenon. Most scholars seem to accept these statistics of 700,000 slaves 1790 and 4,000,000 during the Civil War. ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I am confused as to why this topic is in a forum that is specifically for topics related to Ancient Kmt....and no, this isn't the only topic that I am wondering about its placement....but I have just joined and have much reading to do here on this forum.... 
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
