posted
The Force Publique (FP), French for "Public Force", was both a gendarmerie and a military force in what is now the Democratic Republic of the Congo from 1885, (when the territory was known as the Congo Free State), through the period of direct Belgian colonial rule (1908 to 1960). Immediately following independence, the FP was retitled as the Congolese National Army or ANC.
Having made use of African mercenaries ever since sending Stanley to stake out his claim between 1879 and 1884, Leopold formally organised them into his state army, the Force Publique, in 1888. Over the next dozen years it grew to more than 19,000 officers and men, the largest army in Africa. In 1901, out of the 12,786 soldiers, commanded by some 350 European officers, nearly 12,500 were foreigners, mainly mercenaries from Zanzibar and the British West African colonies. After this date most recruits were drawn from the Upper Congo district; they included children taken from missionary camps, former slaves and conscripts exacted as tax from local communities. Many others were forcibly conscripted during armed raids on villages, which often targeted children who were then sent to special ‘camps of military instruction'. Even those who volunteered usually did so because, as one soldier explained to a European visitor, he preferred ‘to be with the hunters rather than with the hunted'.
Europeans at Stanleyville (c. 1902)
Force Publique soldiers, Boma (c. 1900)
Congolese slaves on a Belgian rubber plantation
The chicotte in use (c. 1900)
Arthur Conan Doyle in The Crime of the Congo:
Page 44. " A nigger was being beaten near by "
Corporal punishment in the Congo Free State was administered with the chicotte, a whip made of sun-dried hippopotamus hide. Usually the chicotte was applied to the bare buttocks of victims (including women and children), leaving permanent scars.
In ‘Le Congo Français’ (1909), Félicien Challaye records an account given by a Belgian officer of the techniques employed in a typical chicotte lashing:
One can hardly believe how difficult it is to administer the chicotte properly. One should spread out the blows so that each shall give a fresh pang. Then we have a law which forbids us to give more than twenty-five blows in one day, and to stop when the blood flows. One should, therefore, give twenty-four of the blows vigorously, but without risking to stop; then at the twenty-fifth, with a dexterous twist, one should make the blood spurt.
posted
^Lioness, in this context what does "Moorish" mean???
It is a term used by some asshole Black history falsifying Albino just like you. Those troops could have been from continental Europe, Britain, the Levant or Africa.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Those troops could have been from continental Europe, Britain, the Levant or Africa.
Could have been,you wished they should have been.. but they were not!they were African allies of Rome. Hannibal made use of European allies to fight the Romans,Kemites used other levantines to attack other Levantines,Kush allied themselves with Hebrews against Assyrians,Queen Nizinga of the Angolans used the Dutch to fight the Portuguese,then turrned on them..for lack of a better term it's called divide and conquer,and yes 18th/19th and 21st.cent Euros became adept at it.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mike African didnt deserved to be kidnaped, enslaved, invaded, terrorised, colonised and mutilated by Barbarian European (black or white).African were a peaceful people who civilized the world(Egyptian, Phoenician, Carthage,Moors).After they civilized a country they left to let the people ruled themselve.South Saharan African were peacefuly minding their business in their paradise country when the European devil appeared like a shark from the sea.Since the European appearance Africa begin to declined and disfunction.The Euro never left Africa their negro agent are still there.
Ancient Kingdom worldwide were governed by their elite.Only the elite knew how to read and write.Because of that you cant blame a population for their country condition.I blame the African monarchs, nobles and priests for not uniting and dealing smartly and more powerfuly with European slave trading,Imperialist and colonialist power.African Kings in the slave trade era should have developed a gun and cannon industry and build a fleet of gun boat and send it to Europe to terrorised the European.The black and brown barbary pirate ships of North Africa terrorised the European coast for years.
quote:Mike African didnt deserved to be kidnaped, enslaved, invaded, terrorised, colonised and mutilated by Barbarian European (black or white).African were a peaceful people who civilized the world(Egyptian, Phoenician, Carthage,Moors).After they civilized a country they left to let the people ruled themselve.South Saharan African were peacefuly minding their business in their paradise country when the European devil appeared like a shark from the sea.Since the European appearance Africa begin to declined and disfunction.The Euro never left Africa their negro agent are still there.
Ancient Kingdom worldwide were governed by their elite.Only the elite knew how to read and write.Because of that you cant blame a population for their country condition.I blame the African monarchs, nobles and priests for not uniting and dealing smartly and more powerfuly with European slave trading,Imperialist and colonialist power.
African Kings in the slave trade era should have developed a gun and cannon industry and build a fleet of gun boat and send it to Europe to terrorised the European.The black and brown barbary pirate ships of North Africa terrorised the European coast for years.
Africans fought brutal wars against each-other building an Empire is not blood free,one of the reasons slaves were plentiful for export was because of Empire building in the forest zones amongst evenly armed competing groups,we currently have a thread that have Blackmen from Africa going to Europe to fight Europeans for their lands,it was not a peaceful endeavour and they stayed in Europe for 700yrs,Mike often showed Harem scenes with Black men and white concubines..that was very real.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^Lioness, in this context what does "Moorish" mean???
It is a term used by some asshole Black history falsifying Albino just like you. Those troops could have been from continental Europe, Britain, the Levant or Africa.
I think it would have been better to titles this Numidians rather than "Moors".
My comments on the loose usage by Europeans of the term "Moor" is in the vikings and celts the thread, page 7
Posts: 43022 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Those troops could have been from continental Europe, Britain, the Levant or Africa.
Could have been,you wished they should have been.. but they were not!they were African allies of Rome.
Originally a Berber prince, Lusius Quietus was the son of a tribal lord from unconquered Mauretania (modern-day Morocco).
Lusius Quietus was a Roman general and governor of Iudaea in 117.
When a new emperor, Trajan, came to power. Quietus was brought back into army and served as one of the emperor's auxiliary cavalry commanders during the Dacian wars.
The bio goes on to say: (his bareheaded Berber cavalry can be seen on Trajan's column in Rome).
AS IS TYPICAL FOR ALBINO HISTORY AND LOGIC, THEY JUST THROW SH!T TOGETHER!
Please note that Lusius was GIVEN a command, he did NOT bring his OWN, which MIGHT have been Berber.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^Lioness, in this context what does "Moorish" mean???
It is a term used by some asshole Black history falsifying Albino just like you. Those troops could have been from continental Europe, Britain, the Levant or Africa.
As a scholar of black european history, what in your opinion is being referred to in medieval Western European texts when the term "Moor" is used?
Posts: 43022 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
If one side has guns and the other doesn't and if you're on the side that doesn't you don't have a lot of options.
In history there are very often some people who are being defeated who join the enemy so they don't die. On the one hand they are sell outs. On the other hand they show that they have value to the enemy and the enemy might realize they not worthless and not deserving to be wiped out. I'm not saying it's good and some people might prefer death but it's easy to say when you would do when there is a gun pointed to your head when it's just hypothetical but not really happening
Posts: 43022 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Actually this thread speaks more to those who talk of African Empires, Kings, and such. Obviously nothing has changed - think Mali today: those titles referred to bush niggers looking to make some money, not to true leaders.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: I dunno, but the thought keeps coming back to me that Africans kinda got what they deserved.
Mike, blacks did assist in their own demise, but be fair and look across the board at every other culture that supported slavery and you won't see any difference. Look at China and it's slave market. They were Chinese enslaving Chinese. In Germany with white slavery it was the same. Countries are often beat down from internal forces versus external. That's just human nature.
Posts: 4693 | From: Saturn | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged |
The kingdom was founded by Mahapadma Nanda. The Nandas are universally described as being of low origin, {code for Sudras}.
The northwestern part of India, suffered a campaign by Alexander the Great in 327 B.C, he was pursuing his campaign to conquer the extremities of the defeated Persian Achaemenian Empire. Having entered Gandhara, he campaigned successfully across the Punjab as far as the Beas River. Here his troops refused to continue fighting, because they had encountered the army of the Nandas. Some historians suggest that Alexander's Greek soldiers, may have mutinied out of fear of this army.
According to Plutarch, the size of the Nanda army was numbering 200,000 infantry, 80,000 cavalry, 8,000 war chariots, and 6,000 war elephants.
Mahapadma Nanda, who has been described as "the destroyer of all the Kshatriyas", defeated the Panchalas, Kasis, Haihayas, Kalingas, Asmakas, Kurus, Maithilas, Surasenas and the Vitihotras; to name a few .[citation needed]. He expanded his territory south of the Deccan plains. Mahapadma Nanda, who died at the age of 88, was the ruler of the Nanda dynasty for all but 12 of the dynasty's 100 years. The Nandas who usurped the throne of the Shishunaga dynasty were thought to be of low origin with some sources stating that the dynasty's founder, Mahapadma, was the son of a Shudra.
The Kshatriya (Warrior Class)
In Hindu India, the second-highest of the four varnas, or social classes, traditionally the military or ruling class. In ancient times before the caste system was completely defined, they were considered first in rank, placed higher than the Brahmans, or priestly class. The legend that they were degraded by an incarnation of Vishnu as a punishment for their tyranny may reflect a historical struggle for supremacy between priests and rulers. In modern times the Kshatriya varna includes members from a variety of castes, united by their status in government or the military or their land ownership.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^That's not my point MK, Blacks have been enslaving Blacks since recorded history began.
This is about Africans ONLY:
What they did;
What they didn't do;
And the differences with Blacks outside of Africa.
My point is, there is no difference between Africans who fought and enslaved their own for whites and Indians or Haitians that did the same.
the most effective weapon against a nation has always been the greed and susceptibility to bribes of it's high ranking citizens and officers.
Posts: 4693 | From: Saturn | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Nanda Dynasty was overthrown in 322 B.C. by Chandragupta Mauryaby who founded The Maurya Empire, and rapidly expanded his power westwards across central and western India taking advantage of the disruptions of local powers in the wake of the withdrawal westward by Alexander the Great's Greek and Persian armies. By 320 B.C. the empire had fully occupied Northwestern India, defeating and conquering the satraps left by Alexander.
Maurya Empire.
Chandragupta Maurya, (born c. 340 BCE, ruled c. 320 BCE, – 298 BCE) was the founder of the Maurya Empire. He succeeded in conquering almost all of the Indian subcontinent and is considered the first unifier of India as well as its first genuine emperor.
Samudragupta, ruler of the Gupta Empire (c. 335 – c. 375 CE), and successor to Chandragupta I, is considered to be one of the greatest military geniuses in Indian history according to Historian V. A. Smith. He was called the Napoleon of India because he wanted to conquer more and more. The Allahabad inscriptions or the Prayag Prashashti composed by his court poet. He was the second ruler of the Gupta Dynasty, who ushered in the Golden Age of India. He was perhaps the greatest king of Gupta dynasty. He was a benevolent ruler, a great warrior and a patron of arts.
And the differences with Blacks outside of Africa.
As far as I know Africans held their ground for most of their history,minus Roman North Africa,they did this right up to the invention of the repeating rifes,and gatlin guns,when they ran out fighting men and the fathers got defeated the sons turn to the pen and litigate,if that didn't work they took to the field actual physical occupation of African lands under direct rule lasted about 70 yrs,look at how long it took your precious Euros to set themselves free 700yrs yes most of Africa today is not some utopian paradise but the work is not yet complete but despite set back I see signs for hope..btw Nigeria is on tract to surpass South Africa as the continent largest economy by 2020.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Just making the point that Blacks elsewhere had no trouble organizing large Empires and kicking foreigners out.
And then came the Portugese then the English..now what!!
And Kush kick the hell out of the Romans under Augustus and Cambyses soldiers still litter ground in Sudan after cannibalizing each other,Axumites put Persians in check,and colonized Arabia. And yes even poor broke pathic Mali today,kept outsiders at bay a 1000yrs back..
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Say what you want, but the fact is that the Blacks of India created huge Empires with DISPARATE people. They had armies of over a quarter million men, yet old India (with Pakistan and Bangladesh) was only 1/8 the size of Africa.
Meanwhile, the largest army in Africa was a FOREIGN army: of only 19,000.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
we have to understand Mike has no roots in Africa He is part of the indigenous lineage of Europe
Posts: 43022 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Get lost Lioness, this is a conversation for Black people.
Anybody see the movie "Out of Africa"?
There is a scene in the movie where the Albinos want the natives to do something, but the natives won't do it.
One of the lead characters asks the chief why he doesn't just make his people do it.
The chief answers that when a chief makes his people do things that they don't want to do, then pretty soon he is not the chief anymore.
That exchange always stuck with me as emblematic of the African character. I think that is why there were no truly great empires in Africa. No one could get that many Africans to agree to one way. And no one could be bothered to do all the conquering and killing necessary to create an empire.
Keeping in mind that empire encompasses many peoples. What passed for African empire involved only the same people as the leadership.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
The Siddi population is currently estimated to be 20,000–55,000,
The first Siddis are thought to have arrived in India in 628 AD at the Bharuch port. Several others followed with the first Arab Islamic invasions of the subcontinent in 712 AD.The latter group are believed to have been soldiers with Muhammad bin Qasim's Arab army, and were called Zanjis.
Most Siddis, however, are believed to be the descendants of slaves, sailors, servants and merchants from East Africa who arrived and became resident in the subcontinent during the 1200-1900 AD period.A large influx of Siddis to the region occurred in the 17th century when Portuguese slave traders sold a number of them to local princes.
In Western India (the modern Indian states of Gujarat and Maharashtra), the Siddi gained a reputation for physical strength and loyalty, and were sought out as mercenaries by local rulers, and as domestic servants and farm labor.[citation needed] Some Siddis escaped slavery to establish communities in forested areas, and some even established small Siddi principalities on Janjira Island and at Jaffrabad as early as the twelfth century. A former alternative name of Janjira was Habshan (i.e., land of the Habshis). In the Delhi Sultanate period prior to the rise of the Mughals in India, Jamal-ud-Din Yaqut was a prominent Siddi slave-turned-nobleman who was a close confidant of Razia Sultana (1205–1240 CE). Although this is disputed, he may also have been her lover.
As a power centre, Siddis were sometimes allied with the Mughal Empire in its power-struggle with the Maratha Confederacy. However, Malik Ambar, a prominent Siddi figure in Indian history at large, is sometimes regarded as the "military guru of the Marathas", and was deeply allied with them.[He established the town of Khirki which later became the modern city of Aurangabad, and helped establish the Marathas as a major force in the Deccan. Later, the Marathas adapted Siddi guerrilla warfare tactics to grow their power and ultimately demolish the Mughal empire. Some accounts describe the Mughal emperor Jahangir as obsessed by Ambar due to the Mughal empire's consistent failures in crushing him and his Maratha cavalry, describing him derogatorily as "the black faced" and "the ill-starred" in the royal chronicles and even having a painting commissioned that showed Jahangir killing Ambar, a fantasy which was never realised in reality.
Most Siddis are descended from Bantu peoples from Southeast Africa that were brought by the Portuguese.While most of these migrants became Muslim and a small minority became Christian, very few became Hindu since they could not find themselves a position in the traditional Hindu caste hierarchy.
On the way to Deva-dungar is the quaint village of Sirvan, inhabited entirely by Siddis, a tribe of African people. They were brought 300 years ago from Africa, by the Portuguese for the Nawab of Junagadh. Today, they follow very few of their original customs, with a few exceptions like the traditional Dhamal dance.
Genetics Y DNA A Y-chromosome study by Shah et al. (2011) tested Siddi individuals in India for paternal lineages. The authors observed the E1b1a haplogroup, which is frequent amongst Bantu peoples, in about 42% and 34% of Siddis from Karnataka and Gujarat, respectively. Around 14% of Siddis from Karnataka and 35% of Siddis from Gujarat also belonged to the Sub-Saharan B haplogroup. The remaining 30% of Siddi had Indian or Near Eastern-associated clades, including haplogroups H, L, J and P.
mtDNA According to an mtDNA study by Shah et al. (2011), the maternal ancestry of the Siddi consists of a mixture of Sub-Saharan and Indian haplogroups, reflecting substantial female gene flow from neighboring Indian populations. About 53% of the Siddis from Gujarat and 24% of the Siddis from Karnataka belonged to various Sub-Saharan macro-haplogroup L sub-clades. The latter mainly consisted of L0 and L2a sublineages associated with Bantu women. The remainder possessed Indian-specific subclades of the Eurasian haplogroups M and N, which points to recent admixture with autochthonous Indian groups.
[edit]Autosomal DNA Narang et al. (2011) examined the autosomal DNA of Siddis in India. According to the researchers, about 58% of the Siddis' ancestry is derived from Bantu peoples. The remainder is associated with local Indo-European-speaking North and Northwest Indian populations, due to recent admixture events.
Similarly, Shah et al. (2011) observed that Siddis in Gujarat derive 66.90%-70.50% of their ancestry from Bantu forebears, while the Siddis in Karnataka possess 64.80%-74.40% such Southeast African ancestry. The remaining autosomal DNA components in the studied Siddi were mainly associated with local South Asian populations. According to the authors, gene flow between the Siddis' Bantu ancestors and local Indian populations was also largely unidirectional. They estimate this admixture episode's time of occurrence at within the past 200 years or eight generations.
First Muslims in India
According to Historians Elliot and Dowson in their book The History of India as told by its own Historians, the first ship bearing Muslim travellers was seen on the Indian coast as early as 630 AD. The first Indian mosque, Cheraman Juma Masjid, is thought to have been built in 629 A.D,
periods
Delhi Sultanate
Mughal Empire
Deccan Sultanate
Post Mughal Era
BLACK RULERSHIP IN INDIA (HABSHI)
The Habshi ruled Bengal for about 6 years within the Sultanate of Bengal
The Sultanate of Bengal was a Muslim state that existed from the 14th through the 16th centuries. It was eventually absorbed into the Mughal fold. The Sultanate was ruled by a series of dynasties with both local and foreign origins.
Sardar Singh of Jodhpur (1880-1911) (Muslim) British East India Company which was formed in London in 1600 during the rule of Queen Elizabeth I and on 1st January 1858 the British Parliament declared. Queen Victoria of England as the new Empress of India. The British then appointed their Residents as the representa tives of the crown in different princely states of India to look after their administration properly. Marwar (also called Jodhpur region) is a region of southwestern Rajasthan state in western India.
Jodhpur state was founded in the 13th century by the Rathore clan of Rajputs, who claim descent from the Gahadvala kings of Kannauj. After the sacking of Kannauj by Muhammad of Ghor in 1194, and its capture by the Delhi Sultanate in the early 13th century, the Rathores fled west. Internecine disputes and succession wars disturbed the peace of the early years of the 19th century, until in January 1818 Jodhpur was brought under British control. Jodhpur became a princely state in the Rajputana Agency of British India. Maharaja Takht Singh (1843-‘73), supported the British during the Revolt of 1857. His successor, Maharaja Jaswant Singh II (1873-‘96), was a very enlightened ruler. His brother, Sir Pertab Singh, conducted the administration until his nephew, Sardar Singh, came of age in 1898. Maharaja Sardar Singh ruled until 1911. The imperial service cavalry formed part of the reserve brigade during the Tirah campaign.
city Jodhpur in Rajasthan India Posts: 43022 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^^^ Gondi and Bonda people are Hindus unrelated to the Muslims ans Sikh above them
Posts: 43022 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Maharaja Dalip Singh, GCSI (6 September 1838, Lahore, Last Maharaja of the Sikh Empire. – 22 October 1893, Paris, France), commonly called Duleep Singh and later in life was nicknamed the Black Prince of Perthshire, was the last Maharaja of the Sikh Empire.
Posts: 43022 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^Get lost Lioness, this is a conversation for Black people.
Anybody see the movie "Out of Africa"?
There is a scene in the movie where the Albinos want the natives to do something, but the natives won't do it.
One of the lead characters asks the chief why he doesn't just make his people do it.
The chief answers that when a chief makes his people do things that they don't want to do, then pretty soon he is not the chief anymore.
That exchange always stuck with me as emblematic of the African character. I think that is why there were no truly great empires in Africa. No one could get that many Africans to agree to one way. And no one could be bothered to do all the conquering and killing necessary to create an empire.
Keeping in mind that empire encompasses many peoples. What passed for African empire involved only the same people as the leadership.
A black person wouldn't have said that. We see you
I'm casting a Vodun spell on you. On Saturday when you are asleep you will be visited by the ancestors in the dream world. You will wake up. The clock will read 4:07 AM
Posts: 43022 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
question, if a massive genocide of hundreds of thousands or millions of blacks in old Europe was discovered, what is your speculation as to how that would affect European society? For example suppose such a discovery was made today and the evidence was indisputable. Then jump ahead a few years. Would the story have come and gone and the basic structure of modern European society remain the same or do you think such a finding would cause major changes and cause people to behave differently?
Posts: 43022 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Say what you want, but the fact is that the Blacks of India created huge Empires with DISPARATE people. They had armies of over a quarter million men, yet old India (with Pakistan and Bangladesh) was only 1/8 the size of Africa. Meanwhile, the largest army in Africa was a FOREIGN army: of only 19,000.
Bullsh!t^..your approach to African history is with blinders through a white Eurocentric lens,did I mentioned Rozwi Empire exterminated the Portuguese who encroached on their lands?? something that your Indians failed to do.
I said it once I say it again you have no respect for time,space and place. Mali According to “Al Barki” wrote in 1067 Emperor could disperse of 200,000 warriors and 40,000 cavalry men at any given time The strength of the army hastily raised to fight Djuder was 12,500 cavalry and 30,000 infantry.
Battle of Hastings in the same era 60,000, 30,000 apeice for both England and France this conflict was laueded as one of the most crowded battle fields of pre-modern Europe.
Ethiopia The Battle of Shinbera Kure The Emperor of Ethiopia marched from his capital at Bokan with 16 thousand horsemen, and 200,000 foot soldiers. So in late 1526 or early 1527, the forces of the King of Kings of Ethiopia met with with army of the Imam of Harrar and the Adal, Ahmend Ibn Al Ghazi at Shinbera Kure, in Shewa.
Under Psamatik according to Herodotus 200,000 pissed off Egyptian troops defected to Ethiopia.
Zulus Shaka of the Zulus ruled a kingdom of more than 100,000 people with a standing army of 40,000 men.
Ashanti Total potential strength was some 80,000 to 200,000 making the Ashanti army bigger than the better known Zulu, comparable to Africa's largest- the legions of Ethiopia.[18] The Ashanti army was described as a fiercely organized one whose king could "bring 200,000 men into the field and whose warriors were evidently not cowed by Snider rifles and 7-pounder guns"[19] While actual forces deployed in the field were less than potential strength, tens of thousands of soldiers were usually available to serve the needs of the empire.
While I don't have the numbers for the troops strength in neighbouring states like the Yoruba and the Dahomeans,the fact was that they were evenly matched,so one could not effectively gain control over the other,resulting in massive captives for all sides ready to be transformed into Slaves.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:That exchange always stuck with me as emblematic of the African character. I think that is why there were no truly great empires in Africa. No one could get that many Africans to agree to one way. And no one could be bothered to do all the conquering and killing necessary to create an empire. Keeping in mind that empire encompasses many peoples. What passed for African empire involved only the same people as the leadership.
Again bull sh!t^ Empires by their nature are multi ethnic including African ones,read up on ancient Ghana,Mali, Songhay ,Oyo and others,Ditto for Kush,Kemet,Axum,Almoravid. And all Euro leadership are not related??..come on Mike you should know this.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you had a great ancestor hundreds of years ago it doesn't mean you will be great. Similarly if your ancestors were natives of the Amazon jungle or from Papua and for whatever reason, perhaps limiting environmental conditions they didn't have so called "high civilization" it doesn't mean that as an individual you can't excel or be a genius and doesn't mean you can't love your people however humble. And Africans have survived to this day. many other peoples have not had that success, their cultures have faded away and histories come and gone
Zulus Shaka of the Zulus ruled a kingdom of more than 100,000 people with a standing army of 40,000 men.
Okay so Shaka conscripted women and children too. That is the only way for those numbers to make sense.
Anyway, I have patiently tried to whittle away at those nonsense myths, those who still believe in them do not believe in logical analysis, in which case, there is nothing more that I can do.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: question, if a massive genocide of hundreds of thousands or millions of blacks in old Europe was discovered, what is your speculation as to how that would affect European society?
Would the story have come and gone and the basic structure of modern European society remain the same or do you think such a finding would cause major changes and cause people to behave differently?
Finally - an intelligent question!
I think that it would embolden non-Albino nations to do what they want to do anyway - only sooner: starve-out the Albino nations - resource wise. No one has forgotten anything. Currently all Albino nations have contingency programs for invading and taking control of foreign Oilfields - but oil is not the only thing that they need to import.
The U.S. in trying to get ahead of the problem, is working very hard to citizenize non-Albinos and give them some power. Will they get enough power, will the ruse work? Only time will tell.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The burning of the witche in Papua Guinea is wrong.If the woman poison a child she should have been put in prison after a trial.Burning people is barbaric.
Mike Brada Anansi is very knowledgeble in African history so you have to get your fact right.
posted
^Too many nonsense myths have been created for Africa, by people looking for something to feel proud of. Combating Albino lies and myths with black lies and myths makes no sense to me.
Consequently, in Africa, as with Europe, I search for the truth, whether it is embarrassing or uplifting.
As demonstrated with the Shaka Zulu nonsense, some of it is just as silly as the Albino nonsense.
If anyone wants to share some African history which makes sense, then I urge them to share it. But I don't see how the bullsh1t helps any of us. Why would Blacks want to be like the Albinos, believing in a bullsh1t made-up history?
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Zanzibar was once East Africa's main slave-trading port, and under Omani Arabs in the 19th century as many as 50,000 slaves were passing through the city each year.
Some historians estimate that between 11 and 18 million black African slaves crossed the Red Sea, Indian Ocean, and Sahara Desert from 650 AD to 1900 AD, compared with the 9.4 to 12 million Africans who were taken to the Americas.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: question, if a massive genocide of hundreds of thousands or millions of blacks in old Europe was discovered, what is your speculation as to how that would affect European society?
Would the story have come and gone and the basic structure of modern European society remain the same or do you think such a finding would cause major changes and cause people to behave differently?
Finally - an intelligent question!
I think that it would embolden non-Albino nations to do what they want to do anyway - only sooner: starve-out the Albino nations - resource wise. No one has forgotten anything. Currently all Albino nations have contingency programs for invading and taking control of foreign Oilfields - but oil is not the only thing that they need to import.
The U.S. in trying to get ahead of the problem, is working very hard to citizenize non-Albinos and give them some power. Will they get enough power, will the ruse work? Only time will tell.
a couple more questions
1) Blacks are currently a minority in Europe but still millions in total. if there were blacks who were indigenous to Europe and had continously lived lived there up into the A.D. period are there any currently living amoung the the blacks currently living in Europe? What is your estimate of the percentage or number of them?
2) ^^^^ Same question for the United States
_____________________________________________
3) You said: " it would embolden non-Albino nations to do what they want to do anyway - only sooner: starve-out the Albino nations - resource wise. No one has forgotten anything. Currently all Albino nations have contingency programs for invading and taking control of foreign Oilfields - but oil is not the only thing that they need to import"
^^^ who are you talking about specifically as "non-Albino" nations? And do you think such nations would ally on some racial basis? Which ones are you calling "non-albino" and which ones have the most military power?
Chinese President Hu Jintao
Hubby, current U.S.. president
Bush, former president United States Iran's President Ahmadinejad
Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei
Prime Minister of India Manmohan Singh
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un President of Nigeria, Goodluck Jonathan
Posts: 43022 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Go away lioness, Damn you're stupid, no one is fooled by your nonsense. Albinos will be called to account.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
In Hindu India, the second-highest of the four varnas, or social classes, traditionally the military or ruling class. In ancient times before the caste system was completely defined, they were considered first in rank, placed higher than the Brahmans, or priestly class. ...
Did you know that the Kshatriya that you admire so much have had more than a billion of their country men in internal slavery for thousands of years?
Today one billion Indians live on the streets, and cannot aspire to anything more than a toilet cleaner because of your revered Kshatriya class.
Have you heard about the Sudra class of India? Do you know the untouchables?
The Kshatriyas and the Brahma class keep the in their ignorance poverty and hopelessness, as mandated by the Indian Holy Books.
How are they any different from the Sultan of Zanzibar and his ilks?
Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^Zanzibar was once East Africa's main slave-trading port, and under Omani Arabs in the 19th century as many as 50,000 slaves were passing through the city each year.
Some historians estimate that between 11 and 18 million black African slaves crossed the Red Sea, Indian Ocean, and Sahara Desert from 650 AD to 1900 AD, compared with the 9.4 to 12 million Africans who were taken to the Americas.
We see today the descendants of the enslaved Africans taken to the Americas.
Where are the descendants of those taken across Indian Ocean? Where are those millions? If they killed them all, then where are their bones??
Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
Muslims and the Zanzibar slave trade You can't blame just Muslims for Zanzibar slave trade.
On 27 July, you carried Yasmin Alibhai-Brown's "rebuttal" against criticisms of her programme on slavery in Zanzibar in which she said an unnamed "top Zanzibari professor was among the grossest deniers". I take this as a case of giving a dog a bad name and hanging it. I am the "culprit", and I wish to clarify matters.
In April, the BBC sent me the synopsis of a documentary they were planning. I felt it sounded so much like other Arab- and Islam-bashing that I responded with a long letter declining to be associated with it.
There is no denying there was large-scale slave trading and slavery in Zanzibar in the 19th century; that slaves were used to produce cloves there which continued to be consumed even in the West; that American and European traders at Zanzibar used slave labour to transport their goods, and that some of them even kept slave concubines. But if I was such a denier, would I have titled my 1987 book, Slaves, Spices & Ivory in Zanzibar?
In Yasmin's article, she again describes Zanzibar as "an Arab slave port for centuries", and says "Muslims had perpetuated this evil". Zanzibar had an Arab ruler at the time to which she refers, and a Hindu customs master who received a tax on each slave landed.
The slaves were from the African mainland; many were captured and brought to the coast by African chiefs and Swahili and Arab traders. In what sense does this become purely an Arab or a Muslim phenomenon? If slave trade and slavery is to be identified by the ethnic group and religion of the perpetrators, would we be able to understand the Atlantic slave trade better if we described it as Christian and European?
I decry ethnic and religious labelling not because of the contemporary and understandable sensitivity to these issues since 9/11, but because they do not explain the phenomenon, and cannot help us fight new forms of slavery by different ethnic groups and religions.
What is worse, they can only worsen inter-ethnic and inter-religious relations.
Professor Abdul Sheriff
Executive Director
Zanzibar Indian Ocean Research Institute, Tanzania.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic