posted
AMR1 - I see that you keep referring to an Egyptian history that exists only in your mind. Try actually reading about it!
I'm curious: if a person is half White and half Black, then I can understand confusion. But after that, your offspring has to be one or the other, assuming you don't marry a person in the same condition, so what's the problem?
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
AMR1 ignorance of AE and intricacies of color definition aside, what these discussions really highlight is why humans find the need to define themselves, form identities. We live in world of groups and group identity, even the supposed bastion of individualism, the west, advances a collective identity (white supremacy) supposedly on republicanism, democracy and freedom.
Racial and ethnic identities are as necessary as national identities. I see nothing wrong with all shades of black identifying as what ever ethnic group they come from the continent just so as you remember the "black" as a collective. Why? It's all about survival and a collective as oppressed as us/blacks, don't have the luxury of the kind of individualist thinking some may want to put forward. Because, guess what, whether we like it or not everything ultimately leads to the collective.
E.g. even though some black Arabs and some black Anglo Saxons over here would not want to identify as "black" and prefer a "personal definition" of themselves, they live in a world where white and white Arab chauvinism will readily close ranks against them no matter how those blacks would want to escape black. That is what Pan Africanism is all about, unity not uniformity, those who ignore these truths do so at their own peril.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Black is a social construct...White is a social construct...The meaning keep changing depending on the geography....colorism is a joke ....
Posts: 461 | From: Kilimanjaro | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AMR1: So why you African Americans are trying to impose on me and my people of upper Egypt and North Sudan that you are black, while I consider myself neither black or white and neither were my ancestors in ancient Egypt?
If you're not Black and you're not White, then what are you?
He's a northern sudanese. It's not necessery to chose between these two social constructs. As if the world is all about "white" or "black" and no room for anything else.
I agree and see no reason why he shouldn't be able to define himself as Northern Sudanese. That said, if he wishes to define himself as such then he should also have the good sense to allow others, like African Americans, to define themselves as they see fit. How can someone who claims to be from Northern Sudan, who probably doesn't even look like the typical lower Nubian, get to impose their definition of "Blackness" on someone else?
That **** is crazy...
Posts: 262 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Nay-sayer wrote: How can someone who claims to be from Northern Sudan, who probably doesn't even look like the typical lower Nubian, get to impose their definition of "Blackness" on someone else?
How do you know he doesn't look like lower "nubians"? And how are typical lower "nubians" supposed to look like?
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Nay-sayer wrote: How can someone who claims to be from Northern Sudan, who probably doesn't even look like the typical lower Nubian, get to impose their definition of "Blackness" on someone else?
How do you know he doesn't look like lower "nubians"? And how are typical lower "nubians" supposed to look like?
quote:Originally posted by AMR1:
In a discussion just a week ago in a sudanese forum, a north sudanese called me halabi, meaning white, although he saw my picture and it is darker than Obama.
I am in Khartoum called "ahmar" red or "asfar", yellow, never black. Most Sudanese, even northerners are much darker in skin than people like me
Straight from the horses mouth.
Anything else you want to know?
Posts: 262 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by akoben08: AMR1 ignorance of AE and intricacies of color definition aside, what these discussions really highlight is why humans find the need to define themselves, form identities. We live in world of groups and group identity, even the supposed bastion of individualism, the west, advances a collective identity (white supremacy) supposedly on republicanism, democracy and freedom.
Racial and ethnic identities are as necessary as national identities. I see nothing wrong with all shades of black identifying as what ever ethnic group they come from the continent just so as you remember the "black" as a collective. Why? It's all about survival and a collective as oppressed as us/blacks, don't have the luxury of the kind of individualist thinking some may want to put forward. Because, guess what, whether we like it or not everything ultimately leads to the collective.
E.g. even though some black Arabs and some black Anglo Saxons over here would not want to identify as "black" and prefer a "personal definition" of themselves, they live in a world where white and white Arab chauvinism will readily close ranks against them no matter how those blacks would want to escape black. That is what Pan Africanism is all about, unity not uniformity, those who ignore these truths do so at their own peril.
Just about sums it up. I'm done with this thread though. It's obviously a biat thread created by those who have some type of vendetta and there's no use wasting too much time trying to have a debate on subjective terms. The agenda here is apparent.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: I'm curious: if a person is half White and half Black, then I can understand confusion. But after that, your offspring has to be one or the other, assuming you don't marry a person in the same condition, so what's the problem?
After 7000 years in Egypt of intermixing, you have a nation of 25% black, 75% white, not one or two people.
In north Sudan it is 50%-50% and in such cases, black become more obvious, like Obama.
Posts: 1090 | From: Merowe-Nubia | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Nay-sayer wrote: How can someone who claims to be from Northern Sudan, who probably doesn't even look like the typical lower Nubian, get to impose their definition of "Blackness" on someone else?
How do you know he doesn't look like lower "nubians"? And how are typical lower "nubians" supposed to look like?
quote:Originally posted by AMR1:
In a discussion just a week ago in a sudanese forum, a north sudanese called me halabi, meaning white, although he saw my picture and it is darker than Obama.
I am in Khartoum called "ahmar" red or "asfar", yellow, never black. Most Sudanese, even northerners are much darker in skin than people like me
Straight from the horses mouth.
Anything else you want to know?
My family is a mix of Upper Egyptian families and lower Nubians (mostly). I can trace SOME OF THE FAMILIES THAT MAKE my family all the way to 300 AD. Anyway, I and THE LIKE OF BARACK are lighter than most North Sudanese. My father though his grand mother is from the Nuba mountains, blacker than black. My grand mother, from my mother's side, her grandfather is from the Berbers who are very fair skin, almost Europeans.
Regards, Amr
Posts: 1090 | From: Merowe-Nubia | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: I'm curious: if a person is half White and half Black, then I can understand confusion. But after that, your offspring has to be one or the other, assuming you don't marry a person in the same condition, so what's the problem?
After 7000 years in Egypt of intermixing, you have a nation of 25% black, 75% white, not one or two people.
In north Sudan it is 50%-50% and in such cases, black become more obvious, like Obama.
You think a person like Yassir Arafat or Saddam Hussein is white? I don't think Egypt ever mixed in high numbers with any "whites". And also modern Egypt is neither "white" or "black" it's just Egyptian.
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: I'm curious: if a person is half White and half Black, then I can understand confusion. But after that, your offspring has to be one or the other, assuming you don't marry a person in the same condition, so what's the problem?
After 7000 years in Egypt of intermixing, you have a nation of 25% black, 75% white, not one or two people.
In north Sudan it is 50%-50% and in such cases, black become more obvious, like Obama.
You think a person like Yassir Arafat or Saddam Hussein is white? I don't think Egypt ever mixed in high numbers with any "whites". And also modern Egypt is neither "white" or "black" it's just Egyptian.
Those people are defintely, neither white or black, in my book they arabized cananites and babylonians, same with egypt, just arabized egyptians.
Posts: 1090 | From: Merowe-Nubia | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: I'm curious: if a person is half White and half Black, then I can understand confusion. But after that, your offspring has to be one or the other, assuming you don't marry a person in the same condition, so what's the problem?
After 7000 years in Egypt of intermixing, you have a nation of 25% black, 75% white, not one or two people.
In north Sudan it is 50%-50% and in such cases, black become more obvious, like Obama.
You think a person like Yassir Arafat or Saddam Hussein is white? I don't think Egypt ever mixed in high numbers with any "whites". And also modern Egypt is neither "white" or "black" it's just Egyptian.
Those people are defintely, neither white or black, in my book they arabized cananites and babylonians, same with egypt, just arabized egyptians.
I agree, that's why i feelt "75% white" Egyptians and "50% white Sudanese" was a bit far fetched. No need to apply american/british modern racial constructs on these nations, it's too simplistic.
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AMR1: We see Jeramiah Wright or Obama, Haille Perry as anything but black, for us to be black, you have to be a pure negroic person with negroic features or leaning to almost literally black colour.
Who are the "We" you refer to and exactly why should the rest of us care?
And exactly who are you to define what is or what isn't "Black"? Has Black Africa made you it's spokesperson without having told the rest of us?
It seems to me that African Americans have as much right to call themselves Black as you do.
Posts: 262 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AMR1: We see Jeramiah Wright or Obama, Haille Perry as anything but black, for us to be black, you have to be a pure negroic person with negroic features or leaning to almost literally black colour.
Who are the "We" you refer to and exactly why should the rest of us care?
And exactly who are you to define what is or what isn't "Black"? Has Black Africa made you it's spokesperson without having told the rest of us?
It seems to me that African Americans have as much right to call themselves Black as you do.
You can call yourself anything you like but don't impose your criteria of identity on me or our history in North Sudan and Egypt, North Africa, or Abyssinia or Al Andulus.
The rest of Africa is not my business and I have no relation to them, you can do whatever you like with it, it has its own people, if they like your criteria of African American, it is their business. I don't like your criteria of identification and I am sure my people don't like it either.
Posts: 1090 | From: Merowe-Nubia | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think what is lost in all this discussion of complexion. Is the fact that Egypt, Sudan, Libya (north Africa in general), Palestine, Syria, Turkey, Iraq, Iran, The southern European nations, were all Black nations, which were conquered, destroyed, and occupied by White people. First the Greeks, then the Romans, and finally the Turks.
And now, the descendants of those invaders, destroyers, and occupiers, want to claim the heritage of those unfortunate Black people, While denying their Blackness (such respect for people you want to claim as your ancestors). And then, have the gaul to make the ridicules claim that they were there all along. Did anyone note AMR1's claim of White Berbers? Their pathetic lack of identity is their problem. Let them take it up with their White forefathers.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Mike111 wrote: I think what is lost in all this discussion of complexion. Is the fact that Egypt, Sudan, Libya (north Africa in general), Palestine, Syria, Turkey, Iraq, Iran, The southern European nations, were all Black nations, which were conquered, destroyed, and occupied by White people. First the Greeks, then the Romans, and finally the Turks.
First of all define "black nations", secondly define "white"? Do you think a Turk or a Jordanian comes from the same stock as a German or a Norwegian? Or is your would only divided between "blacks" and "whites" and nothing else?
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^Damn - don't any of you people actually READ! ALL Whites come from the same place, i.e. The Eurasian Plains. The B.S. of whites indigenous to Europe is a White myth. Or are you so dense as to believe that Turks (the white people in the middle east) originally came with those brown complexions. If you are, just check out pictures of the original Turks. So in answer to your question, yes they are all the same.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's called superstition, your view is no different than those who hallucinate and illusion things when voodoo dancing.
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
Notice the hair and the differentiated physical features on the soldiers, indicative of the work's realism.
Unless those are wigs, which I doubt the AE wore in combat.
Most shaved their heads, but in morning, or in times of wore grew their hair, I thought.
In either case, we do have at least this and another instance I know of of a Kemetian without a wig or hair piece showing off his non artificial hair:
AE wigs:
Other interesting pics:
Oh, and Mike, you do indeed have ignorant views.
However, I also grow weary of repros, Greek paintings, and pics faded so much, the lower lighter layers are even slightly faded (giving off a red/'pink' hue), being the most often reposted, as if evidence [yeah, fairytale evidence] of a non-African Kemet.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yonis2: It's called superstition, your view is no different than those who hallucinate and illusion things when voodoo dancing.
Nice, a subtle, and hopefully demeaning, reference to ignorant Black practices.
O.K. I am properly humiliated. But your problem remains. What I said was scientific fact, produced by your very own White people. Would you like to speak to that, or would you like to discuss my dancing skills.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Incase anyone wonders why I call this a 'troll thread':
It's actually closer to a dumb thread, but either way:
* The initial thesis relies on pre-conceived notions of what African Americans are, and what they consider 'black'.
In this thread oblivious and simpleton Africans communicate as if African Americans don't understand that black is a social label.
Most Afro Americans are actually highly aware of this fact.
In fact, my lighter brethren, just like lighter Africans from Somalia or Egypt, often express that they're "black, but not black" (their skin color is isn't like ... that of the ancient "Egyptian" forces posted above ).
Even [what we call] yellow skinned people have been teasingly called 'white' however it's not really significant who we jokingly or teasingly call white or black cuz even people who "act a certain way" that contradicts preconceived and likely racist notions of how "a black person should" act are called white, even the blackest. (rasol and Yonis whether white or black have been called white here).
Yet we also say "I'm lightskin but I'm still black" and will call white skinned African Americans .. "white".
^Now that you guys have me actually thinking about it, I thought about it .. but then given the fact that there are multiple genes that affect complection, and infinite shades, I think the above bolded makes the most sense.
Black people, are all melanated people.
Like the Greeks thought. The peoples they designated white may appear not to have melanin (but do have minimal melanin).
They considered themselves neither black nor white, which I agree with, because in general I'd say Southern Europeans aren't significantly melanated.
You may disagree, and decide to limit white/black at another spot, like somewhere in South Eastern Asia.
It all depends on where you choose to delimit black.
Nope, scientifically, black and white haven't been delimited.
Now, back to ancient Kemet and its people...
Imhotep:
Make-up box:
Sports:
Sebek, god:
A peculiar painting, in that I haven't seen many done in a similar style (the particular way in which it pops out atcha!
^By the way, yes ... personally I consider the above young lady 'black'. Though IMHO she's close to the range where I wouldn't necissarily consider her 'black' or not.
At ANY RATE, will we please quit creating these simple threads, asking the SAME OLD questions that have been answered on this board a dozen times?
Either way, they were biologically tropically adapted Africans with lineages that find their origin in 'sub-saharan' Africa and ultimately get to 'Egypt' via the Sahara and South in general .. as if the Sahara in reality delimits Africa.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fool-in-a-box - As far as I know, no one asked you anything, and no one was the least bit interested in why you referred to anything in any particular way. If you have a need for attention or admiration, try finding a way to earn it.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The question in this thread is the following, are AA viewed as Black among Africans...if Blackness has a real meaning...is Obama viewed as a Back person or a mulato or a white man in Africa...I heard Africans referring to Somali with foreign ancestry as Arabu, or some very light skin AA as muzungu(white)...so Blackness is subjective...it's just a social and vague conception...
Posts: 461 | From: Kilimanjaro | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems in Africa, black is not a unifying commonality as it is in the US. Ultimately, one commonality shared by some US and African blacks is, protection of their white masters, be they Dutch, Arab, or WASP.
Do these American slaves appear "black". The picture shows them arming and preparing to protect their master from a white man (John Brown) who is coming to kill the master to set them free. Yet, they chose to defend their master's right to keep them in bondage. What's odd is that the picture could be used to illustrate a point in time of the US south, or the north/south/east/west of Africa.
At this point in time, these "blacks" didn't wish to think of themselves as "black" either. In fact, they were greatly insulted if someone referred to them in this way.
Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
Not sure whether or not this was adressed to me, but, if so, just to clarify
quote: - As far as I know,
I don't give a shyt, to put it frankly.
Just felt like explanin - the clarity was just an excuse to expound for later readers because I did't plan to participate much more in this cheap excuse for a thread later.
Now if anybody's 'feewings are hurt' becaws they 'feewel they-yo-w' attention whoring time 'ios bewing sto-wen', then please feel free to 'cawwy on'.
posted
6 of these or one-half dozen of the other, it appears these slaves heading to America were African, as African can be.
What I find amazing is the mindset of the Africans of the time who would sell their African brothers into bondage. It's apparent that same mindset is still alive and well in African today.
Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is a second generation slave. He escaped and ran fro the north before being caught and jailed until his owner came to redeem him. His owner, Mrs. Polaire Shapiro.
Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are your last posts with slave pictures supposed to make "Africans" (a huge continent with diverse type of people) feel guilty of the faith of those captured in Westafrica by europeans? What has a Djiboutian, Somali, Sudanese, Kenyan, Ethiopian or Eritrean have anything to do with those people and pictures you just presented?
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can definitely see where current politics could play a role in both continental and diasporic Africans desire to constantly stress their 'differentness' and 'seperateness' from black Africans (stereotypical black Africans and all of the negative connotations that may come with the concept).
But as for pre-colonial Africans "supporting Europeans", this history may be more complex than you think; race wasn't as crucial an issue for continental Africans (and still isn't, when you think about it, compared to Cash and ethnic affilliation).
Though the Asante don't seem as ferocious/ruthless an empire as .. say .. the Inca or the Zulu, vassal states are never too happy:
quote:The visit of the trading delegation in 1817 convinced the British government that Asante was a rich source of trade, and the government took over the coastal forts from private trading companies in 1821. The Asante quickly found cause to resent British policies along the coast; the British made their own arrangements with Asante's subject states, thus weakoning the control of the empire.
Nevertheless, the Asante initially tried to tolerate the intruders. As Basil Davidson wrote, "The general approach ... was to show enought strength to contain European ambitions within what were regarded as reasonable or inevitable limits, and then to make treaties of trade and friendship which, it was hoped, the Europeans would keep. Useful variations on this policy were found in playing off one set of Europeans against another. [<-- sound familiar?] The kings only fought when all else failed."
The Asante were forced to go to war in 1824, when the British governor, Sir Charles McCarthy, launched a campaign intended to break their grip on the region. The Asante soundly defeated the British, sending McCarthy to his death. For the next half century, the British government steered clear of direct involvement in Asante, while British merchants kept peace with the empire and made vast sums from their holdings along the coast.
Ultimately, the competing empires of Britain and Asante were bound to face each other down. In 1872, the king of Asante sent an expedition to the coast to subdue the defiant vassal states allied with the British. General Tia, the commander of the expedition, at first attempted to negotiate with the British governor, Sir Garnet Wolseley. Tia assured Wolseley that there could be peace between Asante and Britain, if only the British would stop supporting the vassal states (including the always-troublesome Denkyira). Wolseley's response, in 1874, was to being a full-scale invasion of Asante, which the battle-hardened veteran later called "the most horrible war I ever took part in."With great difficulty, the British forces finally occupied Kumasi and forced the Asante to sign the Treaty of Fomena, which guaranteed the British a free hand along the coast. The Asante rebuilt their empire, but their efforts were finally ended by another British invasion in 1900. The Asante then became subjects of teh British Empire and did not regain their independence until the nation of Ghana was formed in 1957.
From Centuries of Greatness - The West African Kingdoms 750 - 1900 by Philip Koslow.
Truth brings clarity unless one has an agenda.
Purhaps a well-intentioned agenda (black solidarity -- pan Blackism).
However, truth is, plain and simple, people simply see things according to power and privelage.
It's why the millitant Burmese / Myanmar government genocides the content tribes there today - trying to gain power, hostile to a European controlled environment, they'll do anything to get power.
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: Ultimately, one commonality shared by some US and African blacks is, protection of their white masters, be they Dutch, Arab, or WASP.
...
At this point in time, these "blacks" didn't wish to think of themselves as "black" either. In fact, they were greatly insulted if someone referred to them in this way.
posted
Meninarmer, you are offering a picture of slaves en route to America on a ship—without documentation of any kind? What might the year be... and the name of the ship.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Meninarmer wrote: Ultimately, one commonality shared by some US and African blacks is, protection of their white masters, be they Dutch, Arab, or WASP.
Please, dont insult our pride by making us all a subject of some invisible "Dutch, Arab, or WASP masters ", we are not slaves. Ii don't think anyone needs your type of attitude, most of us might be poor but keep your history to yourself, we are no cattle of anyone.
Learn that Africa is a diverse continent just because the people share the heat and landmass and skincolour doesn't mean we share absolutly everything deep into the bone. Your attempt on putting the middle passage guilt on the whole continent has failed misserably, you should learn how to focus on focal points instead of the whole terrain.
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Grumman f6f: Meninarmer, you are offering a picture of slaves en route to America on a ship—without documentation of any kind? What might the year be... and the name of the ship.
Contrary to popular opinion, very few of the slaves—possibly one or two out of a hundred—were free Africans kidnapped by Europeans. The slaving captains had, as a rule, no moral prejudice against man-stealing, but they usually refrained from it on the ground of its being a dangerous business practice. A vessel suspected of man-stealing might be “cut oft” by the natives, its crew killed, and its cargo of slaves offered for sale to other vessels.
The vast majority of the Negroes brought to America had been enslaved and sold to the whites by other Africans. There were coastal tribes and states, like the Efik kingdom of Calabar, that based their whole economy on the slave trade. The slaves might be prisoners of war, they might have been kidnapped by gangs of black marauders, or they might have been sold with their whole families for such high crimes as adultery, impiety, or, as in one instance, stealing a tobacco pipe. Intertribal wars, the principal source of slaves, were in many cases no more than large-scale kidnapping expeditions. Often they were fomented by Europeans, who supplied both sides with muskets and gunpowder—so many muskets or so much powder for each slave that they promised to deliver on shipboard. Inland, Africans developed various commercial networks for supplying slaves and moving them to the coast. Across the interior of West Africa, Muslim families organized slave caravans and moved them from the interior to the coast. Along the Gold and Slave coasts (an area now comprising the nations of Ghana, Togo, Benin, and Nigeria) the rulers of large states such as Ashanti, Dahomey, and Oyo obtained slaves through tribute, which was provided by the rulers of less powerful states in exchange for protection or as a symbol of allegiance. East of the Niger Delta, African commercial associations (known as trading houses) controlled slave procurement and delivery. Along the Angolan coast, officials of the Portuguese crown first organized inland slaving, but by the 18th century private Portuguese, mulatto (individuals of mixed African and European descent), and African traders were taking trade goods to interior markets and returning with slaves.
At various points along the coast, buyers and sellers met and struck deals. Europeans examined slaves; Africans looked over merchandise; and then the parties haggled to set the values of each. The assortment of the Europeans’ trade goods was always an important factor. Any notion that Africans were duped into accepting trinkets of little value is incorrect. Most knew what they wanted and could hold out for good terms. Typical commodities exchanged for slaves included cloth, metals and metalware, firearms and gunpowder, spirits, cutlery, coins, decorative wear, horses, salt, cowrie shells, and paper. The prices Europeans paid for slaves rose steadily through the years. An English buyer could obtain a healthy slave for 5.5 pounds worth of commodities in 1690 and 14 pounds worth in 1760. The same slave sold in Virginia for 15 pounds in 1690 and 45 pounds in 1760.
MIDDLE PASSAGE By MALCOLM COWLEY and DANIEL P. MANNIX
Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: Please, dont insult our pride by making us a subject of some invisible "Dutch, Arab, or WASP masters", we are not slaves. We don't need your condenscending attitude, most of us might be poor but keep your history to yourself, since we have our pride and are no cattle of anyone.
This is an Perfect example of False Pride Posts: 567 | From: USA | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^I actually have just witnessed something very telling, that was actuall apparent all along. It could upset the person, so I'll keep quiet for now.
Anyway, meninarmer, FYI, the reason the revolt grew so large and they slaughtered so many whites is because of slave cooperation in the first place.
Not to mention the numerous other revolts and uprisings..
Good read: Still I Rise: A Cartoon History of African Americans by Roland Owen Laird Jr., w/ Taneshia Nash Laird.
As entertaining as easy and as accurate as the For Dummies stuff, but with oodles of information to boot.
A well researched book, I might add...
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: Please, dont insult our pride by making us a subject of some invisible "Dutch, Arab, or WASP masters", we are not slaves. We don't need your condenscending attitude, most of us might be poor but keep your history to yourself, since we have our pride and are no cattle of anyone.
This is an Perfect example of False Pride
How is it false pride? None of my people were any kunta kinte. Even if europeans managed to enslave a bunch of my people i doubt they could hold them as slaves more than five (5) years (i'm being generous here) let alone 400 years, picking cotton day in and out with no reward. There is no way, our nature is very different.
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you are referring to the John Brown revolt, it wasn't large or much of a slaughter at all. Few slaves signed up to run with Brown. When approached, Frederick Douglas and many other blacks who could amass qualities refused. The "revolt" was put down fairly swiftly with no significant number of whites killed.
As I said, the "achilles heel" is persistent.
Exactly what was the purpose of this thread anyway?
Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
African Americans do not have to enforce their point of view on Africans because the Majority of them are intelligent enough to know who they are No Debete Here
example:
Today Black Egyptians
Millions of Africans on the continent do not have a problem with identifying with Black why do some of You? stop crying and just deal with it, no Religious or Political Agenda can change that
Although some will try right ABAZA.....AMR1 Posts: 567 | From: USA | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Alive-(What Box): Keep fueling a troll thread, unstead of actually posting your opinions / interpretations in a useful thread like this one here:
quote:Originally posted by Masonic Rebel: African Americans do not have to enforce their point of view on Africans because the Majority of them are intelligent enough to know who they are No Debete Here
example:
Today Black Egyptians
Millions of Africans on the continent do not have a problem with identifying with Black why do some of You? stop crying and just deal with it, no Religious or Political Agenda can change that
Although some will try right ABAZA.....AMR1
This people are my people, 1/2 of my family look like this, in North Sudan and Upper Egypt. My lower Egyptian family of course don't look like that.
Go and meet them, look at the pictures of some of their mothers and grand mothers, they have current Egyptian blood from the North. And the people of the North had mixed with other mideteraneans for ever.
Posts: 1090 | From: Merowe-Nubia | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: If you are referring to the John Brown revolt, it wasn't large or much of a slaughter at all. Few slaves signed up to run with Brown. When approached, Frederick Douglas and many other blacks who could amass qualities refused. The "revolt" was put down fairly swiftly with no significant number of whites killed.
As I said, the "achilles heel" is persistent.
Nope, another, in which more whites were killed, but still more blacks than whites.
Can't remember which one.
But you should definitely get the book then.
All I know is we never 'learned' that lesson.
The more harshly they enforced, the worse things got.
From wiki:
quote: [The events of the revolt] On September 9, 1739, twenty African American Carolinians led by Jemmy, an Angolan slave, met near the Stono River, twenty miles southwest of Charleston. They marched down the roadway with a banner that read "Liberty!"—they chanted the same word in unison. At the Stono Bridge they seized weapons and ammunition from a store at the Stono River Bridge and killed the two storekeepers. They raised a flag and proceeded south towards Spanish Florida, a well known refuge for escapees. On the way, they gathered more recruits, their number now 80. They burned 7 plantations and killed 20 whites. South Carolina's Lieutenant Governor, William Bull, and four of his friends ran into the group on horseback. The Lieutenant Governor fled and warned other slave-holders. They rallied a mob of plantation owners and slave-holders to seek out Jemmy and his freedom-seeking followers.
The next day, mounted militia caught up with the group numbering 80 slaves. Twenty white Carolinians and forty-four of the slaves were killed before the rebellion was suppressed. The captured slaves were then decapitated and their heads were spiked on every mile post between that spot and Charles Town.
[Aftermath] The next year there was another uprising in Georgia, and the next year another took place in South Carolina, probably inspired by the Stono Rebellion—at the time, colonial officials believed as much. The Stono Rebellion resulted in a 10-year moratorium on slave imports through Charleston and enacted a harsher slave code, which banned earning money and education for slaves.
Now named Stono River Slave Rebellion Site, the Hutchinson's warehouse site where the revolt began was declared a National Historic Landmark in 1974.[1]
********
Let's stop beating around the bush and be honest.
Git blunt wid it, as we say around here.
The basis for you [meninarmer] and Yonis's discourse is you posit that Africans should stick together and present the history that affects your decision as your evidence, while Yonis attempts to point out that all Africans don't share the crude 'history' (stereotypes) that stigmatize African Americans, and more remotely, continental Africans of the West Coast.
What one party doesn't understand is that
'black' skin doesn't denote "race", scientifically, as far as biology is concerned, the whole concept of race is as fabricated as much as much of the aforementioned History is distorted and contrived history.
No need to post more of "his"-story - his whole story's basically an excuse fore manipulation.
An excuse for murder, abuse, and theft.
I understand your motivation is to motivate the currently suppressed groups that are black. But motivate them by telling them their history as well as the true purpose of that excuse as mentioned above, so that they may know who they are in reality, and that that reality has nothing to do with what haters may say (or wish).
Other party, just so you know: more remotely of course, East Africans and other Africans in general do share a history with the rest of Africa, and that includes w/ African Americans.
Oh, and what's so bad about a pan-Africa, in terms of today?
Out.
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: Exactly what was the purpose of this thread anyway?
posted
I believe African-Americans feel the way they do because if an African came to America as a slave, no matter which part of Africa they came from, North, South, East, or west, they could all end up like this;
Or this;
Or this;
Perhaps this is what created a common bond of survival.
Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: I believe African-Americans feel the way they do because if an African came to America as a slave, no matter which part of Africa they came from, North, South, East, or west, they could all end up like this;
Or this;
Or this;
Perhaps this is what created a common bond of survival.
Of course I hate to see that who would not, except a sick humans, like th ones seen here.
But this does not give them the right to impose their criteria of identity on us and our history.
The pictures of the black Egyptians, if I was not part of this people, I would believe they were pure race.
But since I am from there, I know there is no pure race from Kosti-Kordofan to Alexandria, for the last 5000 years and there was no pure race for the last 10000 years in the area between Aswan-Alexandria.
Posts: 1090 | From: Merowe-Nubia | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: Perhaps this is what created a common bond of survival.
^Nope.
"this" is what created runaways, abolitionists, and revolts, which in turn created a political [yet holographic/weak] basis for the civil war, white abolitionists, and force the creation of an econimic basis for the civil war.
But there's a huge gap missing.
Where's the fuel to our fire, the heat to our gumbo?
You should read about the tactics the greedy fuckers employed in 'slave breaking' us as a result of previous non-cooperating behavior.
I don't even want to type what they did, but I'll just say that then and there is the spark; that's probably where we decided that we "cain't trust a honky", that we, "despise honkies", or that we had to get out of slavery.
The truth is, from the beginning, it has never been about race, but always about profit.
Race was the excuse made, and the tool used to devide us and their other tools: poor whites.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: None of my people were any kunta kinte Even if europeans managed to enslave a bunch of my people i doubt they could hold them as slaves more than five (5) years (i'm being generous here) let alone 400 years, picking cotton day in and out with no reward. There is no way, our nature is very different.
Another example of False Pride Posts: 567 | From: USA | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Go and meet them, look at the pictures of some of their mothers and grand mothers, they have current Egyptian blood from the North. And the people of the North had mixed with other mideteraneans for ever.
Those Egyptians in the pictures are not mixed, they are Native Africans just like their ancestors in Anicent Kemet
Posts: 567 | From: USA | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AMR1: Of course I hate to see that who would not, except a sick humans, like th ones seen here.
^Yep.
quote:But this does not give them the right to impose their criteria of identity on us and our history.
Correct again.
quote:But since I am from there, I know there is no pure race from Kosti-Kordofan to Alexandria,
Yep.
There's likely no pure "race" from Wesley Snipes to Alicial Keys.
In fact, we define 'race', in the sense that if we go far enough back in time we will see distinct populations,
we find there never were any 'races' to begin with.
Just peoples, who originate ultimately from the same source, but migrated to different places at different times and continued to adapt and evolve seperately.
What we find is
that West Africa, North Africa, and the Nile Valley were populated from the wet phase Sahara,
that the Nile Valley was also, along with an almost empty North Africa, populated from East Africa,
that ancient Nile Valley inhabitants were tropically adapted Africans, and thusly no less black than other Africans AT THE TIME,
that no matter how coarse or wavy an African person's hair is, how light or dark their skin is, or how narrow or wide that person's features are, biological Africans are still African; that's right, hair texture, skin color and other features don't denote races or distant common ancestors.
quote: for the last 5000 years and there was no pure race for the last 10000 years in the area between Aswan-Alexandria. [/QB]
You're mixed.
Many Sudanese are even mixed.
How does this make Kemetians mixed?
It doesn't.
*******************
If baby's mixed it doesn't make mommy and daddy mixed: it just means the baby's mixed!
quote:And the people of the North had mixed with other mideteraneans for ever.
^Not possible, especially since in ancient times, no "mediterranean" race, or even remotely biologically uniform group ever existed.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
).
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic