posted
This article is a good read, and I agree about what he says Africa needs for economic development
quote:Why Africans are not Inferior
What is the real problem with blacks all over the world? Is it that all blacks are simply stupid (the low IQ argument advocated by Jan Lamprecht)? The answer is far more complex. I shall spare the reader a detailed discussion of the rise of civilization and ethnology, but dispel the myth of genetic IQ and the “natural” inferiority of blacks. Mr. Lamprecht seems to believe Africa was a blank slate without any buildings (beyond mud huts) let alone, cities prior to the arrival of Europeans.
The truth of the matter is that Africans (throughout the continent) had achieved high levels of civilization. Both the Nubians and Ethiopians were contemporaries of the ancient Greeks and Romans. The Nubians even conquered Egypt and spread their empire as far as modern day Lebanon. The Ethiopians too had an advanced civilization that controlled broad sweeps of the Arabian Peninsula down to modern day Yemen. Both the Nubians and Ethiopians had civilizations equal to Egypt (which Europeans claim as their own). They began before Greco-Roman civilization and out lasted both. In fact, so long was Ethiopia’s dominance over the Arab peninsula, that when Muhammad had to flee Mecca for preaching against polytheism, he didn’t go to the Byzantine Empire or Persia, he went to Ethiopia. Along the East coast of Africa, there were also the Swahili trading states which equaled the medieval European city. Mombassa, Mogadishu, Beira, Zanzibar, Maputo, and Mzizima (now Dar es Salaam) were all major trading centers attracting merchants from as far away as modern day India, China, Sri Lanka, and Persia.
Many people claim that these cities were founded by Arabs, but evidence does not support that. The first Europeans to arrive on the east coast of Africa, encountered Black African rulers; as confirmed by writings of the Arabs. Even when these areas were “conquered” by the Arabs, these Arabs were none other than black Africans who had adopted Islam, Arabic, and Muslim culture.
As much as these cities adopted many inventions developed by their trading partners, they also had inventions. No one denigrates the achievements of commmerce in medieval Europe despite the fact that the bedrock of those achievements were “arabic” numerals and double entry book keeping, both developed by the Indians.
On the west coast of Africa we find other great civilizations much acclaimed in their day. Mali, Ashanti, Songhai, and Ghana were all great trading empires whose wealth is documented in many stories. These empires knew the value of free trade (sadly many Africans have forgotten what their ancestors knew). When Mansa Musa I made a trip to Mecca in the 14th Centruy, he spent gold so lavishly that it took ten years for gold to recover its value in Cairo. The Mali empire was also home to the University of Sankore, a famed center of learning. In Mali, the buying and selling of books was more profitable than the selling of gold or slaves. The works of scholars at the University of Sankore were known as far as Europe. In the 18th and 19th centuries, many Europeans died in expeditions attempting to reach the university.
Great Zimbabwe was not built by Indians as some may think. It is true that some artifacts of Indian nature were discovered here, but that is attributed to the fact that it was a trading state with its main port at Beira. Beira is 1,000 miles inland hardly a place for a foreign colony. All these societies show that Africans have potential within themselves. To create great civilizations one might notice that most of them were along the coast. This is because most Africans (until recently) lived along the coast, the major rivers or the great lakes.
As for Mr. Lamprecht’s assertion that the European barbarians of Roman times were more advanced than black Africans, nothing could be further from the truth. How can anyone compare the mudhuts of the Germanic tribes to the marvels of Nubia? It is sad that there is no place in Africa today that can compare to that grand civilization in terms of status to their contemporaries. It is clear from Mr. Lamprecht’s article that the whole world thinks of blacks as a race of fools devoid of culture, history, and incapable of erudition or accomplishment.
The Asians offer a prime example of how to combat being stripped of accomplishment and designated naturally inferior. Contrary to the impression given by Mr. Lamprecht, there was little to distinguish Asia from Africa 50 years ago. Both regions had suffered the effects of colonialism and were considered poor and backward. However, there was conscious effort in many Asian countries to become developed. They radically transformed their societies. Anything which was an obstacle to development was obliterated. Opposition to development was suppressed. They turned their national passions towards a single goal: national economic development. They did not let themselves become trapped in western political ideology. There was no struggle between workers and management or peasants and the elites. They were cohesive in their move towards economic development and anyone who tried to introduce western political ideology was quickly smacked down. The Asian took the hard and bitter steps to develop their nations and catch-up with the West (and in many ways surpass them). They worked 16 hours a day with mandatory overtime, saved the majority of their money, shunned the welfare system, and aggressively acquired the technology to become developed nations. Japan is the epitome of this. Before the Meiji Restoration, Japan was 400 years behind the West. But the Japanese saw the need for radical change to confront the threat of the West. They completely reorganized their society, and sent teams abroad to learn western technology, business methods, and sciences. They fanatically dedicated themselves to development until they were on near equal terms with the West in 1905.
This is the story time and again with many Asian nations, Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea and Taiwan. They all became developed and destroyed the myth of European superiority. By their success in the marketplace and increase in standard of living, they forced the world to respect them. 50 years ago, one could not name a single modern invention by an Asian; let alone any great Asian corporations or financial institutions. Yet today Asians account for 544 of the world’s largest corporations compared to Europe’s 527. Even 30 years ago, as the Asians were starting their transformation, they were seen as makers of cheap crap whose only ability was to copy European innovations. Today, the most advanced technology in many fields is coming from Asia. No one in the US would dare buy an American car, everyone wants a Toyota. They were able to achieve such success because they all had a driving passion to show the whole world that they were as good as anyone else. To this day, workers at the Hyundai engineering plant in South Korea start their day by lining up and shouting, “We are Koreans, let’s show the world what Koreans can do”. They were so successful that the West finally took notice of their past great achievements and by the 1980s; whites acknowledged that Asians were naturally superior in Maths and Science (they did not invent most of those advanced fields and 50 years ago the statement would be seen as ridicule). Their success was not a factor of “natural” IQs, but rather of the policies and institutions they adopted.
The problem with black Africans is that they have no fanatical drive to develop the continent. African leaders have destroyed economies by actively discouraging foreign investment. African leaders adopt the political ideology of the west branding themselves such names as “socialists” that are completely alien to Africa. Economic development is not something that just happens; it is something that must be pursued with messianic zeal. If Africans ever hope to become developed, it must be placed as the top priority. It cannot be second to anything. Black Africa is not a part of western civilization. It must throw away the ideology of the West. Governance using western institutions of democracy and an activist state has produced failures. There is need to struggle and create new institutions that suit the needs of African development. Economic development is about abandoning dead culture and gods. One cannot argue that the Asian nations were in a better economic position at the start of their independence, in fact in 1962 Ghana and South Korea had the same GDP per Capita yet today Ghana’s GDP per Capita is only $2,300.00 PPP USD compared to South Korea’s $19,200.00 PPP USD.
The prosperity of a people is not due to such an abstract concept as I.Q., but rather by the policies and institutions enacted. If we take that line of reasoning, then we should assume that the people of the black nation of Bahamas are superior to the white nation of Belarus because their GDP per Capita are $17,700.00 PPP USD and $6,800.00 PPP USD respectively. While African leaders are busy “eating the national cake” and raping their nations of wealth to place in Swiss bank accounts, Africa’s talented are degraded and flee in droves.
It should be clear that, Africans have the potential to develop a great society; after all there are some 10 million African professionals abroad with 40,000 more leaving Africa every year. In America, the average African (born and raised in Africa) professional has an income of $125,000.00 a year as opposed to $65,000.00 for native born white professionals. Despite the “natural” inferiority of blacks, the British National Health Service is in the habit of recruiting entire graduating medical school classes from African universities. These Africans are able to succeed, because the West has functioning institutions (at least for now).
As for the collectivist nature of African society, I must say I value individualism, but it is of little importance. Anyone who has been to Asia can testify to the extreme pressure of conformity (much more than in any African society) placed upon the individual. The important thing is to what is your society forcing you to conform.
Africans must have the shear force of will to reorganize their societies and move towards the path of economic development. We all know the things necessary for economic development; free trade, free markets, high savings rates, low taxes, zero social welfare, and sound money. However, we cannot discount the power of ideology. Africans must be instilled with a burning passion for economic development, and it must be the single focus of the society. Africans must have a fanatical drive to do the best and be the best. They must pain to rise above the rest. Without the ideology, no matter how great the institutions (one questions if a nation could create the institution without the ideology to drive them) economic development will only be mediocre.
African leaders have failed to create the passion, ideology, and drive towards economic development. Africans will never be able to stand with dignity in the world until they have achieved economic development on the same level as the West. If anyone wonders why economic success, wealth, higher living standards, and African owned mega-corporations will ameliorate Africa for the indignities Africans have suffered in the past, the answer is simple, “because living well is the best revenge!”
What have we been doing for the last 50 years to challenge this view? Nothing! We have not only acquiesced to this view, but also lived up to it.
posted
Actually many of the premises of the article are HALFWAY right.
Why do Europeans CLAIM Egypt and why is he not CHALLENGING this? OBVIOUSLY something built primarily BY AFRICANS cannot be EUROPEAN, that defies ALL COMMON SENSE. So THAT should be the FIRST THING discussed in terms of whether Africans had civilization and the history of capitalism in Africa. THE LIES of African history have been told in order to JUSTIFY slavery and exploitation in Africa, by creating the MYTH of the WHITE MAN'S BURDEN in "civilizing" Africans. THAT MYTH is told to COVER UP the real reasons that Europe engaged in colonial expansion both in Africa and the rest of the world. Europe was bent on CONQUEST and SUBJUGATION and the ONLY WAY they could conquer was through VIOLENCE. Capitalism grew DIRECTLY out of Europe's GREED and the desire to CONTROL ALL of the world's TRADE. THAT is why they went to India, THAT is why they went to the Americas, THAT is why they went to Asia and THAT is why they went to Africa, PURELY FOR PROFIT and THE BENEFIT of the EUROPEAN BANKING SYSTEM and to CAPITALIZE off the trade, resources, land and labor OF EVERYONE ELSE. All the original colonies in Africa, Asia and America WERE CHARTERED COMPANIES, which were among the FIRST STOCK ISSUING COMPANIES in the world. THAT is the origin of the MODERN CAPITALIST SYSTEM. The names of these companies SAYS IT ALL: The Jamestown Company, The Dutch East India Company, the South Africa Company. All of these VOYAGES to 'new lands' were PURELY FOR CONQUERING AND TAKING OVER the trade networks and WEALTH of the rest of the world. But rather than expose themselves as GREEDY, BLOODTHIRSTY CROOKS, they had to make up a STORY in order to COVER UP their actions. Therefore, all sorts of MYTHS and LIES were created to JUSTIFY European colonial expansion. One MYTH being that these colonies in America, Africa, New Zealand and Australia were the "promised land" of the WHITES, based on the story of the Israelites adapted and distorted to SUPPORT WHITE SUPREMACY. Another MYTH being that WHITES were on a CIVILIZING mission. How on EARTH can you BRING civilization to people that ALREADY HAVE IT? YOU CANT. Whites were on a DESTRUCTION MISSION and they DESTROYED the ancient kingdoms of West Africa. The Portugese tried to DESTROY Monempotapa and the Swahili Coast, because YOU CANT CONQUER and DOMINATE the TRADING SYSTEM if FUNCTIONING STRONG SOCIETIES EXIST. THAT is the REAL REASON behind the CREATION OF THESE MYTHS. They are PART OF A CAMPAIGN OF LIES AND DECEPTION, just as much a TACTICAL weapon as the guns and bullets used to commit so much genocide everywhere they went. Anyone who reads the history of European expansion in the America's , Africa and Asia as people BRINGING civilization to the world is A RETARD. Committing GENOCIDE is not BRINGING CIVILIZATION. Leopold killed tens of millions of Congolese, while told his people back home he was CIVILIZING THE SAVAGES of central Africa. The British fought the Asanti over the GOLDEN THRONE for MANY YEARS. What does THAT have to do with BRINGING CIVILIZATION? The British DESTROYED the Yoruba kingdoms and those of Benin and elsewhere in West Africa, then DESTROYED the cities and TOOK whatever ARTIFACTS were of VALUE back to Britain. What does THAT have to do with BRINGING CIVILIZATION? They were DESTROYING civilization and bringing WHITE SUPREMACY. Therefore, the REASON modern Africa has no sense of SELF SUSTAINMENT and TRADE is because it WAS DESTROYED, but rather than face that HARD FACT, there is a BLACK HOLE of 100 years during which Africans suffered LIKE HELL under European colonialism and were STRIPPED of their humanity during the colonial period. Not to mention the 400 years before THAT where they were FORCED to participate in the slave trade.
The biggest problem in all of this is that THE ONLY ONES WHO BELIEVE THIS BULLSH*T is those who have SUFFERED THE MOST FROM IT.
For a perfect example of how these myths function, one only need look at the history of the Ijebu and the colonial expansion of the British in Nigeria. The British DESTROYED Ijebu, home of the eredo ramparts, some of the greatest earthwork fortresses in Africa, if not the world. They say they did this because of "trade" or because the Africans were refusing to open up to "civilization". Bullsh*t. But anyway, many cities like these were ABANDONED by the people after they were destroyed. Such cities can be found ALL OVER AFRICA. Africans RETREATED into the interior in order to ESCAPE the onslaught, because they had no choice. All of this is DOCUMENTED by the British themselves. Not a few hundred years later, these ruins are dug up and the SAME BRITISH are claiming a connection to the Queen of Sheba. Now what kind of bullsh*t is that? Ijebu was one of the LAST places to ACCEPT christian missionaries in their midst, so HOW ON EARTH was there a CHRISTIAN FIGURE there from the Bible? There is NO MENTION of ANY QUEEN OF SHEBA in the historical accounts of the British who DESTROYED this Kingdom. Yet and still the British now claim that it has something to do with a MYTH. Again, ALL of this is a LIE to divert attention from the ATTROCITIES commited by the british and to REINFORCE the POWER that Christianity NOW HOLDS over the DESCENDANTS of the BRAVE IJEBU, who STOOD UP to the British and their Maxim guns. But rather than CELEBRATING THE BRAVERY of their ancestors, they are running around celebrating a MYTH GIVEN TO THEM BY THE WHITES in order to PACIFY THEM.
And all of this was undertaken by the Royal Nigeria Company. You guessed it, a royal CHARTERED company responsible for MAKING NIGERIA A COLONY IN ORDER TO CAPITALIZE of the NATURAL WEALTH of NIGERIA for the BENEFIT of THE BRITISH BANKING SYSTEM.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The other myth is that Asia somehow rose up ON ITS OWN to compete against "The West". WRONG. Modern Asia is partly A CREATION OF THE WEST. Western companies made a CONSCIOUS decision to locate their manufacturing centers for cheap products to Asia in order to USE CHEAP ASIAN LABOR to build toys, trinkets and anything else they could send to Asia. India and Pakistan are particularly KNOWN for their lax standards in enforcing child labor laws and other rights for workers. Chinese people work OVERTIME because THEY HAVE NO CHOICE and the contracts that they sign with Western Companies is DESIGNED to REINFORCE this system of MODERN SLAVERY. So this is NONSENSE that these countries somehow are standing UP to the West, when in fact they are WHERE THEY ARE BECAUSE of the West and the "investments" made by the West in Asia. China, India and Asia would COLLAPSE if "the west" decided to STOP using these countries as the SOURCE of cheap labor and manufacturing for COMPUTER PARTS. So much for the RISE OF ASIA as some sort of CHALLENGE to Western SUPERIORITY. They are doing EXACTLY WHAT THE WEST WANTS, which is WORKING their populations almost 24x7 to make PROFITS for Western companies and allowing WESTERN COMPANIES to DOMINATE many parts of their commercial economics sector. Many Western expats own businesses in Asia and Walmart, Kentucy Fried Chicken and many OTHER WESTERN brands are DOMINATING a large part of the Asian marketplace. On top of that, it was in no small part BECAUSE OF AMERICA that made Japanese industry what it is today and that is BECAUSE of the West. And this is not because of WWII, but because of the Korean War, when Japan became a staging ground for U.S. forces in the war. This is when W. Edwards Demming helped usher in Quality Control practices for Japanese industry, not just for no reason either, but because these industries were helping the American war effort in Korea.
quote: Japan Japan was a key beneficiary of the war. The US material requirements were organized through a Special Procurements system, which allowed for local purchasing without the complex Pentagon procurement system. Over $3.5 billion was spent with Japanese companies, peaking at $809 million in 1953, and still significant in 1955. Other foreign non-military investment was less than 5% of this. US Aid Counterpart Funds gave Japan, by 1956, the most modern shipyards in the world and a 26% share in launched tonnage. Left-wing organizations were closed down, and the zaibatsu went from being distrusted to being encouraged - Mitsui, Mitsubishi and Sumitomo were amongst the zaibatsu that thrived, not only on orders from the military but through American industrial experts, including W. Edwards Deming. Japanese manufacturing grew by 50% between March 1950 and 1951. By 1952, pre-war standards of living were regained and output was twice the level of 1949. The 1951 peace treaty returned Japanese sovereignty (excluding Okinawa and the Ryukyu islands) and the non-belligerency clause in the constitution was being considered a "mistake" by 1953.
posted
Doug M, interesting analysis, so what do you offer for developing countries to get out of poverty?
Posts: 919 | From: AFRICA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why? Where is YOUR PLAN for developing countries getting out of poverty? I bet you think that Europe, America, Asia, the IMF and World Bank are the SOLUTION to the economic crisis in Africa don't you? I doubt you even really care except to excercise your delusional fantasies of a perfect world were Africans just "happened" to fall behind for no other reason than Africa's own inaction and a lack of self confidence.
I would focus on ownership of the land, ownership of companies and development focused on becoming self sufficient in as many areas as possible. This is based on getting the MAJORITY of the benefit of the land, labor and resources of Africa and putting them to use FOR Africans by putting AFRICANS FIRST before foreigners.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The point is not whether people believe it, it is whether they accept FACT. Facts are facts no matter what people believe. But going to the point of the thread, the people who made up this myth of a white Egypt are the SAME ones who colonized Africa. Many of the techniques used by these Europeans were INSPIRED by Egypt: shackling and manacling the slaves, chopping of the hands of those who refused to pay tribute, forcing Africans to bring tribute in the form of rubber and other resources to the Europeans. MUCH of this is partly based on the images in the temples and tombs of Egypt. In fact, the SAMBO figure itself ALSO came from Egypt. This period, 200 years ago was an important time for the development of the tools and techniques of the new empires of Europe and many of their institutions were borrowing ancient symbols and traditions from Egypt for their own symbols of state. Stars and bars come from Egypt. Red, white and blue comes from Egypt. Funeral processions with caskets on biers come from Egypt. These whites modelled themselves as modern day pharoahs, so they oppressed the blacks, like the Kushites they saw depicted in Egypt, modelled their cities on Egypt, used Egyptian obelisks and sphinxes to decorate their cities, built their cities (washington d.c.) after Egyptian monuments and buried themselves in the pomp of ancient Egyptian ceremony. So Egypt is a FUNDAMENTAL KEY to understanding the expansion of colonialism in the 1800s.
Leopold funeral:
Lincoln funeral:
Where are palm trees in Europe and America and why are they adorning these funeral processions?
Coffin of Userhat covered by red and white striped cloth:
posted
Joint Stock Companies and colonial finance and the origin of capitalism:
quote: The English started joint stock companies. The earliest recognized company was the Virginia Company.[1] [2] The British East India Company, sometimes referred to as "John Company", was one of the more famous joint-stock companies. It was granted an English Royal Charter by Elizabeth I on December 31, 1600, with the intention of favouring trade privileges in India. The Royal Charter effectively gave the newly created Honourable East India Company (HEIC) a 21 year monopoly on all trade in the East Indies. The Company transformed from a commercial trading venture to one that virtually ruled India as it acquired auxiliary governmental and military functions, until its dissolution in 1858. The British East India Company's flag initially had the flag of England, the St. George's Cross in the corner. The British East India Company's flag initially had the flag of England, the St. George's Cross in the corner.
Soon afterwards in 1602, the Dutch East India Company issued shares on the Amsterdam Stock Exchange.
During the period of colonialism, the joint stock company Europeans, initially the British, trading with the Near East for goods, pepper and calico for example, enjoyed spreading the risk of trade over multiple sea voyages. The joint stock company became a more viable financial structure than previous guilds or state regulated companies. The first joint-stock companies to be implemented in the Americas were The Virginia Company and The Plymouth Company.
Transferable shares often earned positive returns on equity, which is evidenced by investment in companies like the British East India Company, which used the financing model to manage trade in India. Joint stock companies paid out divisions, dividends, to their shareholders by dividing up the profits of the voyage in the proportion of shares held. Divisions were usually cash, but when working capital was low and it was detrimental to the survival of the company, divisions were either postponed or paid out in remaining cargo which could be sold by shareholders for profit in the market.
It also made it affordable to support early colonists in America. Jamestown, for instance, was financed by the Virginia Company. It is because of joint stock companies that the colonization and settlement of America was made possible.
However, in general, incorporation was only possible by Royal charter or private act, and was limited owing to government's jealous protection of the privileges and advantages thereby granted. As a result, many businesses came to be operated as unincorporated associations with possibly thousands of members. Any consequent litigation had to be carried out in the joint names of all the members and was impossibly cumbersome.
In the UK, registration and incorporation of companies without specific legislation was introduced by the Joint Stock Companies Act 1844.
quote: The British South Africa Company (BSAC) was established by Cecil Rhodes through the amalgamation of the Central Search Association and the Exploring Company Ltd., receiving a royal charter in 1889. Modelling the BSAC on the British East India Company, Rhodes hoped it would enable colonisation and economic exploitation across much of south-central Africa, as part of the "Scramble for Africa". The company's directors included the Duke of Abercorn, Rhodes himself and the financier Alfred Beit.
The point being that the spread of colonial Europe and the development of the "west" is DIRECTLY due to the growth and development of CAPITALISM, which is EXPLOITATION of the trade, land, labor and resources OF OTHER PEOPLE in order to provide WEALTH AND POWER to Europeans. That system DIRECTLY responsible for the growth of the modern economic system of the west and has been succeeded by GLOBALIZATION in form and function. NONE of this has to do with "freedom", "peace" or "democracy". THAT is the myth that MUST be exposed, because NOBODY OWES EUROPE JACK for all the pain and suffering that they caused and the MONEY they stole from their ancestors. The MYTH ONLY serves to elevate Europe on a pedestal as being "special" and "righteous" in the face of all the DIRT they have done to EVERYONE.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I agree with Doug. The article is correct, but it would have been better if it outrightly addressed Egypt as being African also. It should have addressed the false Nubian/Egyptian dichotomy where 'Nubia' is African but Egypt is somehow not even though they are both in the continent of Africa seperated by only a few miles!
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
I strongly agree with that article! Great article!
quote:
^ I agree with Doug. The article is correct, but it would have been better if it outrightly addressed Egypt as being African also. It should have addressed the false Nubian/Egyptian dichotomy where 'Nubia' is African but Egypt is somehow not even though they are both in the continent of Africa seperated by only a few miles!
Though I don't agree with Markellion - I saw no strong implications, I don't think it needed to, it wasn't the point.
Then again they could have outright said it, but it may have been distractionary from the purpose of the article.
He may have also had in mind that Kemet's history is often distorted, on top of being over-rated in paraded as the only indigenous polity in Africa.
quote:Doug
So THAT should be the FIRST THING discussed in terms of whether Africans had civilization and the history of capitalism in Africa.
Perhaps, but I don't think it needed it. It would have been a difficult decision for me.
Some articles can be written with the purpose of influence and pursuation in mind.
The influence you have can die out when most of your chosen audience is ignorant to a "FACT" that you may have just asserted (i.e.: Kemet being a predominantly black african state)
and hypothetically are thusly succeptible to other articles, who make opposite assertions, or state that your stance is untrue.
Of course this would hypothetically be out of ignorance or BS, but do you expect an ignorant person to be able to perceive such and point it out?
quote: THE LIES of African history have been told in order to JUSTIFY slavery and exploitation in Africa, by creating the MYTH of the WHITE MAN'S BURDEN in "civilizing" Africans.
"in order to JUSTIFY slavery and exploitation in Africa"-to Europeans.
I don't mean to sound rude but when someone is wrong, we needn't reach out to them because they're European.
What should matter to us is what our own think.
That is how that justification worries me - if we were to be majorly duped by it in our own minds, which is happening, and we (a people with no social structure[i] or "ideology" upon being freed), which is one of the points the article addressed.
If we were to want Kemet protrayed properly, it would serve us to address it more [I]THOROUGHLY, and not half-hazzardly lest we'd like to leave doubts in the minds of the many who are ignorant.
I get you. Do you get me?
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic