posted
Knowledgeless one - alTakruri has an excuse, he is obviously just overwrought, perhaps from overwork.
You on the other hand have no excuse, you are simply stupid. Therefore the concepts of reason and logic are strange to you. But has your little mind ever pondered how archeologist reach their conclusions? For that matter, just about ANY scientist. Since we are not afforded the benefit of roadmaps, we must ALWAYS piece what bits of information that we do have together. Surprised aren't you? Yes I know, simple minds can never go that deeply into anything.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
As with most things associated with piecing together the stolen history of ancient Black people - you have to PIECE it together. White people do not, and will not provide access.
lol Mikes translation: I made it up. [/QB]
who are you to talk? lol
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
As with most things associated with piecing together the stolen history of ancient Black people - you have to PIECE it together. White people do not, and will not provide access.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Knowledgeless one - alTakruri has an excuse, he is obviously just overwrought, perhaps from overwork.
You on the other hand have no excuse, you are simply stupid. Therefore the concepts of reason and logic are strange to you. But has your little mind ever pondered how archeologist reach their conclusions? For that matter, just about ANY scientist. Since we are not afforded the benefit of roadmaps, we must ALWAYS piece what bits of information that we do have together. Surprised aren't you? Yes I know, simple minds can never go that deeply into anything.
Lmao, meanwhile you think Cro-Magnons were a different species...
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by akoben: ^ You think Chinese are "ancestral Asians". LOL
Stop your distortion. Of course I am way more intelligent than you. Everyone knows this, you know this. Of course I never said Chinese were ancestral Asians, more distortion from you. Of course the humans who populated Asia, still resembled Australians and Africans, and Europe was populated from Asia. When humans reached Europe they still resembled Australians and Africans, as well. So what would this tell you about the humans in Asia at the time, if Europe was populated from Asia?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Haha. You're running scared because you know what's coming next as soon as you develop the courage to forthrightly answer the question, the demolishing of a foolish presumption as to the identity of the ones you erroneously mislabeled as Tjeker.
By avoiding the question you only prove you had no idea of what you were doing and were only guided by the non-methodology of wishful thinking. Now get to the point, that is if you're man enough to do it.
Why do you refuse to identify which group they are based on the source you supplied? What are they according to that textual description? Are they
1 - Peleset or Tjeker as "both types are depicted wearing a fillet, from which protrudes a floppy plume ..."
2 - Shekelesh or Teresh who are "wearing cloth headdresses ..."
3 - Shardana with "thick horned helmets ..."
You assumed to label a group as Tjeker (though neither the mdw ntjr of the relief nor any text identifies them as such) based on number 1 as you posted on 06 December, 2008 01:23 PM and 06 December, 2008 03:23 PM.
Now you claim to be unable to use your source's description to identify the Sea People in question. "I know of no source that has definitively identified that group ..."
Come on, if you can boldly declare Egyptians to be Tjeker based only only on a textual description not at all speaking about the relief on which they appear you most surely should be able to identify people who really are the basis of the description in your source text.
When will you do it? If you can do the one you can do the other. And if you can't do the other then how can you claim to have done the one?
quote:Originally posted by Mike111:
In my post above, I clearly answered your question. This is what I said, Quote: "But to your question, I know of no source that has definitively identified that group; as other than the generalization - Sea People prisoners. If you have such a source, then by all means, please post it."
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Blah blah woof woof
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718: Stop your distortion. Of course I am way more intelligent than you. Everyone knows this, you know this. Of course I never said Chinese were ancestral Asians, more distortion from you. Of course the humans who populated Asia, still resembled Australians and Africans, and Europe was populated from Asia. When humans reached Europe they still resembled Australians and Africans, as well. So what would this tell you about the humans in Asia at the time, if Europe was populated from Asia?
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718: Stop your distortion. Of course I am way more intelligent than you. Everyone knows this, you know this. Of course I never said Chinese were ancestral Asians, more distortion from you. Of course the humans who populated Asia, still resembled Australians and Africans, and Europe was populated from Asia. When humans reached Europe they still resembled Australians and Africans, as well. So what would this tell you about the humans in Asia at the time, if Europe was populated from Asia?
posted
DID AUTOCHTHONOUS BLACK EUROPEANS SURVIVE UNTIL THE PRESENT TIME?
Mike111, you have reposted my thread, but I nowhere see the premise of my thread addressed; That the original European Blacks survived and became a power again in 1500-1789 in the whole of Europe.
I have shown in my research that the iconography is tricky, so I base my theory on personal descriptions of persons as Black and Coloured and having a Black Identity; Blue blood. Then I looked for portraits which show blackness.
Without a sort of Black Identity it’s hard to intelligently talk about these peoples motives.
I have noticed that the slightest feature is used by some to define people as Black, and many of you regard artistic renderings as realism.
What I'm missing is usefulness and practicality in applying all this theory in explaining racism today and finding solutions today. I do not see how trading insults will change anything.
I'm thinking about Snowden and how he shows that some of the depicted Blacks were like first generation Africans in the Classical World. He did not discuss the possibility of autochthonous Black Europeans.
Posts: 5454 | From: Holland | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Egmond Codfried: DID AUTOCHTHONOUS BLACK EUROPEANS SURVIVE UNTIL THE PRESENT TIME?
Mike111, you have reposted my thread, but I nowhere see the premise of my thread addressed; That the original European Blacks survived and became a power again in 1500-1789 in the whole of Europe.
I have shown in my research that the iconography is tricky, so I base my theory on personal descriptions of persons as Black and Coloured and having a Black Identity; Blue blood. Then I looked for portraits which show blackness.
Without a sort of Black Identity it’s hard to intelligently talk about these peoples motives.
I have noticed that the slightest feature is used by some to define people as Black, and many of you regard artistic renderings as realism.
What I'm missing is usefulness and practicality in applying all this theory in explaining racism today and finding solutions today. I do not see how trading insults will change anything.
I'm thinking about Snowden and how he shows that some of the depicted Blacks were like first generation Africans in the Classical World. He did not discuss the possibility of autochthonous Black Europeans.
Egmond, I would remind you, that the question of your thread was Quote: “What happened with the original African type Europeans after the Whites invaded Europe from Asia, 5000 years ago? Did they totally disappear? Did they die out? Did they all intermarry with the Whites and disappeared?”
That is a question that was accurately and thoroughly answered above, with no little effort. Making the tone of your response puzzling. In any case, if the subject of your interest changed as the thread evolved, I hardly see how you could hold someone else responsible.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by akoben: ^ You think Chinese are "ancestral Asians". LOL
Stop your distortion. Of course I am way more intelligent than you. Everyone knows this, you know this. Of course I never said Chinese were ancestral Asians, more distortion from you. Of course the humans who populated Asia, still resembled Australians and Africans, and Europe was populated from Asia. When humans reached Europe they still resembled Australians and Africans, as well. So what would this tell you about the humans in Asia at the time, if Europe was populated from Asia?
^ nothing that comes out of akobens mouth can be taken seriously. it's all strawman, non-sequitur and mis-citation, which he seems to think he can use to distract you.
The answer to your question of course, is supplied by Chris Stringer an via his study of "Cro-Magnon" of Europe.
-> "Some resemble current Africans and Australians, more than current Europeans....based on objective anatomical measurement".
^ When you present anthropologist Stringer's work to a Eurocentrist - like 'debunked' for example - invariably they respound by changing the subject.
So it's clear that they can't refute it, can't address it, and prefer to ignore it, hoping the information will go away.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Egmond Codfried: DID AUTOCHTHONOUS BLACK EUROPEANS SURVIVE UNTIL THE PRESENT TIME?
Mike111, you have reposted my thread, but I nowhere see the premise of my thread addressed; That the original European Blacks survived and became a power again in 1500-1789 in the whole of Europe.
I have shown in my research that the iconography is tricky, so I base my theory on personal descriptions of persons as Black and Coloured and having a Black Identity; Blue blood. Then I looked for portraits which show blackness.
Without a sort of Black Identity it’s hard to intelligently talk about these peoples motives.
I have noticed that the slightest feature is used by some to define people as Black, and many of you regard artistic renderings as realism.
What I'm missing is usefulness and practicality in applying all this theory in explaining racism today and finding solutions today. I do not see how trading insults will change anything.
I'm thinking about Snowden and how he shows that some of the depicted Blacks were like first generation Africans in the Classical World. He did not discuss the possibility of autochthonous Black Europeans.
Egmond, I would remind you, that the question of your thread was Quote: “What happened with the original African type Europeans after the Whites invaded Europe from Asia, 5000 years ago? Did they totally disappear? Did they die out? Did they all intermarry with the Whites and disappeared?”
That is a question that was accurately and thoroughly answered above, with no little effort. Making the tone of your response puzzling. In any case, if the subject of your interest changed as the thread evolved, I hardly see how you could hold someone else responsible.
Well, I do not want to sound ungrateful but do you really feel that posting images with seemingly dark men copulating with White looking woman as answering what happened with the Black Europeans? That they became half breeds and then Whites? Where did you base your theory on that everyone went after the Black dick? Did ALL these Black Europeans went unto boats, or did some stay to look after the goats, water the flowers and see that the letterbox did not overflow? All of this is just a start to looking for real answers. You mentioned elsewhere all these Gaul cities populated by Blacks. That I would consider a more solid start, when you provide sources. I think we get lost when we want to make sweeping statements, about many peoples over many ages. That why I have limited myself to 1500-1789. My thread was started with this Blue blood is Black blood research in mind. Sorry for not explicitly mentioning this.
Posts: 5454 | From: Holland | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I imagine you switching to the light touch, as these images hardly prove anything at all!
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: But the path is never smooth, then as now, White Women (and men) developed a fondness for Black manhood. And the troubles generated by this, have persisted even unto today.
This is a wonderful piece, Mike111; I have never seen the likes before. Reminds me of the erotic stuff on that temple in India, with all these lovemaking figures. I remember asking a White lady, from the library staff, if she has Surinam ancestors. She said ‘No,’ not looking very pleased. I blurted out this question because of her huge backside, in pants, with her blouse tucked in as well, which was full in my face as she grabbed some books. What I want to say is that I hated it when some ‘scientist’ wrote that these fat Nubian queens are African because they are depicted as fat women. So I do not like when people write that someone is Black because she is steathopygic. It's like foolish Black's gorging on chitlin's, macaroni and cheese, cornmeal fried pike, fried chicken, peach cobbler while sensible Whites are nibbling salads.Yeah, right!
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Marc - Be careful what you say, or you will have the "Egypt was first" crowd jumping down our throats. I don't have a problem with Mellaart, whatever he did or didn't do, the statue is still pretty consistent in look with others. i.e. short hair, slightly pointed head. The nose is a bit small, but you have to expect some effort to make them appear White - after all, the work was done by white people FOR White people. But bottom line, I don't think that it is significantly different from this one.
posted
Haha. You're running scared because you know what's coming next as soon as you develop the courage to forthrightly answer the question, the demolishing of a foolish presumption as to the identity of the ones you erroneously mislabeled as Tjeker.
By avoiding the question you only prove you had no idea of what you were doing and were only guided by the non-methodology of wishful thinking. Now get to the point, that is if you're man enough to do it.
Why do you refuse to identify which group they are based on the source you supplied? What are they according to that textual description? Are they
1 - Peleset or Tjeker as "both types are depicted wearing a fillet, from which protrudes a floppy plume ..."
2 - Shekelesh or Teresh who are "wearing cloth headdresses ..."
3 - Shardana with "thick horned helmets ..."
You assumed to label a group as Tjeker (though neither the mdw ntjr of the relief nor any text identifies them as such) based on number 1 as you posted on 06 December, 2008 01:23 PM and 06 December, 2008 03:23 PM.
Now you claim to be unable to use your source's description to identify the Sea People in question. "I know of no source that has definitively identified that group ..."
Come on, if you can boldly declare Egyptians to be Tjeker based only only on a textual description not at all speaking about the relief on which they appear you most surely should be able to identify people who really are the basis of the description in your source text.
When will you do it? If you can do the one you can do the other. And if you can't do the other then how can you claim to have done the one?
quote:Originally posted by Mike111:
In my post above, I clearly answered your question. This is what I said, Quote: "But to your question, I know of no source that has definitively identified that group; as other than the generalization - Sea People prisoners. If you have such a source, then by all means, please post it."
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Blah blah woof woof
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
These men are neither Tjeker nor Phillistines and you know that now. They are Egyptians. You were quite in error to assume that anybody in Ramses temple at Medinet Habu wearing a feather in their head must be Tjeker or Peleset. Just admit it. You goofed again. In fact you know so little about it that you can't even identify the same set of people if they're not in your photo gallery. When presented to you from sources unknown to you you have no idea who they are at all.
Stop spreading disinformation and ruining what was once a forum dedicated to disemenating facts about blacks in the ancient world. You need more behind you than hate, evil, white, devils.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: The Peleset and Tjeker (Minoans) of Crete, they would later be known as the “Philistines” after they had settled in Southern Canaan.
alTakruri - Please compare the picture in question, with the text from Medinet Habu Temple above.
Quote: "From the textual evidence on the temple walls, it appears that the Peleset and the Tjeker made up the majority of the Sea Peoples involved in the year 8 invasion. In the artistic depictions, both types are depicted wearing a fillet, from which protrudes a floppy plume and a protective piece down the nape of the neck." Hope that helps.
... the costume is as described in the battle scene, except for two plumes instead of one.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
meninarmer - You broached a delicate subject, which I though that I had handled with sensitivity, but which seems to have had repercussions: you insensitive clod you. No I am not egmond, the preamble to the thread will explain the duplication.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Yes, you are right. I admit I can be insensitive, but is my comment about men with bent waists the reason Al's panties are in a bunch attacking you???
I apologize to all sweetie babies I may have offended.
Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
Quote: “What I'm missing is usefulness and practicality in applying all this theory in explaining racism today and finding solutions today. I do not see how trading insults will change anything”.
Though I can explain racism, I cannot supply solutions.
However in order to explain racism; which is not nearly so esoteric as some believe, we must first know the historical background for it’s development. Like anything else, it didn’t suddenly show up one day. It is of course, a historical development. And it is quite apart from slavery; in the ancient world, anybody could be a slave, and was, at one time or the other, irrespective of race.
Oddly enough, the pieces for the institution of racism begin (indirectly) in where we left off above – In Anatolia. So let us continue with the history of Anatolia, and the region in general. But this time, with an eye to racial developments.
Anatolia By about 550 B.C. White Greeks had established colonies on all of Anatolia’s coastal areas. But this was mitigated by the fact that Persia held dominance in the entire area.
In May 334 B.C, the Persians are defeated at the Battle of Granicus (now “Biga” a town in the district of Çanakkale Province, Turkey.), by Alexander the Great. This victory exposes to Alexander, the Persian weakness. He later undertakes a full-scale invasion of Persia. By now Persia is weak, even though the Persians field a large army - it is made-up mostly of mercenaries. The Persian capital Persepolis falls to the invaders in April 330 B.C, and Darius III, the last Achaemenid king, is murdered in the summer of that same year, while fleeing the conquerors. With the annexation of the Persian Empire, the Greeks now establish the greatest Empire known to man.
With Alexander's conquest of the Persian Empire, which included Mesopotamia, Greeks and other Europeans, from all walks of life, were encouraged to migrate to the Middle East. It was apparently Alexander's desire for Greeks and Persians to share one Empire. So to promote harmony between his people and the Persians, he ordered eighty of his most important men, to marry highborn Persian women, in traditional Persian wedding ceremonies. He himself, married King Darius's daughter, who was named either Barsine or Stateira. His best friend, Hephaestion, married Barsine's sister Drypetis. Alexander also began promoting Persians to high-ranking positions in his army, saying that Persians and Macedonians should share the empire. His efforts to create unity failed however; even the marriages between his men and the Persians mostly broke up after his death.
Over time, the power of Greece waned, and the emerging new power “Rome” took control of Anatolia. In 330 A.D. the Romans established the city of Constantinople as the capitol of their Eastern Roman or Byzantine Empire.
Since we are now discussing “Racism” many important historical developments have been skipped.
As to the issue of Racism, it has not yet developed. Proof of this, is in the many artifacts from the past.
ROMAN TOMB PAINTINGS
Continued on next page.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is not known exactly when “Turks” (the last of the White Asians to migrate westward), first settled in Anatolia. But we do know that “The Khazars” another ancient Turkic people, first appeared in Transcaucasia, {the transitional region between Europe and Asia, extending from the Greater Caucasus to the Turkish and Iranian borders, between the Black and Caspian seas.} in about the 2nd century A.D, and subsequently settled in the lower Volga region. They emerged as a force in the 7th century, and later rose to great power. By the 8th century the Khazar empire extended from the northern shores of the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea to the Urals and as far westward as Kiev.
The prominence and influence of the Khazar state was reflected in its close relations with the Byzantine Emperors: Justinian II (704 A.D.) and Constantine V (732 A.D.) who each had a Khazar wife.
In the 8th Century, the Khazars converted to the Hebrew religion and made Judaism the State religion. “Itil” was the Khazar capital in the Volga delta, and was a great commercial center. The Khazar Empire fell, when Sviatoslav, duke of Kiev (945–72), son of Igor and of St. Olga, defeated its army in 965 A.D. The Khazars are the progenitors of European Jewry or White Jews, the entomology of the term Jew or Jewish probably relates to these people.
In 627 A.D, the Prophet Mohammed - the founder of Islam, with an army comprised of Arabs, Turks, and disenfranchised Greeks, launched wars against the last of the Black Empires – Persia. Which had reemerged under the Sassanian Kings, and Rome. (Persia and Rome had been battling each other for centuries, and were now too weak to fight-off a new foe).
After taking all Persian and Roman territory in the Middle East and Africa, the Arab Armies expanded into North Africa. There they came into contact with the local indigenous peoples, known as Berbers – later to be known as Moors. The exact nature of this first contact is unknown, but soon, the Berbers had become the allies of the Arab armies.
Tarik al Gibral, or Tariq ibn Ziyad, a Nafza Berber, was given the rank of general in the Arab army and sent to raid Spain. On April 30, 711, Tarik landed at Andalus on the Spanish Coast with 7,000 troops. His troops consisted of 300 Arabs and 6,700 native Africans (Moors).
By now the original Black inhabitants of the Iberian Peninsula, whether they be called Iberians, Celts, or Gaul’s, had been overrun by an invading tribe of Whites called the “Visigoths”. In 711 A.D. Tariq ibn Ziyad, invaded Iberia (Spain) and overthrew the Visigoths (Western Goths): Who were one of two main branches of the Goths, an east Germanic tribe, who over the period of only one hundred years, had migrated from eastern Europe, thru Greece, thru Italy, and finally down into the Iberian peninsula.
In Iberia (Spain), the Berbers, now known as Moors, created a highly advanced civilization and culture, famous for it’s art, architecture, and centers of learning. Jews, because of their ethnic “Turkish” background, were of course, allowed access to all Arab territories. They also were a part of the cultural renaissance in Spain.
The Berbers brought the first black slaves to the Iberian Peninsula. Although these were small in numbers compared to later periods, the consequences would turn out to be tremendous.
While having rule over Spain: The Berbers, who themselves fifty years earlier had been forced to accept Islam, now forced the inhabitants of Iberia to do the same. Over time, though the number of "Moors" remained small, (moors 400,000 – Arabs (Turks) 40,000), they forced large numbers of Iberians to convert to Islam. According to Ronald Segal, author of Islam's Black Slaves, some 5.6 million of Iberia's 7 million inhabitants were Muslim by 1200 AD.
Beginning in about 900 A.D. A small Christian enclave of Visigoths in northwestern Spain, named Asturias; initiated conflicts between Christians and Muslims. Soon after, Christian states based in the north and west slowly, in fits and starts began the process of expansion and conquest of Iberia over the next several centuries.
By the 1400s A.D. most of Spain was in White hands. In 1480, Isabella and Ferdinand had instituted the Inquisition in White controlled Spain. The Inquisition was aimed mostly at Jews and Muslims who had overtly converted to Christianity but were thought to be practicing their faiths secretly - known respectively as marranos and moriscos - as well as at heretics who rejected Roman Catholic orthodoxy.
The end for the Moors came on January 2, 1492; the leader of the last Moorish City – Granada, (located in southern Spain) - surrendered to armies of a recently united Christian Spain (after the marriage of Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Castile). The remaining Muslims and Jews were forced to leave Iberia, die, or convert to Roman Catholic Christianity. Many of the Jews who were expelled from Spain and Portugal, immigrated to Holland, where they set up the Dutch West Indies Company, a prime mover in the Atlantic slave trade.
Eight months after the last Moorish city fell, in the nearby town of Palos, on the evening of August 3, 1492. Christopher Columbus would depart from Palos on his journey to the Americas. One result of which, would be the Spanish and Portuguese Atlantic Slave trade.
Continued on next page.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The story of Black slavery in the Americas, of course begins with Christopher Columbus. But, his voyage to America was not financed by Queen Isabella, but rather by Luis de Santangelo, who advanced the sum of 17,000 ducats to finance the voyage. Columbus was accompanied by five 'maranos' (Jews who had foresworn their religion and supposedly became Catholics) Luis de Torres - interpreter, Marco - the surgeon, Bemal - the physician, Alonzo de la Calle and Gabriel Sanchez, and A black navigator, Pedro Alonso Niño. While in the Americas, it was Gabriel Sanchez, who convinced Columbus to capture 500 American Indians and sell them as slaves in Seville, Spain.
Even before Spaniards and Portuguese had completely conquered the Iberian Peninsula, they were well aware of the strength and the qualities of Blacks as cheap labor – note the Moorish importation of Black Slaves. This was especially true in the sugar culture around the Mediterranean Sea, and after its discovery on the Azores and Madeira islands, slaves were employed in its production.
The Spanish had heard stories about the kingdoms south of the Sahara and about the Songhay king (Muhammad Touré?), who was 'the wealthiest king in the world'. In search of these African kingdoms of gold, Dom Henrique (also called Henry the Sailor) left Portugal in 1441 A.C. with a few ships. He landed on the African west coast but did not find gold, though enough other merchandise. Two of his captains captured twelve Negros (men, women and children). These captives were carried to Portugal as slaves to convince the king that it was cheaper to get slaves directly from the African west coast than to buy them from Arabic and European middle-men. Dom Henrique offered the Pope two black slaves, and the Pope granted the Portuguese permission for the slave trade on the West African coast.
The Pope issued in advance, a complete absolution to those who would fall in battle on the African west coast. This ended Arab monopoly of the slave trade through the Sahara. In 1448 for the first time, leaders of Mali and Songhay exchanged almost a thousand slaves with the Portuguese against horses, silk and silver. The first black slaves were used as domestics and for the sugar culture around the Mediterranean Sea, the Azores and on Madeira. Black slaves were also sold to Spain and Italy. In 1481 the Portuguese built their first fort on the Gold Coast, the notorious d'El Mina, (the mine). Thus the first stone was laid for an enormous and forbidding enterprise, 'The Transatlantic Slave Trade."
Two years after the discovery of America in 1492, the Treaty of Tordesillas, made by the Pope, assigned the territory eastward of the line through Brazil to Portugal and the territory on the west of it to Spain. With this the Portuguese gained a monopoly on the slave trade on the African coast. On the other hand Spain got a free hand in the Caribbean Sea and Central and South America.
By a treaty made the previous year; the demarcation line went further to the east, thus completely excluding Portugal from the new world. In 1494, after heavy protest, the treaty was adjusted and Portugal was assigned a part of the present Brazil.
At first, colonists in Portuguese and Spanish colonies preferred to use natives as slaves. But the Indians were originally fishermen and hunters. Physically they were not suitable for heavy labour. The work was predominantly in salt and silver mines and in agriculture. Many of the natives died from exhaustion, malnourishment, ill-treatment or Old World diseases, such as smallpox and measles.
Others preferred to commit suicide rather than to live the inhuman life that was forced on them by Spanish colonists. When possible, the native slaves tried to escape to the impenetrable inlands. Regularly, Spanish soldiers carried out punitive expeditions. Captured runaways were severely punished. As a warning many natives were hanged. Escapees often preferred mass suicide rather than being captured again. On Hispafiola (now Haiti) the number of natives decreased in less than 25 years from more than one million to hardly eleven thousand, in spite of a constant supply of new native slaves from the other Caribbean Islands. About 200,00 of the "Arowakken" who were carried off from the coastal region of South America and the Caribbean islands, died between 1492 and 15110.
Continued on next page.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Already in 1510, black slaves were transported to Spanish colonies with the permission of Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand (Ferdinand the Catholic) of Spain. At first, all Africans had to come from Portugal or Spain or had to be baptized in Africa before embarkation. The "Casa dos Escravos" in Lisbon (the government slave trade agency) sold more than 1,200 Blacks between 1511- 513.
Emperor of Austria and King of Spain, Charles V, granted licenses to his trusted and favorite courtiers to transport African slaves to the new world. In 1529 such a license was handed for the first time to a Dutchman (at that time, Holland was a Spanish territory).
Bishop Bartolomé de las Casas of Chiapas, could not bear to witness the atrocities committed against the Caribbean Indian population. Ruthless and cruel expeditions to get slaves and forcing conversion of nonbelievers was abhorrent to him. So in 1537 the bishop returned to Spain with a request to King Charles V, that the King should end the inhuman situation of the Indian natives, by replacing the native Caribbean's with more "durable" African Negroes as Slaves.
Based solely on economical motives, King Charles V honored the bishop's request. It was not possible to make the new territories productive with only the help of a few unwilling natives. It was thought that Africa had an inexhaustible labor force. In 1538, this led to the "Asiento de Negros" (a monopolistic contract for the slave trade). As the licenses to transport black slaves to the new world was limited to one trip or a certain number of slaves, the "asiento" was a privilege that, during the agreed term, granted the holder a monopoly on slave transports to the overseas colonies. King Charles V granted this "asiento" to one of his courtiers, the Fleming Laurens de Goumenot. He obtained the right to transport 4,000 Negros to Hispanola, Cuba, Jamaica and Puerto Rico.
De Goumenot could only recruit this large number of slaves from the Portuguese in Africa, because the Treaty of Tordesillas excluded Spain from all trade with West Africa. The purchase of Negro slaves, the transport over sea and the high price that had to be paid to the crown, required large sums of money, which De Goumenot did not have at his disposal. That is why he sold the "asiento" for 25,000 ducats to some Genoese traders. They started a very profitable trade with Portuguese slave traders on the West African coast. Especially at the beginning, the slaves were captured during inland expeditions, or bought from wealthy African kings. Some kings even undertook special military expeditions against neighboring tribes and, if necessary, sold their own citizens.
The monopoly on West Africa granted by the Pope in 1494, was in practice a mere formality. Portugal did not have the necessary military means to maintain its monopoly. Already during the first quarter of the seventeenth century several Dutch trading posts arose along the West African coast. After the Dutch conquest of fort d'Ehnina in 1637, other countries competed for a key position along the West African coast. At first they restricted themselves to the delivery of slaves to the Spanish colonies in the new world. But as countries like France, Denmark, Britain and Germany gained possession of their own colonies, slaves were also transported across the Atlantic Ocean to provide their own territories with black laborers. Britain, with whom during the seventeenth century the Dutch Republic was at war several times, turned out to be a formidable competitor. In 1655 it had conquered the island of Jamaica and set out to develop it into a major slave depot. Despite the British having lost its forts along the Gold Coast during the second war with the Republic (1665 - 1667), the British slave trade recovered quite fast. A lot of slave ships changed their course to Jamaica and Barbados.
In 1672 the Royal African Company was founded. It gained a monopoly on the slave trade with British colonies in the new world. Unfortunately this monopoly was undermined by British seamen, who managed to cross the ocean with smaller and faster ships at lower expenses. Jamaica had a flourishing sugar culture and needed a lot of slaves. But the supplied slaves were also sold to the Spanish Continent of South America. More and more Britain took over the leading role from the Republic as the major slave supplier to the new world. In exchange for peace after the ending of the Spanish Succession War in 1713, Britain gained the Asiento, that allowed them to transport 144,000 Negro slaves to the Spanish colonies during a period of thirty years. In the eighteenth century Britain became the largest provider of African slaves. Also France and - after the War of Independence - the United States of America were active in this trade
Already in the seventeenth century public opinion turned against slavery. The Quakers thought that slavery was in contravention of Christianity. In the next century French philosophers like Voltaire criticized slavery. He made foul of the Roman Catholic Church because of their acceptance of slavery by means of his publication "Sacramento".
Continued on next page.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
England - the country that was the largest slave trader since the beginning of the eighteenth century - turned out to be the first to abolish slavery. Two important protagonists for the abolition of slavery in England were the vicar John Wesley and the lawyer Granville Sharp.
The latter founded in 1765, the first organized abolition movement. In England there lived between 15,000 and 16,000 slaves, that had been brought along by the (former) owners of plantations in the colonies. Sharp started several legal cases for escaped slaves. On June 22, 1772 this led to the famous case of the escaped slave James Sommersot, in the judgment of the High Court that "slavery in this nature, morally as well politically, can not be established. It is detestable and there is nothing to justify this - not even a law. What the unpleasant conclusion of this verdict may be, it is impossible to say that slavery can be accepted or approved by the British court and Therefore I demand that this black man is acquitted."
With this verdict all slaves living in England were discharged, but not the slaves in the colonies, where in accordance to the local laws, slavery was allowed. In the year following this verdict many free slaves were kidnapped by their previous masters and illegally shipped to the colonies.
The abolitionists did continue their struggle against slavery. In 1787, the famous potter Josiah Wedgwood, co-founder of the Society for the Abolition of the Slave Trade in England, made 200,000 replica's of a medallion he had designed, of a kneeling and chained slave with the text: "Am I not a man and a brother?"
Continually more and more voices were raised against the slave trade. The British abolitionists tried to convince other nations to stop their slave trade. They contacted French abolitionists. This country was at the forefront concerning the abolition of slavery. France already had a "Code Noir" with rules concerning the treatment of slaves. In August 1789, the National Assembly in Paris published the first declaration of human rights. They insisted on the right of freedom and equality for all human beings; the well-known slogan of the French Revolution: "Freedom, Equality and Fratemy."
Against all expectations this turned out not to apply to the French slaves in the West Indies. This led in 1791 to a general slave revolt in Saint Dominique, when slaves killed or dislodged their previous masters. After a bloody war of many years, in 1804 the former French colony became an independent nation under the new name of Haiti.
In 1794 the French government officially set free all slaves. But their freedom did not last long. In a decree issued in May 1802, Napoleon restored slavery in imperial France. The (short-lived) freedom of the slaves on the French part of St. Martin led to commotion and discontentment among the slaves on the Dutch part of the island. Only because the slaves had - within certain boundaries - a lot of freedom, no great irregularities were caused on the Dutch side of St. Martin, but it did increase desertion to the French side among the slaves.
Denmark was the first country to ban slavery. In 1807 Britain declared the slave trade to be illegal. One year later the United States of America followed, Sweden in 1813, The Netherlands in 1814, France in 1815 and Spain in 1820. Brazil became independent in 1822, submitted to the pressure of the British government and legally ended the slave trade soon after.
However the constant demand for slaves in the Caribbean and in the Southern States of America continued. Huge profits could still be made with the slave trade. In the years that followed, dozens of illegal slave transports took place between Africa and those destinations. Britain on an international level made great efforts to stop this illegal trade. It made agreements with other countries. The British marine ships were authorized to ransack ships leaving Africa. They patrolled along the African coast to stop illegal slave transports. When a slave trader got caught, the ship was confiscated and the captain punished. The punishments England imposed in 1811 was deportation or the death penalty.
It was not from a humane point of view that England suppressed the slave trade, but to protect its own sugar colonies against dishonest competition of other countries that could still count on new supplies of cheap slave labor.
The British ships along the African coast caused the situation of the slaves aboard illegal slave ships to become even more insecure. It was not unusual for a slave ship to toss her human car-go into the sea when confronted with a British or French slave hunter.
There wore also rumors about mass slaughters of slaves along the African coast by Negro slavers when British or French marine ships prevented the slave ships to reach the shore to pick up the human cargo. The most important markets for illegal slavers were Cuba and Brazil.
From Cuba the African Negroes were illegally transported on fast clippers to the southern states of America, often with false documents to prove the slaves originated from other Caribbean colonies and not from Africa. British, American, French and Dutch ships took part in the illegal slave transports that happened until 1870.
At a rough estimation, about 1,898,400 slaves have been transported over the Atlantic Ocean between 1811 and 1870. Sixty per-cent of these slaves wore transported to Brazil, 32 percent to Cuba and Puerto Rico, 5 percent to the French West Indies and only 3 percent straight to the United States, but many slaves were brought to the United States through Cuba.
The ban on the import of new African Negroes in most colonies forced the plantation owners to treat their slaves better. In some colonies the situation did not change much because of the large number of illegally imported slaves.
On Curacao slaveholders could, despite the ban on the slave trade, get permissions for the export of slaves to other colonies, like Puerto Rico and Surinam. Because of a natural growth many planters had problems to feed their fast growing slave population. But exports to other colonies was (officially) only possible with the authorization of the slave himself. They often preferred Puerto Rico to Surinam. A transfer to Surinam for a white governor was considered a promotion, for the slaves it was used as a punishment.
Continued on next page.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The history of the Slave trade is of course very long, so we can go no further with it right now. But so far, we have evidence only of slavery, not Racism. As we have seen, Blacks and Whites were prime movers in the trade. We have also seen that slavery was about making money; who became a slave, was a matter of convenience that was related to availability and the ability to do the job.
So how did Racism and Blacks become synonymous? A clue lays in the quote above: “Some African kings even undertook special military expeditions against neighboring tribes and, if necessary, sold their own citizens.”
Leaving that quote for a moment, lets take a look at basic human nature. There has been a rash of stories in the news lately, about European men who have imprisoned their daughters and impregnated them several times. Though we all sympathize with those poor daughters. Don’t we also make value judgments about the quality of those families? Don’t we also think that they must be somehow “sub-human” or “less-than” in order to be involved in such abhorrent things?
Now back to Slavery: as we have seen, all the European nations were involved in it, from the “POPE” on down. We are also all aware of the HORRORS of the Slave trade. So how does a God-fearing, Pious, servant-of-the Lord, White Person, reconcile himself to subjecting another Human Being to such unspeakable suffering and death? Easy, convince yourself that they are somehow not really Human like you. Find things about them, that is unlike you, or what you would do.
The “unlike you” part was easy and obvious, they are Black, you are White. The “unlike what you would do” part was easy too - though untrue. But still, the question - what kind of people would sell their own kind, into such misery and death, out of simple greed, is a legitimate one. But of course, Whites only interest in this line of thought, was in finding cover for their own atrocities, and in so doing, avoid damnation. And so, “voila” you have institutional Racism. BTW – the beautiful Christian hymn “Amazing Grace” was written by an English Slave Ship Captain, for whom that convenient rationale, no longer worked.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
NOW YOU ARE TALKING! GOT TO RUN, BUT I WILL READ THIS VERY CAREFULLY.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: In a post above, egmond complained:
Quote: “What I'm missing is usefulness and practicality in applying all this theory in explaining racism today and finding solutions today. I do not see how trading insults will change anything”.
Though I can explain racism, I cannot supply solutions.
However in order to explain racism; which is not nearly so esoteric as some believe, we must first know the historical background for it’s development. Like anything else, it didn’t suddenly show up one day. It is of course, a historical development. And it is quite apart from slavery; in the ancient world, anybody could be a slave, and was, at one time or the other, irrespective of race.
Oddly enough, the pieces for the institution of racism begin (indirectly) in where we left off above – In Anatolia. So let us continue with the history of Anatolia, and the region in general. But this time, with an eye to racial developments.
Anatolia By about 550 B.C. White Greeks had established colonies on all of Anatolia’s coastal areas. But this was mitigated by the fact that Persia held dominance in the entire area.
In May 334 B.C, the Persians are defeated at the Battle of Granicus (now “Biga” a town in the district of Çanakkale Province, Turkey.), by Alexander the Great. This victory exposes to Alexander, the Persian weakness. He later undertakes a full-scale invasion of Persia. By now Persia is weak, even though the Persians field a large army - it is made-up mostly of mercenaries. The Persian capital Persepolis falls to the invaders in April 330 B.C, and Darius III, the last Achaemenid king, is murdered in the summer of that same year, while fleeing the conquerors. With the annexation of the Persian Empire, the Greeks now establish the greatest Empire known to man.
With Alexander's conquest of the Persian Empire, which included Mesopotamia, Greeks and other Europeans, from all walks of life, were encouraged to migrate to the Middle East. It was apparently Alexander's desire for Greeks and Persians to share one Empire. So to promote harmony between his people and the Persians, he ordered eighty of his most important men, to marry highborn Persian women, in traditional Persian wedding ceremonies. He himself, married King Darius's daughter, who was named either Barsine or Stateira. His best friend, Hephaestion, married Barsine's sister Drypetis. Alexander also began promoting Persians to high-ranking positions in his army, saying that Persians and Macedonians should share the empire. His efforts to create unity failed however; even the marriages between his men and the Persians mostly broke up after his death.
Over time, the power of Greece waned, and the emerging new power “Rome” took control of Anatolia. In 330 A.D. the Romans established the city of Constantinople as the capitol of their Eastern Roman or Byzantine Empire.
Since we are now discussing “Racism” many important historical developments have been skipped.
As to the issue of Racism, it has not yet developed. Proof of this, is in the many artifacts from the past.
posted
Arab Slave Market, nineteenth-century European Orientalist
painting by Jean-Léon Gérôme
It has often been argued that African Slave Traders did not really know and understand the horrors that White People would subject their fellow Africans to in the New World. Though this may be so, there is also evidence to the contrary.
From Wiki
Slavery in African cultures was generally indentured servitude: slaves were not chattel, nor enslaved for life. African slaves were paid wages and were able to accumulate property. They often bought their own freedom and could then achieve social promotion — just as freedmen in ancient Rome — some even rose to the status of rulers (e.g. Jaja of Opobo and Sunni Ali Ber). Similar arguments were used by Western slave owners during the time of abolitionism, for example by John Wedderburn in Wedderburn v. Knight, the case that ended legal recognition of slavery in Scotland in 1776. Regardless of the legal options open to slave owners, rational cost-earning calculation and/or voluntary adoption of moral restraints often tended to mitigate.
Slave Market Regions and Participation
There were eight principal areas used by Europeans to buy and ship slaves to the Western Hemisphere. The number of slaves sold to the new world varied throughout the slave trade. As for the distribution of slaves from regions of activity, certain areas produced far more slaves than others. Between 1650 and 1900, 10.24 (this number is disputed) million African slaves arrived in the Americas from the following regions in the following proportions:
Senegambia (Senegal and The Gambia): 4.8% Upper Guinea (Guinea-Bissau, Guinea and Sierra Leone): 4.1% Windward Coast (Liberia and Cote d' Ivoire): 1.8% Gold Coast (Ghana): 10.4% Bight of Benin (Togo, Benin and Nigeria west of the Niger Delta): 20.2% Bight of Biafra (Nigeria east of the Niger Delta, Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea and Gabon): 14.6% West Central Africa (Republic of Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo and Angola): 39.4% Southeastern Africa (Mozambique and Madagascar): 4.7%
African kingdoms of the Era
There were over 173 city-states and kingdoms in the African regions affected by the slave trade between 1502 and 1853, when Brazil became the last Atlantic import nation to outlaw the slave trade. Of those 173, no fewer than 68 could be deemed nation states with political and military infrastructures that enabled them to dominate their neighbors. Nearly every present-day nation had a pre-colonial predecessor, sometimes an African Empire with which European traders had to barter and eventually battle. Below are 29 nation states by country that actively or passively participated in the Atlantic Slave Trade:
Senegal: Denanke Kingdom, Kingdom of Fouta Tooro, Jolof Empire, Kingdom of Khasso and Kingdom of Saalum Guinea-Bissau: Kaabu Empire Guinea: Kingdom of Fouta Djallon Sierra Leone: Koya Temne Cote d'Ivoire: Kong Empire and Gyaaman Kingdom Ghana: Asante Confederacy and Mankessim Kingdom Benin: Kingdom of Dahomey Nigeria: Oyo Empire, Benin Empire and Aro Confederacy Cameroon: Bamun and Mandara Kingdom Gabon: Kingdom of Orungu Republic of Congo: Kingdom of Loango and Kingdom of Tio Angola: Kingdom of Kongo, Kingdom of Ndongo and Matamba
Ethnic groups
The different ethnic groups brought to the Americas closely corresponds to the regions of heaviest activity in the slave trade. Over 45 distinct ethnic groups were taken to the Americas during the trade. Of the 45, the ten most prominent according to slave documentation of the era are listed below.
1. The Gbe speakers of Togo, Ghana and Benin (Adja, Mina, Ewe, Fon) 2. The Akan of Ghana and Cote d'Ivoire 3. The Mbundu of Angola (includes Ovimbundu) 4. The BaKongo of the Democratic Republic of Congo and Angola 5. The Igbo of southeastern Nigeria 6. The Yoruba of southwestern Nigeria 7. The Mandé speakers of Upper Guinea 8. The Wolof of Senegal 9. The Chamba of Cameroon 10. The Makua of Mozambique
Continued on next page.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chained slaves in eastern Africa, c. nineteenth century
From Wiki
The transatlantic slave trade resulted in a vast and as yet still unknown loss of life for African captives both in and outside of America. Approximately 8 million Africans were killed during their storage, shipment and initial landing in the New World. The amount of life lost in the actual procurement of slaves remains a mystery but may equal or exceed the amount actually enslaved. If such a figure is to be believed, the total number of deaths would be between 16 and 20 million.
The savage nature of the trade, in which most of the slaves were prisoners from African wars, led to the destruction of individuals and cultures. The following figures do not include deaths of African slaves as a result of their actual labor, slave revolts or diseases they caught while living among New World populations. A database compiled in the late 1990s put the figure for the Transatlantic Slave Trade at more than 11 million people. Estimates as high as 50 million have been floated.
For a long time an accepted figure was 15 million, although this has in recent years been revised down. Most historians now agree that at least 12 million slaves left the continent between the fifteenth and nineteenth century, but 10 to 20% died on board ships. Thus a figure of 11 million slaves transported to the Americas is the nearest demonstrable figure historians can produce.
African conflicts
The Portuguese in awe of the majesty of the Manikongo.
The Portuguese were initially impressed by the Kingdom of Kongo. Depopulation from slave trading would eventually lead to the disintegration of the once powerful Kongo.
According to David Stannard's American Holocaust, 50% of African deaths occurred in Africa as a result of wars between native kingdoms, which produced the majority of slaves. This includes not only those who died in battles, but also those who died as a result of forced marches from inland areas to slave ports on the various coasts. The practice of enslaving enemy combatants and their villages was widespread throughout Western and West Central Africa, although wars were rarely started to procure slaves.
The slave trade was largely a by-product of tribal and state warfare as a way of removing potential dissidents after victory or financing future wars. However, some African groups proved particularly adept and brutal at the practice of enslaving such as Kaabu, Asanteman, Dahomey, the Aro Confederacy and the Imbangala war bands. By the end of this process, no less than 18.3 million people would be herded into "factories" to await shipment to the New World.
In letters written by the Manikongo, Nzinga Mbemba Affonso, to the King João III of Portugal, he writes that Portuguese merchandise flowing in is what is fueling the trade in Africans. He requests the King of Portugal to stop sending merchandise but should only send missionaries. In one of his letter he writes:
"Each day the traders are kidnapping our people - children of this country, sons of our nobles and vassals, even people of our own family.
This corruption and depravity are so widespread that our land is entirely depopulated. We need in this kingdom only priests and schoolteachers, and no merchandise, unless it is wine and flour for Mass. It is our wish that this Kingdom not be a place for the trade or transport of slaves."
Many of our subjects eagerly lust after Portuguese merchandise that your subjects have brought into our domains. To satisfy this inordinate appetite, they seize many of our black free subjects.... They sell them. After having taken these prisoners [to the coast] secretly or at night..... As soon as the captives are in the hands of white men they are branded with a red-hot iron.
Before the arrival of the Portuguese, slavery had already existed in Kongo. Despite its establishment within his kingdom, Afonso believed that the slave trade should be subject to Kongo law.
When he suspected the Portuguese of receiving illegally enslaved persons to sell, he wrote in to King João III in 1526 imploring him to put a stop to the practice.
The kings of Dahomey sold their war captives into transatlantic slavery, who otherwise would have been killed in a ceremony known as the Annual Customs. As one of West Africa's principal slave states, Dahomey became extremely unpopular with neighbouring peoples. Like the Bambara Empire to the east, the Khasso kingdoms depended heavily on the slave trade for their economy.
A family's status was indicated by the number of slaves it owned, leading to wars for the sole purpose of taking more captives. This trade led the Khasso into increasing contact with the European settlements of Africa's west coast, particularly the French.
Benin grew increasingly rich during the 16th and 17th centuries on the slave trade with Europe; slaves from enemy states of the interior were sold, and carried to the Americas in Dutch and Portuguese ships. The Bight of Benin's shore soon came to be known as the "Slave Coast".
King Gezo of Dahomey said in the 1840s: The slave trade is the ruling principle of my people. It is the source and the glory of their wealth…the mother lulls the child to sleep with notes of triumph over an enemy reduced to slavery.
In 1807, the UK Parliament passed the Bill that abolished the trading of slaves. The King of Bonny (now in Nigeria) was horrified at the conclusion of the practice:
We think this trade must go on. That is the verdict of our oracle and the priests. They say that your country, however great, can never stop a trade ordained by God himself.
Distribution of slaves (1450-1900) brought to the New world.
Destination Percentage
Brazil 35.4% Spanish Empire 22.1% British West Indies 17.7% French West Indies 14.1% British North America and future United States 4.4% Dutch West Indies 4.4% Danish West Indies 0.2%Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey Mike now re-reading the reasons leading up to enslavement of our ancestors make me question those reasons. Warring factions may be just BS.
The numbers and the reasons don't seems to correlate.
For 15-50 million Africans to be captured and enslaved as a by-product of "WAR" then the entire continent had to be in constant state of war/turmoil to supply these numbers.
Not sure what the population of Western Africa was during this period but to supply the amount of slaves I wonder who "won" those wars. Heck looks like about 75% of the pop left.
Maybe the number crunchers here can work their magic. Put some graphs and charts together.
Have to agree with Meninarmer maybe the best and brightest left. No wonder those that remain can't get their sh1t together, huh Altk? Just kidding. LOL
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
xyyman - I think that you are dwelling on "One" particular reason. In my post "Many" reasons are given for African complicity in the Slave trade. I know that there are many who find this aspect of the Slave Trade “uncomfortable”, apparently preferring to think of ALL Blacks as innocent victims – as indeed those taken were.
But for the sake of argument, do you really think that Europeans had the military might necessary to forcibly extract possibly 50 million people from Africa without consent? Even today, with Africa in a shambles, that would not be possible. You should also remember that the figure (whatever turns out to be accurate) represents people taken over a period of 400 years. As a statistical matter, the population of Africa circa 1500 A.D. is estimated at 100 million. The current population of Africa is estimated at 1 billion.
As a historical matter, a people’s active participation in their own demise is not unique to just Africans. Though in a somewhat different context, native peoples of the Americas did the same thing.
At the landing of Columbus, the population estimates for the Western Hemisphere are..
6 million in the Caribbean. 10 million in the United States and Canada. 40 million in Mexico and Central America. 44 million in South America.
The White propaganda says that Hernando Cortes, with a small force of about 550 men, conquered the Aztecs and enslaved all of Mexico and Central America. As a matter of simple logic, judging from the numbers above, does that seem possible to you?
The truth is that the Aztecs horribly abused their subjugated brethren. When Hernando Cortes showed up, these subjugated people saw him as a savior, and they rallied to him. Later of course, he one by one, turned on them, and re-subjugated those that survived, in an even more terrible way.
This exact same scenario was played out in South America with Francisco Pizarro and the Inca Indians, who were doing the same things to their brethren.
If it’s any comfort to you, Africans came out of it much better off than the American Indians. In the Americas, 9 out of every 10 persons died from War, enslavement, or disease. Such that today, the overwhelming majority of the total American population, is from somewhere else.
A note on the statistics used in my posts. They are White people statistics, which tend to be skewed toward a given agenda. The only known source that can be trusted is the Schomburg center in New York. As you can see from the totals below, some things just don’t add up, irrespective of migration.
Distribution of slaves (1450-1900) brought to the New world.
Destination Percentage
Brazil 35.4% Spanish Empire 22.1% British West Indies 17.7% French West Indies 14.1% British North America and future United States 4.4% Dutch West Indies 4.4% Danish West Indies 0.2%
Current Country Population Rank in Black people.
Brazil 85,783,143 United States 38,499,304 Colombia 9,452,872 Haiti 8,701,439 Dominican Republic 7,985,991 France 5,000,000 Jamaica 2,731,419 Venezuela 2,641,481 - 6,999,926 United Kingdom 2,015,400 Cuba 1,126,894 Trinidad and Tobago 1,047,366 Canada 783,795
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is what I am getting at. 100million around 1500AD. Assuming the pop increased by 25% in 400yrs makes it 125Miilion at the end of slavery. But we are talking mostly about West Africa. Which would make it about what??. . . . .30million?? So whow can 50 million be extracted from 30million. Even if it is 15million makes about 50% extracted. ie 1 in 2 was exported. Also for prisoners of war to be the reason. That will makes more than 1/2 the population were prisoners of war. Numbers do not add up.
BTW what's up with the Children of Men. Don't get the premise(the Movie) that the only woman to be capable to having a child was an African woman. Do they know something we don't? Seems like the African woman is another "Eve".
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: xyyman - I think that you are dwelling on "One" particular reason. In my post "Many" reasons are given for African complicity in the Slave trade. I know that there are many who find this aspect of the Slave Trade “uncomfortable”, apparently preferring to think of ALL Blacks as innocent victims – as indeed those taken were.
But for the sake of argument, do you really think that Europeans had the military might necessary to forcibly extract possibly 50 million people from Africa without consent? Even today, with Africa in a shambles, that would not be possible. You should also remember that the figure (whatever turns out to be accurate) represents people taken over a period of 400 years. As a statistical matter, the population of Africa circa 1500 A.D. is estimated at 100 million. The current population of Africa is estimated at 1 billion.
As a historical matter, a people’s active participation in their own demise is not unique to just Africans. Though in a somewhat different context, native peoples of the Americas did the same thing.
At the landing of Columbus, the population estimates for the Western Hemisphere are..
6 million in the Caribbean. 10 million in the United States and Canada. 40 million in Mexico and Central America. 44 million in South America.
The White propaganda says that Hernando Cortes, with a small force of about 550 men, conquered the Aztecs and enslaved all of Mexico and Central America. As a matter of simple logic, judging from the numbers above, does that seem possible to you?
The truth is that the Aztecs horribly abused their subjugated brethren. When Hernando Cortes showed up, these subjugated people saw him as a savior, and they rallied to him. Later of course, he one by one, turned on them, and re-subjugated those that survived, in an even more terrible way.
This exact same scenario was played out in South America with Francisco Pizarro and the Inca Indians, who were doing the same things to their brethren.
If it’s any comfort to you, Africans came out of it much better off than the American Indians. In the Americas, 9 out of every 10 persons died from War, enslavement, or disease. Such that today, the overwhelming majority of the total American population, is from somewhere else.
A note on the statistics used in my posts. They are White people statistics, which tend to be skewed toward a given agenda. The only known source that can be trusted is the Schomburg center in New York. As you can see from the totals below, some things just don’t add up, irrespective of migration.
Distribution of slaves (1450-1900) brought to the New world.
Destination Percentage
Brazil 35.4% Spanish Empire 22.1% British West Indies 17.7% French West Indies 14.1% British North America and future United States 4.4% Dutch West Indies 4.4% Danish West Indies 0.2%
Current Country Population Rank in Black people.
Brazil 85,783,143 United States 38,499,304 Colombia 9,452,872 Haiti 8,701,439 Dominican Republic 7,985,991 France 5,000,000 Jamaica 2,731,419 Venezuela 2,641,481 - 6,999,926 United Kingdom 2,015,400 Cuba 1,126,894 Trinidad and Tobago 1,047,366 Canada 783,795
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
xyyman - I don't know where you are getting your numbers from, but populations tend to increase by 50% every 100 years - sometimes more. As an example, the population of China, more than doubled between 1750 and 1950.
Assuming that the 50 million over 400 years figure is correct: that is 12.5 million people taken into slavery every 100 years. If the population tread is stable at 50% every 100 years; that is a net population INCREASE of 37.5 million people per 100 years.
West Africa was not the only part from which slaves were taken. Note the map below (lifted from Myra Wysingers site - hope you don't mind Myra).
Amazing what you have collected. Nothing new though. Perhaps to find an answer to my question 'where racism came from' we have to look at the old stuff differently. As we must as we reject white supremacy. If we reject white supremacy, we should reject it in all its guises.
But I have noticed that you only selectively respond to questions. You respond in a grand way, but I still see that some stuff curiously remains unaddressed. Now how can you and I have a decent and respectful, Pan-African conversation if you do not acknowledge the things I bring into the equation or my responses to your postings?
In this thread you saw fit to answer nonsense postings, but to ignore mine. In general I feel some people on this forum should decide if they want to be scientists or clowns.
WHY THE BLACK MAN ON THE COVER OF LEVIATHAN BY HOBBES? HE LOOKS LIKE OLIVER CROMWELL!
quote: Hobbes books (at Oxford University).
In 1683 several books by Thomas Hobbes and other authors were burnt in Oxford University. Anti-Wilhelm Tell tract (at Canton of Uri) The 1760 tract by Simeon Uriel Freudenberger from Luzern, arguing that Wilhelm Tell was a myth and the acts attributed to him had not happened in reality, was publicly burnt in Altdorf, capital of the Swiss canton of Uri — where, according to the legend, William Tell shot the apple from his son's head.
quote:Originally posted by Egmond Codfried: I HAVE NOTICED THAT NO ONE OF THESE MOLECULAR BIOLOGY PERSONS ON ES TRIES TO MERGE AND APPROACH RACE AS A BIOLOGICAL AS WELL AS A SOCIAL CONCEPT. WHY IS THAT?
quote: The Invention of the Color Line: 1691 Essays on the Color Line and the One-Drop Rule by Frank W Sweet January 1, 2005
In 1653 Virginia, one of Anthony Johnson’s involuntary African laborers, a man named John Casor, claimed his freedom because his term of indenture had allegedly expired seven years before. He fled his master’s plantation and took refuge with a nearby farmer, Captain Gouldsmith. Johnson insisted that his runaway laborer was not indentured, but was a lifelong slave and demanded the African’s return. Not wanting to become embroiled in a legal fight with a powerful plantation owner, Gouldsmith turned the worker over to another wealthy planter, Robert Parker. Parker took the worker’s side in the dispute, kept him on his own plantation’s workforce, and argued on his behalf in court. The case dragged on for two years, with Johnson at one point agreeing to manumit Casor, but then reneging on the settlement. On March 8, 1655, the Northampton County Court ruled that Casor had been a slave all along, ordered that the worker be returned immediately to Anthony Johnson, and ordered Robert Parker to pay damages for sheltering the runaway for two years, as well as court costs. A few years later, Parker abandoned his career as a Virginia planter and returned to England. Twenty years later, Casor was still owned by Mary Johnson—Anthony Johnson’s widow. What is important about this tale is that Anthony Johnson was also African. His plantation, from whence Casor fled, was named “Angola,” and it exploited European forced laborers as well as Africans.1
* * * * *
This essay explains, in three topics, when, where, and how America’s endogamous color line was invented. The Years Before the Color Line was Invented describes colonial life before the turn of the eighteenth century. It shows that colonists of African and European ancestries mingled and married within each of the three rigid social classes: forced laborers, shopkeepers/artisans, and planters. The Transition Period narrates events in and around the Chesapeake leading up to the 1691 law, the first in history to outlaw Afro-European intermarriage. The Spread of the New Color Line describes the aftermath as punishments for violating the 1691 law became increasingly harsher, and similar laws were passed in subsequent generations throughout British North America.
The Years Before the Color Line was Invented African-American colonists arrived in Virginia in August of 1619. Most came as indentured servants (or slaves; the two labor systems had not yet diverged). They were under no initial implication of “racial” inferiority. The endogamous color line had not yet been invented. They soon permeated all three socio-economic classes. “They accumulated land, voted, testified in court, and mingled with whites on a basis of equality.”2 Some remained slaves (or indentured servants). Forced laborers both Afro- and Euro-American, ran away together, attempted servile insurrections together, and jointly complained about both the greed of the bourgeois and the cruelty of the aristocracy.3
quote:Originally posted by Egmond Codfried: Dear Mike111,
Amazing what you have collected. Nothing new though. Perhaps to find an answer to my question 'where racism came from' we have to look at the old stuff differently. As we must as we reject white supremacy. If we reject white supremacy, we should reject it in all its guises.
But I have noticed that you only selectively respond to questions. You respond in a grand way, but I still see that some stuff curiously remains unaddressed. Now how can you and I have a decent and respectful, Pan-African conversation if you do not acknowledge the things I bring into the equation or my responses to your postings?
In this thread you saw fit to answer nonsense postings, but to ignore mine. In general I feel some people on this forum should decide if they want to be scientists or clowns.
Egmond - You are absolutely right, all that I have posted in the entire thread is OLD NEWS, nothing new at all. But how many reading it, had no clue? My hope was to demonstrate that every question has an answer, sometimes, more than one answer. Sometimes it may not be an answer that we like, but there is an answer, and we should not be afraid to look for it.
BTW - would you mind telling me what questions of yours that I dodged.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some other things that might be looked at differently
11th & 12th century: Several Sudannic kings convert to Islam. Commerce in the Sudan gradually comes to be dominated by Muslims, both of local and north African origin.
13th century: Rise of Mali under the great Mande hero, Sundiata Keita. Ghana incorporated into the new great power. From its new capital at Niane on the Niger, Mali develops trade with the developing gold fields of the Akan in modern-day Ghana.
14th century: Empire of Mali dominates the Western half of West Africa, controlling the gold and salt trade; promoting Islam; and providing peace and prosperity to its region. Mansa Musa, the best known ruler of Mali, made the pilgrimage to Mecca.
Mansa Kankan Musa was the tenth mansa or emperor of the Mali Empire during its height in the 14th century. He ruled as mansa from 1312 to 1337. Musa is most noted for his 1324 hajj to Mecca and his role as a benefactor of Islamic scholarship. (Religious scholarship NOT technological scholarship)
In the 14th year of his reign (1324), he set out on his famous pilgrimage to Mecca. It was this pilgrimage that awakened the world to the stupendous wealth of Mali. Traveling from his capital of Niani on the Upper Niger River to Walata (Oualâta, Mauritania) and on to Tuat (now in Algeria) before making his way to Cairo, Mansa Musa was accompanied by a caravan consisting of 60,000 men including a personal retinue of 12,000 slaves, all of whom were clad in brocade and Persian silk. He also brought with him 80 to 100 camels loaded with 300 pounds of gold each. The emperor rode on horseback and was directly preceded by 500 slaves, each of whom carried a four-pound staff of solid gold.
Musa's lavish clothing and the exemplary behavior of his followers created a favorable impression among the peoples his caravans encountered. The Cairo that Mansa Musa visited was ruled over by one of the most powerful of the Mamluk sultans, Al-Malik an-Nasir. The emperor's noted civility not withstanding, the meeting between the two rulers might have ended in a serious diplomatic incident, for so absorbed was Mansa Musa in his religious observances that he was only with difficulty persuaded to pay a formal visit to the sultan.
Accounts of how many people and how much gold he spent vary. All of them agree it was a very large group (the mansa kept a personal guard of some 500 men), and he gave out so many alms and bought so many things that gold’s value in Egypt and the near east depreciated for twelve years. When he passed through Cairo, historian al-Maqurizi noted "the members of his entourage proceeded to buy Turkish and Ethiopian slave girls, singing girls and garments, so that the rate of the gold dinar fell by six dirhams."
Musa was so generous that he ran out of money and had to take out a loan to be able to afford the journey home. Musa's hajj, and especially his gold, caught the attention of both the Islamic and Christian worlds. Consequently, the name of Mali and Timbuktu appeared on 14th century world maps.
While on the hajj, he met the Andalusian poet and architect Es-Saheli. Mansa Musa brought the architect back to Mali to beautify some of the cities. Mosques were built in Gao and Timbuktu along with impressive palaces also built in Timbuktu. By the time of his death in 1337, Mali had control over Taghazza, a salt producing area in the north, which further strengthened its treasury.
The historian al-'Umari, who visited Cairo 12 years after the emperor's visit, found that the inhabitants of this city - with a population that approached one million residents - still spoke in reverential tones about Mansa Musa. So lavish was the emperor in his spending that he flooded the Cairo market with gold, thereby causing such a decline in its value that, over a decade later, the value of specie had still not fully recovered.
Musa embarked on a large building program, raising mosques and madrassas in Timbuktu and Gao. In Niani, he built the Hall of Audience, a building communicated by an interior door to the royal palace. It was "an admirable Monument" surmounted by a dome, adorned with arabesques of striking colours. The windows of an upper floor were plated with wood and framed in silver foil, those of a lower floor were plated with wood, framed in gold. Like the Great Mosque, a contemporaneous and grandiose stucture in Timbuktu, the Hall was built of cut stone.
During this period, there was an advanced level of urban living in the major centers of the Mali Empire, especially in comparison with the relative backwardness of much of Europe. Sergio Domian, an Italian art and architecture scholar, wrote the following about this period: "Thus was laid the foundation of an urban civilization. At the height of its power, Mali had at least 400 cities, and the interior of the Niger Delta was very densely populated."
The North African traveler and scholar Ibn Battuta visited the area in 1352 AD and, according to a 1929 English translation, said this about its inhabitants: "The negroes possess some admirable qualities. They are seldom unjust, and have a greater abhorrence of injustice than any other people. There is complete security in their country. Neither traveler nor inhabitant in it has anything to fear from robbers or men of violence.”
(All that to be called “THE NEGROES”) by Turks aka Arabs.
1591: Moroccan troops armed with guns cross the desert and defeat the army of Songhai, which break apart within a short time afterwards.
(THE FIRST GUN HAD BEEN INVENTED BY AN EGYPTIAN 350 YEARS EARLIER.)
Mansa Mahmud IV (also known as Mansa Mamadou III, Mali Mansa Mamadou and Niani Mansa Mamadou) was the last emperor of Manden according to the Tarikh al-Sudan. It states that he launched an attack on the city of Djenné in 1599 with Fulani allies hoping to take advantage of Songhai’s defeat. Moroccan fusiliers, deployed from Timbuktu, met them in battle exposing Mali to the same technology (firearms) that had destroyed Songhai. Despite heavy losses, the mansa’s army was not deterred and nearly carried the day. However, the army inside Djenné intervened forcing Mansa Mahmud IV and his army to retreat to Kangaba. (comment: wonder if Mali could use some of that money now. Might have also been useful to have build some schools to teach how to make their own buildings and GUNS!).
So in retrospect, was Mansa Musa, a great king and pious Muslim? or Just a showoff - Dumb Nigger.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
The colonization of Africa coincided with the expansion of Christian missionary activity in Africa. Parts of Africa, such as Ethiopia and Egypt, were home to Christians right from the beginning of Christianity as a region. However, Christianity was introduced to the rest of Africa only in the modern era. Christian missionary activity began in earnest in the 19th century during the same period of time that European countries were becoming more engaged in Africa. Historians do not all agree on what the relationship was between Christian missionary activity and colonialism. However, evidence suggests that while many missionaries opposed the harsher aspects of colonialism, they were supportive of the colonization of African countries. Missionaries who supported colonialism believed that European control would provide a political environment that would facilitate missionary activity in Africa. This support for colonialism played an important role in legitimizing the colonial endeavor among the citizens of the colonizing powers in Europe.
European nations were able to make certain areas of Africa into their colonies in two main ways. Some African leaders were willing to sign treaties with Europeans for various reasons. In some cases, they saw it to their benefit to gain European allies. In other cases, there was not a clear understanding of what the treaties were about or what the consequences of them would be. Secondly, military force was used in some cases when there was a large amount of resistance to colonial rule.
In the last quarter of the 19th century the map of Africa was transformed. Lines of partition, drawn often through trackless African countryside, marked out the "possessions" of Germany, France, Britain and the other Great Powers. Railways penetrated the interior, vast areas were "opened up" to European conquest. The causes which led to the partition of Africa can be found in the economic and political state of western Europe at the time. Germany, recently united under Prussian rule as the result of the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, was seeking new outlets for her energies, new markets for her growing industries, and with the markets, colonies.
Germany was the last country to enter into the race to acquire colonies, and when Bismarck—the German Chancellor —acted, Africa was the only field left to exploit. South America was widely considered the fiefdom of the United States based on the Monroe Doctrine, while Britain, France, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain had already divided much of Asia and the rest of the world between themselves.
Part of the reason Germany began to expand into the colonial sphere at this time, despite Bismarck's lack of enthusiasm for the idea, was a shift in the world view of the Prussian governing elite. Indeed, European elites as a whole began to view the world as a finite place, one in which only the strong would predominate.
The influence of social Darwinism was deep, encouraging a view of the world as essentially characterized by zero-sum relationships. For different reasons the war of 1870 was also the starting-point for France in the building up of a new colonial empire. In her endeavour to regain the position lost in that war France had to look beyond Europe. To the two causes mentioned must be added others. Britain and Portugal, when they found their interests threatened, bestirred themselves, while Italy also conceived it necessary to become an African power.
Treaty making and territory claiming by European nations caused a competitive rush for territory in Africa. This period is sometimes referred to as the "Scramble for Africa." As a result, Chancellor Otto von Bismarck of Germany initiated a conference in 1884 for European nations to regulate the rush for territory. The conference served several main purposes. First, European nations were interested in being assured access to various important trade routes, particularly along the Niger and Congo river basins. Secondly, there was a concern to suppress the internal slave trade that was still going on in some parts of Africa. Thirdly, a ban was put on importing firearms into Africa, which resulted in Europeans having a monopoly on guns in Africa. And finally, occupation of territories in Africa was discussed. The result of this conference was a treaty called the Treaty of Berlin. By 1900, almost 90% of Africa was under European control.
It was not, however, the action of any of the great powers of Europe which precipitated the struggle. This was brought about by the projects of Léopold II, king of the Belgians. The discoveries of Livingstone, Stanley and others had aroused especial interest among two classes of men in western Europe, one the manufacturing and trading class, which saw in Central Africa possibilities of commercial exploitation, the other the philanthropic and missionary class, which beheld in the newly discovered lands millions of "savages" to Christianize and "civilize". The possibility of utilizing both these classes in the creation of a vast private estate, of which he should be the head, formed itself in the mind of Léopold II even before Stanley had navigated the Congo. The king's action proved successful; but no sooner was the nature of his project understood in Europe than it provoked the rivalry of France and Germany, and thus the international struggle was begun.
The early 20th century All of the continent was claimed by European powers, except for Ethiopia ("Abyssinia") and Liberia. The European powers set up a variety of different administrations in Africa at this time, with different ambitions and degrees of power. In some areas, parts of British West Africa for example, colonial control was tenuous and intended for simple economic extraction, strategic power, or as part of a long term development plan.
In other areas Europeans were encouraged to settle, creating settler states in which a European minority came to dominate society. Settlers only came to a few colonies in sufficient numbers to have a strong impact. British settler colonies included British East Africa, now Kenya, Northern and Southern Rhodesia, later Zambia and Zimbabwe, and South Africa, which already had a significant population of European settlers, the Boers. In the Second Boer War, between the British Empire and the two Boer republics of the Orange Free State and the South African Republic (Transvaal Republic), the Boers unsuccessfully resisted absorption in to the British Empire.
France planned to settle Algeria and eventually incorporate it into the French state as an equal to the European provinces. Its proximity across the Mediterranean allowed plans of this scale.
In most areas colonial administrations did not have the manpower or resources to fully administer the territory and had to rely on local power structures to help them. Various factions and groups within the societies exploited this European requirement for their own purposes, attempting to gain a position of power within their own communities by cooperating with Europeans. One aspect of this struggle included what Terence Ranger has termed the "invention of tradition." In order to legitimize their own claims to power in the eyes of both the colonial administrators, and their own people, people would essentially manufacture "traditional" claims to power, or ceremonies. As a result many societies were thrown into disarray by the new order.
During World War I the British and German Empires battled on several occasions, the most notable being the Battle of Tanga, and a sustained guerrilla campaign by the German General Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck.
After World War I the formerly German colonies in Africa were taken over by France and the United Kingdom.
During this era a sense of local patriotism or nationalism took deeper root among African intellectuals and politicians. Some of the inspiration for this movement came from the First World War in which European countries had relied on colonial troops for their own defense. Many in Africa realized their own strength with regard to the colonizer for the first time. At the same time, some of the mystique of the "invincible" European was shattered by the barbarities of the war. However, in most areas European control remained relatively strong during this period. Italy, under the government of Benito Mussolini, invaded Ethiopia, the last independent African nation, in 1935 and occupied the country until 1941.
BTW - I have been unable to find evidence of ANY African Nation capable of manufacturing its own Weapons - South Africa doesn't count, there it is done by Whites.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: The baskets of severed hands, set down at the feet of the European post commanders, became the symbol of the Congo Free State. ... The collection of hands became an end in itself. Force Publique soldiers brought them to the stations in place of rubber; they even went out to harvest them instead of rubber... They became a sort of currency. They came to be used to make up for shortfalls in rubber quotas, to replace... the people who were demanded for the forced labour gangs; and the Force Publique soldiers were paid their bonuses on the basis of how many hands they collected.
Good going, but I need to read and take in the rest you wrote.
I believe you and I can solve the riddle of racism towards Blacks but first we have to forsake white supremacy in all its forms, and just reject all their lies they put in books. Also not to follow the paths they have laid out for us. Blacks existed long before Whites, yet somehow Whites have discovered Blacks! In my other pieces I state that the discrimination of the Jews can be pinpointed in time and place, as well as other conflicts: Why not the conflict with the Blacks?
The question was about the book by Hobbes, and why there is a Black man on the cover, and if he, in your view, looks like Cromwell. How can you have missed it?
The next quote was more or less also said by the Djimoun Honsou character in Blood Diamond: That there might be something wrong with Blacks for them to having endure all these horrors. As if they deserve it.
This is plainly blaming the victim and leaving the heavy free from blame. Since slavery we saw Belgians cutting hands off Congo Blacks, the Holocaust, Dutch massacring Indonesians just after the German occupied them for 5 years, America bombing Japan with a A-bomb, bombing Vietnam, Iraq and now Afghanistan. One might think that these White's have something else to worry about, perhaps there own genocidal thirst, then those wretched Blacks, hundreds of years ago!
A new question: What is the thread with the Laulan beauty? You mentioned the Dravidians who were driven south by the Aryans, but they still survive today. Might the European Blacks have also survived until our times?
quote: The “unlike you” part was easy and obvious, they are Black, you are White. The “unlike what you would do” part was easy too - though untrue. But still, the question - what kind of people would sell their own kind, into such misery and death, out of simple greed, is a legitimate one. But of course, Whites only interest in this line of thought, was in finding cover for their own atrocities, and in so doing, avoid damnation. And so, “voila” you have institutional Racism. BTW – the beautiful Christian hymn “Amazing Grace” was written by an English Slave Ship Captain, for whom that convenient rationale, no longer worked.
posted
Egmond - I really have no knowledge or interest in modern era Europeans, so I could not make a judgment about Cromwell. But you said something curious; "Quote - In my other pieces I state that the discrimination of the Jews can be pinpointed in time and place" I must have missed that post, what did you mean by that, and who were you talking about, Hebrews or Khazars?
The taking of hands, is an old Black custom, so as to document war dead. Mutilation is also an old Black custom. Atrocities have been, and probably will continue to be committed by all races. If you are Black, Whites are the bad guys. If you are White, Blacks are the bad guys. What Blacks haven't figured out, is that it is best to control your own fate - as best you can. That means protecting yourself, instead of depending on the good graces of others.
And in that regard, I do find a strange and peculiar tendency among American Blacks that I do not understand. As I am sure you know, Americas Jails and Prisons are bursting at the seams with Black males. In popular Black American culture, the convict is looked upon as something of a cult hero; ostensibly as one who resists the “Man”. Many phrases in the popular vernacular are from prison slang. The popular style of wearing the pants drooping off the buttocks is derived from the look of prison inmates, who upon initial intake are issued ill-fitting pants, and since they are not allowed belts, the pants droop.
To my point; how does one who gives himself up, completely and totally to the “Man” be perceived as to somehow be resisting the “Man”. In reality, when you are in prison, you eat when the Man says eat. You sleep when the Man says sleep. The man says that you must live in a cage with bars, like a mindless animal, and so you must. I won’t even mention the other stuff that goes on in prisons. But yet somehow, the Black mind can construe this as preferable, perhaps even desirable to washing dishes, moping floors, and the other menial labor that is available – I don’t get it. Personally, I would consider moping floors and washing dishes much preferable to letting the Man get control of me.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
ABOVE THREAD MENTIONS HOW THE FIGHT WITH THE JEWS CAN BE PINPOINTED IN TIME AND PLACE; HOW THE EUROPEANS/CHRISTIANS CAME TO HATE JEWS. EUROPEAN JEWS(1500-1945). SO WHY CAN'T THE CAUSES OF RACISM AGAINST BLACKS NOT BE PINPOINTED.
My research is based on the idea that one does not have to be a goddamn professor to identify a Black person. I show a personal description which says this person was ''swarthy' or 'very dark' and provide a image. I show the same person as Black and White so any person can understand what I'm pointing out.
Your approach is very much on blaming the victim. I have posted a thread THE ENEMY OF THE NEGRO IS THE NEGRO HIMSELF, so I'm not looking past things Blacks are doing to each other. But locking up al these young Black men in the US is clearly a racist strategy.
Here in Holland this happens with Blacks and Moroccans. If you reject white supremacy, you reject the stigma's they put on Blacks. My ancestors used to mock their masters while their bones where smashed and burned alive (by the masters)!
Posts: 5454 | From: Holland | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Egmond - I really have no knowledge or interest in modern era Europeans, so I could not make a judgment about Cromwell.
You seem NOT to be willing to learn about this period? This kind of slavery started in 1440 and lasted well into the 19th century. So your statement does not make much sense and invalidates anything you say about slavery.
Posts: 5454 | From: Holland | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Egmond - are you reading your posts back to yourself, before posting? You might try that, somehow you pickup on things that you missed the first time around.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
[/QB]
[/QB][/QUOTE]
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic