The migration of African Americans to other lands in search of freedom during the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries was an expression of their belief that they would never achieve a position of true equality in the United States. The only solution to this problem, they felt, was to establish separate, self-governing societies or nations. Though migrants found their way to Canada, Haiti, the West Indies, and Mexico, Africa was, most often, the refuge of choice. Emigration and colonization were controversial within the African-American community, and some of the consequences of these migrations were negative for the receiving populations.
The highlighted part above is a lie, perhaps we will discover the reason for that lie as we read the presentation.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
African Americans' interest in colonization was engendered by the dramatic increase in restrictions placed on them during the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The slave system in the South was progressively intensified. The region's agriculturally derived economic prosperity depended on slavery: one-third of its population consisted of African-Americans in bondage. Throughout the South, laws were passed that prohibited their manumission.
Meanwhile, rising racism made conditions for Northern blacks more oppressive. The growth of the free black population - 500,000 by 1860 - was yet another factor in the effort to keep the nation's African Americans on an ever-tightening leash. They faced voting restrictions and were, for all intents and purposes, excluded from the justice system. By the 1830s, state and federal regulations, popular pressure, and social custom had dispatched them to the very bottom rungs of the social, economic, and political ladders.
In the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, the constitutional amendments giving them citizenship and voting rights led many African Americans to hope they would finally be integrated into American society; but by the end of Reconstruction in 1877, white Northerners' interest in the problems of recently freed slaves had cooled. The return of the Democratic Party to power in the South was accompanied by mounting Ku Klux Klan violence and intimidation.
Ways were found - election fraud, poll taxes, confusing balloting schemes, and suffrage disqualification - to nullify black political strength. Supreme Court decisions declaring the Civil Rights Act of 1875 unconstitutional and upholding legal segregation sped up the process of black subordination. The federal government also enacted immigration and naturalization laws that effectively limited citizenship to whites.
In the South, African Americans were relegated back to the farm and, with little or no money to buy land, they had no choice but to work as tenant farmers or sharecroppers on white-owned property or as agricultural laborers earning meager wages. By the turn of the twentieth century, only 20 percent of African Americans owned their property and were able to maintain some small degree of independence.
Though people had continuously struggled against bias and oppression, there were always some who believed that ameliorating their condition was ultimately impossible. They favored emigration, and some advocated the establishment of colonies in Africa.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The first known colonization effort took place in Sierra Leone, home to the Temne, Mandingo, Fulani, Bullom, and Kru people. The original settlers, 450 destitute black men and women from England, called the Black Poor, arrived in 1787. In 1792, they were joined by twelve hundred Black Loyalists from Canada - former U.S. bondsmen who had fought alongside the British Army during the Revolutionary War - who were dissatisfied with conditions in Nova Scotia, where they had been sent. Jamaican Maroons, runaways who had been deceitfully deported to Canada after they had signed a peace treaty with the British, followed them in 1800.
In its early years, the settlement was governed by the Sierra Leone Company, an organization founded by British humanitarians with the goal of developing agricultural and other products for trade with England. Its population rapidly increased after 1807 with Africans recaptured from slave ships following the British and American abolition of the transatlantic slave trade. These "recaptives" or Liberated Africans came from throughout western, central, and southeastern Africa. About 58,000 were eventually settled in Sierra Leone.
African-American involvement in Sierra Leone began in 1811 when Paul Cuffee, a prosperous black and American Indian Quaker, ship owner, and lifelong campaigner for black people's rights, set sail from Massachusetts for Freetown with a crew of nine African-American seamen. The journey came in response to an invitation from England's Royal African Society to visit the colony.
While there, Cuffee decided to develop trade between blacks in England, Sierra Leone, and the United States. He also began to consider the possibility of relocating skilled African Americans to the colony, and founded the Friendly Society of Sierra Leone to put his ideas into practice. In 1815, he took thirty-eight emigrants to the colony. Among them were a Senegalese who had migrated from Haiti, and a Congolese. This would be the first migration of African Americans from the United States to Africa.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Though Sierra Leone would continue to receive African-American immigrants over the years, their primary destination soon became Liberia, the country of the Vai, Kru, Kissi, Grebo, Bassa, Kpelle, Mandingo, and other populations. The controversial American Colonization Society (ACS) helped them in this endeavor.
It was founded in 1816 with the expressed aim to colonize free African-Americans in Africa or wherever else it saw fit. An organization with mostly white members and supporters, many of whom were slaveholders, the ACS did not gain widespread support among African Americans, who saw it as a means by which whites hoped to deport free blacks. Nonetheless, some people, dissatisfied with their lives in the United States, sought help from the society. Its first vessel, the Elizabeth, set sail in 1820 with some eighty migrants on board. They were unable to acquire land in Liberia and took refuge in Sierra Leone.
A year later, the ACS was successful in obtaining acreage, and a ship carrying thirty-three African Americans landed at Cape Mesuardo - later to become Monrovia, after U.S. President James Monroe.
Over the course of the nineteenth century, the ACS transported an estimated sixteen thousand migrants to Liberia. The migration peaked between 1848 and 1854; during this period, the ACS chartered forty-one ships, carrying over four thousand colonists to new lives in a new land. Most were free blacks who had either lived in the North all their lives or had been born in the South and later moved across the Mason-Dixon Line.
They came from almost all the Southern states and from as far west as Colorado. Many of the Southern migrants were born free, but a large number had been freed from enslavement on the expressed condition that they leave the United States.
Gen. Robert E. Lee freed most of his slaves before the Civil War. He offered to pay the expenses of those, like William and Rosabella Burke and their children, who wanted to go to Liberia. Burke went to the seminary in Monrovia and became a Presbyterian minister in 1857. A year later, he wrote a friend back home:
Persons coming to Africa should expect to go through many hardships, such as are common to the first settlement in any new country. I expected it and was not disappointed or discouraged at any thing that I met with; and so far from being dissatisfied with the country, I bless the Lord that ever my lot was cast in this part of the earth.
In a letter to Mary Custis Lee, Rosabella Burke noted, "I love Africa and would not exchange it for America."
The colonists were predominantly male, and often traveled in family groups. Many were under twenty years old. During the 1820-1828 period, women made up 43 percent of those going to Liberia. Freeborn migrants were mostly artisans, involved in agriculture in some way, or skilled and unskilled laborers; a few were professionals.
As the nineteenth century progressed, an increasing number came from the middle and professional class.
The migration was not always without problems - many prospective settlers died en route. They succumbed to fevers, tuberculosis, pleurisy, and other lung diseases. The primary reason for African Americans to seek freedom through emigration was their perception that there was no other alternative to a hopeless situation. But they also came to Africa because it was the land of their ancestors. Another reason was that the American Colonization Society paid their passage. Most could scarcely have afforded it and would have remained in the United States had the society not paid their way.
In the early years the ACS ran Liberia's government, but the settlers soon demanded control of their own affairs. In 1837 the Commonwealth was formed, and virtually all power devolved to the emigrants. The society retained only the right to choose the governor. A decade later, Liberia became an independent nation, and in 1848, Joseph Jenkins Roberts - a Monrovia merchant who had emigrated from Virginia twenty years earlier - was elected president.
Even as they left the United States behind, the colonists made concerted efforts to create a sort of "little America" in their new surroundings. They spoke English, and their manners, clothing, and even the construction of their homes reflected their previous place of residence. They were not always welcome in Liberia. Heavily influenced by Christian values, many exhibited a missionary zeal toward the indigenous Africans. They wished to "civilize" and Christianize people whom they often perceived as "heathen savages."
Emigration to Africa continued on a small scale into the twentieth century.
Between 1890 and 1910, some one thousand African Americans immigrated to Liberia. In 1913, sixty Oklahomans settled in the Gold Coast under the leadership of Chief Alfred Sam.
Though small in number, these efforts were not insignificant, as in most cases they represented self-initiated migrations, heavily influenced by nationalist ideas. Although individuals continued to migrate to the continent, there were few organized movements. Events in Africa itself may have been the reason. The 1884 partition of the continent resulted in full-scale domination by Europe. African nations, with the exception of Liberia and Ethiopia, came under European rule. In this climate, it was difficult for African Americans to consider emigration schemes.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
When the African-American settlers arrived in Liberia, the Vai were one of the first indigenous populations they encountered. The Vai were a mostly Muslim, Mande-speaking people who had migrated to the Atlantic coast from the region that is now Guinea at the beginning of the sixteenth century. The Vai are best known for having created a written alphabet for their language in 1833.
Mandingo Men
The Mandinka (known as Mandingo in English) are an ethnic group populating many countries of West Africa, including Sierra Leone and Liberia. Renowned for their skills in commerce, they had, centuries ago, established a widespread and efficient trading network. The missionary efforts of the American Christians did not sit well with these early converts to Islam, who protested the establishment of Christian schools.
Joseph Jenkins Roberts
Joseph Jenkins Roberts (1809 - 1876) was born free in Norfolk, Virginia. He began his career as a trader, and immigrated to Liberia in 1829. After four years, he became the lieutenant governor of the Commonwealth, and later the first black governor of Liberia. When the country gained independence in 1847, he became its first president. He achieved international recognition for acquiring sufficient funds to purchase land west of Cape Mount in order to prevent slavery within the nation. In 1856, he left public office and devoted his talents and energies to establishing and administering Liberia College. By the 1860s, many European countries had recognized Liberia as the first republic in sub-Saharan Africa. In 1862, during the tenure of Abraham Lincoln, the United States recognized Liberia as an independent nation. Roberts reclaimed the presidency in 1872 and served until his death in 1876.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Because of its association with the ACS, many African Americans opposed Liberian emigration. Other sites were proposed - Central America, the Caribbean islands, the Niger Valley, Canada, and Haiti. For a short while, Haiti proved the most popular of these alternatives.
The first black republic and the second country to gain independence, under the leadership of François Dominique Toussaint L’Ouverture, Haiti had served as a place of asylum for runaways and free men and women over the years. This fact, plus its proximity to the United States and its history of self-liberation and Christianity, made the island attractive to black proponents of emigration. They stressed that since it was so close, emigrants would not be abandoning their enslaved brothers and sisters. White advocates saw Haiti as another site to which undesirable free blacks could be deported.
In 1824, the New York Colonization Society received a commitment from Haitian President Jean-Pierre Boyer to pay the passage of U.S. emigrants. Boyer also promised to support them for their first four months and to grant them land. The same year, African-American leaders, including wealthy Philadelphia businessman James Forten and Bishop Richard Allen, formed the Haytian Emigration Society of Coloured People. They arranged for the transportation of several hundred people, not only to Haiti but also to Santo Domingo, the Spanish-speaking western part of the island of Hispaniola that had been conquered by Haiti in 1822.
New efforts to settle African Americans in Haiti were launched in the mid-nineteenth century. Emperor Faustin Soulouque and James Theodore Holly entered into discussions in 1855 on the settling of African Americans in the island state. After Soulouque was deposed, the new President, Nicolas Fabre Geffrard, appointed his own representative, James Redpath, a white American reporter, as General Agent. His mission was to attract immigrants to the island.
One of Redpath's agents was Holly, who emerged as the leading advocate of Haitian emigration. He believed that African Americans could profoundly influence the development of the Haitian Republic:
Our brethren of Hayti, who stand in the vanguard of the race, have already made a name, and a fame for us, that is as imperishable as the world's history. . . .It becomes then an important question for the negro race in America . . .to contribute to the continued advancement of this negro nationality of the New World until its glory and renown shall overspread the whole earth, and redeem and regenerate by its influence in the future, the benighted Fatherland of the race in Africa.
In the early 1860s, partly as a result of Holly's relentless proselytizing, African American interest in colonization increased. Haiti's president, Fabre Geffrard, hoping to ease the island's labor shortage, promoted policies that encouraged immigration but were not as generous as those offered in the 1820s.
In March 1861, Holly sailed to Haiti with 111 migrants from Connecticut and Canada. During the course of the year, several other journeys brought 800 more to the island. Most were unprepared for life in a different environment. Many complained about the climate and the language barrier, and expressed contempt for Vodou and Catholicism. Haitians were often suspicious of the immigrants, whom they described as lazy and uncooperative. Most immigrants, who came from American cities, did not want to work on farms and sold the land they had received for free in order to settle in the urban centers, where they could not find work. In addition, the government's subsidy policy depleted the country's already minimal treasury by funding emigrants who often left after their four months were over. The majority of the Americans returned home, but others kept on arriving.
President Abraham Lincoln had for some years advocated the removal of freed slaves as a partial solution to the nation's "race problem." In 1863, he supported the transportation of 453 men and women - most were former bondspeople from Virginia - to L'Ile-à-Vache, an island off the Haitian coast. The experiment failed due to inadequate planning and poor leadership. In less than a year, the survivors were returned to the United States.
Many Americans, black and white, were opposed to Haitian immigration. Their attacks were not as strong as those against Liberia, mainly because it was a movement initiated, for the most part, by African Americans. In fact, the 1854 National Emigration Convention actually endorsed Haitian immigration. But the opponents of Haiti were numerous. Frederick Douglass, who was opposed to emigration but had finally encouraged the Haitian movement, later abandoned the cause.
Widespread migration to Haiti never materialized. Estimates of the number of African Americans who made the trip range from eight thousand to thirteen thousand, but most returned to the United States. Unlike the situation in Liberia, the island's fairly large but mostly transient African-American community left no lasting evidence of its presence.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Other Caribbean islands were also proposed as possible destinations, and small numbers of African Americans did immigrate to various colonies.
In the aftermath of the 1812 war between the United States and Great Britain, several hundred African-American soldiers who had sided with England were sent to the southern part of Trinidad. They received sixteen acres of land and quickly became assimilated into Trinidadian society. Between 1839 and 1847, another 1,301 Americans migrated to the island.
Several hundred people moved to Mexico in 1894 as part of a development scheme established by W. H. Ellis, an African-American businessman from Texas.
Ellis later went to Abyssinia (Ethiopia), hoping to arrange for black migration to that country, but nothing appears to have come of it.
Canada's first critical mass of African-American immigrants comprised five thousand free and enslaved Loyalists. Most had fought alongside the British during the American War for Independence, while a third had been brought by their British owners.
After the War of 1812 between the United States and Britain, about two thousand African Americans crossed the border. Long a safe haven for American runaways, Canada became a land of immigration for free African-Americans after the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 put them at risk of being fraudulently sold into slavery. Canadian migration was advocated by Theodore Holly, Henry Bibb - a runaway who founded the newspaper The Voice of the Fugitive - and Mary Ann Shadd, editor of the Provincial Freeman.
By the mid-nineteenth century, the country had about forty black settlements, but it is estimated that thirty thousand black Canadians left during and after the Civil War to fight with the Union Army and be reunited with their families.
Immigration to Canada was revived in the twentieth century when over a thousand African Americans settled in the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta between 1905 and 1912.
Some arrived from Kansas and Texas, but most came from Oklahoma. The latter left behind a state where racial violence and segregation were on the rise, and where their right to vote had been largely taken away in 1910. Many had moved there from the Deep South to escape racism and discrimination, and once again, they were ready to pack up and leave in search of freedom.
Henry Sneed, an African American from Texas who had migrated to Oklahoma, organized the first group of 194 Canadian settlers. They left with nine railroad carloads of farm implements and livestock. But the movement north stopped in 1912 because of growing opposition from Canada's government and citizens, as well as anti-emigration black advocates.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Rev. Henry Highland Garnett and Martin R. Delany, both prominent abolitionists, did much to advance the colonization/emigration movement. In 1858, Garnett formed the African Civilization Society with the aim of encouraging the concept of Black Nationalism. Though initially opposed to emigration, he came to the conclusion that African Americans had little chance of attaining true independence in their country. Blacks returning to Africa, he argued, could benefit continental Africans by bringing "civilization" and Christianity while gaining freedom for themselves.
Garnett countered the argument that emigrationists were abandoning their enslaved comrades by stating that although he was totally opposed to that institution, "No man should deprive me of my love for Africa, the land of my ancestors." He also advocated migration to the Caribbean islands and spent several years as a missionary in Jamaica. In November 1882, Henry Highland Garnett, by then an old man, immigrated to Liberia, where he died soon after.
Born into slavery in Maryland, Henry Highland Garnett (1815 - 1882) escaped to New York with his father at the age of nine. An active abolitionist, he supported emigration and was a missionary for the United Presbyterian Church of Scotland in Jamaica in the 1850s. He advocated the immigration of African Americans to the island, but was opposed in this by Frederick Douglass. Returning to the United States, Garnett—who was an agent of the Haitian Emigration Bureau—actively sponsored immigration to Haiti and Africa, and was a founding member of the African Civilization Society.
Martin Robison Delany was, perhaps, an even more forceful proponent of Black Nationalism than Garnett. He was a journalist, firebrand abolitionist, and one of Frederick Douglass's closest friends. Douglass said of him, "I thank God for making me a man, simply, but Delany always thanks Him for making him a black man." After a short and unpleasant stay at Harvard Medical School, Delany published The Condition, Elevation, Emigration and Destiny of the Colored People of the United States (1852), supporting black emigration.
Vigorously opposed to the American Colonization Society because it was created by white men, he was an unbending advocate of black autonomy and self-reliance. Delany proposed the Caribbean islands, Canada, and Central America as alternative sites to Liberia. In 1859, he went to Africa to explore emigration possibilities and negotiated for an American settlement in Abeokuta (Nigeria), but nothing came of his effort. In 1877, Delany established the Liberian Joint Stock Steamship Line. The company's only voyage came a year later, when the ship Azor, carrying 206 migrants, sailed from Charleston to Liberia.
Martin Robison Delany
Determined to provide her son with an education, Pati Delany, a free woman whose parents were born in Nigeria, moved her family from Virginia to Pennsylvania. By 1838, her son Martin (1812 - 1885) was a fervent anti-slavery activist who championed the importance of African heritage and self-reliance. Slavery and racial discrimination induced Delany to advocate emigration. In 1852, he published The Condition, Elevation, Emigration and Destiny of the Colored People of the United States, which suggested that blacks leave for Central and South America. In 1856, Delany moved to Chatham, Canada. In 1859, he traveled to West Africa and negotiated land treaties to establish a colony in Abeokuta, in present-day Nigeria. The commencement of the Civil War disrupted his plans. By the end of the war, Delany became a major, making him the highest-ranking black officer of the Civil War. He held numerous political positions, including member of the Republican State Executive Committee, lieutenant colonel in the state militia, and agent for the Freedmen's Bureau during Reconstruction.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Edward Wilmot Blyden, born in St. Thomas in what was then the Danish Virgin Islands, immigrated to Liberia in 1851. He eventually became president of Liberia College. Blyden was convinced that the only way his people could gain the world's respect was by building progressive new "empires" in Africa. However, his work on behalf of the American Colonization Society put him at odds with some emigrationists as well as those African Americans who believed their people should pursue a policy of assimilation.
By the 1890s, Henry McNeal Turner had become the most outspoken African-American advocate of emigration. Turner's "Back to Africa" message was well received by many poor Southern farmers. They often endured great hardships in their efforts to find passage to Liberia. In 1876, Turner came under heavy criticism when he became vice president of the ACS. He traveled to Africa four times during the 1890s.
Despite these various efforts, emigration and colonization had always met with strong opposition from the black community. The Negro Convention movement, black America's most important arena for political expression and protest during the nineteenth century, was a direct response to the formation of the American Colonization Society and Liberian colonization. In 1818, three thousand free African Americans answered a call from James Forten and the Bishop of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, Richard Allen, to convene in Philadelphia. The assembly denounced the ACS's colonization scheme as an "outrage having no other object in view than the slaveholding interests of the country." They expressed the idea that the United States was their home, and though they recognized the inequalities they faced, they maintained that:
if the plan of colonizing is intended for our benefit, and those who now promote it will never seek our injury, we humbly and respectfully urge, that it is not asked for by us: nor will it be required by any circumstances, in our present or future condition, as long as we shall be permitted to share the protection of the excellent laws and just government which we now enjoy, in common with every individual of the community.
Individual African Americans also noted their views on the subject. In 1834 Peter Williams, an Episcopal priest in New York City, objected to the idea that African Americans were best suited to colonization in Africa. "We are NATIVES of this country," he asserted, and "ask only to be treated as well as FOREIGNERS . . . we ask only to share equal privileges with those who come from distant lands, to enjoy the fruits of our labor. Let these modest requests be granted, and we need not to go to Africa nor anywhere else to be improved and happy."
Edward Wilmot Blyden
Born in St. Thomas in the U.S. Virgin Islands, Edward Blyden (1832 - 1912) traveled to the United States, where he gained his first exposure to American racism. After the passage of the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act, he sailed to Monrovia in December. Between 1858 and 1861, he was principal of Alexander High School, was ordained as a Presbyterian minister, served as the editor of the Liberia Herald, and published numerous pamphlets and essays which suggested that Christianity and European education would enrich neither the cultural nor the intellectual wealth of Africa. In 1861, he made the first of several trips to the United States to encourage African Americans to immigrate to Africa because he believed that American racism was so ingrained that blacks could never be more than second-class citizens. Between 1871 and 1873, Blyden lived in Freetown, Sierra Leone, where he edited the journal Negro. He returned to Liberia in 1874, and ran unsuccessfully for president in 1885. He was appointed ambassador to Britain and France, and later served as president of Liberia College.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Born free in South Carolina, Henry McNeal Turner (1834-1915) became one of the preeminent African-American leaders of the late nineteenth century, an author, and Bishop in the African Methodist Episcopal Church. In 1863, when the Union army recruited African Americans, Turner encouraged them to join. He raised the first black regiment of the Civil War and was the first African-American chaplain in the U.S. Army. By the 1870s, Turner had become disenchanted with the prospects for African Americans in the United States and advocated their immigration to Haiti and Africa. Throughout the 1890s, he traveled to Liberia, Sierra Leone, South Africa, and the Transvaal. Upon his return, he published articles in the Voice of Missions and Voice of the People that criticized America, and he urged colonization, stating, "A man who loves a country that hates him is a human dog and not a man."
Bishop Turner on why he supported emigration: "I believe that the Negroid race has been free long enough now to begin to think for himself and plan for better conditions than he can lay claim to in this country or ever will. There is no manhood future in the United States for the Negro. He may eke out an existence for generations to come, but he can never be a man—full symmetrical and undwarfed. . . . And as such, I believe that two or three millions of us should return to the land of our ancestors, and establish our own nation." J. W. E. Bowen, ed., Africa and the American Negro.
posted
^As we have discovered in another thread, the term "African American" is NEW term for general usage. Yet the Schomburg narrator continually uses it in the voice of the subjects of the article. That is obviously a lie, but why are these Negroes lying about it in light of the evidence?
The reality is this;
Of the millions of Black Americans in the U.S. a paltry few thousands show ANY interest in Africa whatsoever. Black Americans seem to universally have a low opinion of Africans, and ignore migration there, even though they live in a most hostile and difficult environment in the U.S.
Yet there is a segment of Blacks in the U.S. who keep falsely pushing Africa as their homeland, sorta like lamin does here.
Could it be as some of those old Black leaders sniffed out. Whites and the Black agents of Whites, trying to con Blacks into leaving so that Whites will have a clear field?
lamin is a White mole you know.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good info, but the "Back To Africa" movement cannot be simply conceived as a white plot to get rid of blacks. For SOME whites this was the case, but for blacks it was a chance to establish independent regimes free of white domination. This was a valid feeling in the black community, a community beaten down and beset every day with racism. Back to Africa reflected deep, authentic INSPIRATION in the black community, even though on a PRACTICAL level it was a stretch that was unworkable for the mass of African Americans.
SOme successes could be claimed in certain eras, as in Liberia, and parts of Sierra Leone. Marcus Garvey's mass movement also saw some success on the strength of his black pride, back to Africa appeal. Garvey made several mistakes- his organization was sloppy and undisciplined, his finances poorly run, and he telegraphed his moves publicly in advance too much giving his enemies time and space to counter them. He also went in for too grand gestures and too-big projects rather than hard-hitting smaller projects that could benefit the masses and been within their organizational expertise.
The ill-fated Black Star shipping line- pride of UNIA, consumed tens of thousands of hard dollars that could have been used much better elsewhere. Its failure left a profound disillusionment- $80,000 paid for a leaky old steamer that barely ran. Think what could have been done if Marcus had put that 80K and the tens of thousands more sunk into the black hole of the shipping line into a base of small businesses, farms, schools, workshops and tight military-style organization and recruitment. Garvey also hurt his case by dabbling with white racist groups like the Klan, giving his black enemies even more ammunition to use against him. In the early days Dubois actually looked favorably on Garvey's practical initiatives. It is too bad Garvey did not have a reliable Carnot (of French Revolution fame)- working for him, a long-term hard-nosed, effective administrator and organizer, that could translate his inspirational lead into long-term, concrete results on the ground, and keep the finances up to snuff.
Still, Garvey was viewed as a serious threat by the white establishment, hence it pulled out all stops to destroy him. J Edgar Hoover rose to prominence in part trying to destroy Garvey and there were many willing "talented tenth" types willing to cooperate. Even W.E.B Dubois, when he was America's special envoy to Liberia, sabotaged Garvey's attempt to establish a settlement in Liberia. When Garvey was deported from the US it was discovered that his white lawyer who supposedly was working for him, later went to work for the same government that persecuted and destroyed Garvey.
Well could Marcus say, as the knives twisted in his back:
"Surely I have been on the road to Jericho, and have fallen among thieves.."
Marcus Mosiah Garvey
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^What I'm trying to show is that unlike stories that I've heard of Africans and Black Brazilians (many of whom are indeed African) having an on-going exchange. Black Americans in North America: the U.S. Canada, and Mexico, have never really had a relationship with Africa, except for those isolated cases detailed above, which is hardly the behavior of African expatriates pining for their homeland.
Rather, when taken in totality, Black Americans exhibited the exact natural behavior for the truth of their situation.
Those that were descended from Paleoamericans were already in their homeland, there was nowhere else to go.
Those who were European had been expelled from their homeland, there was no going back. But in America, their languages and cultures were also transplanted, so they had something to work with. It might well be that they choose "the devil that they knew".
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: The first known colonization effort took place in Sierra Leone, home to the Temne, Mandingo, Fulani, Bullom, and Kru people.
The original settlers, 450 destitute black men and women from England, called the Black Poor, arrived in 1787.
I wonder why none of you commented on this.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mike, you are a consummate prevaricator. You say things which turns out to be a made-up fairy tales, then when caught you switch to something irrelevant.
Whatever AAs should make of their initially enforced journey to the Americas and the U.S. in particular is for them to decide.
The main criticism of your bogus ideas stems not from what should be the future path of AAs but from your [b] nonsensically absurd idea that most AAs derive from Europe. You claim that the AAs chose the same route to travel to the U.S. as the white Europeans who settled the land. There are historical[archives,shipping manifests, etc.] documentations of the European immigration movement from all parts of Europe to the U.S. Mike--and there is absolutely no evidence that blacks were part of that movement. One bit of evidence to discount your fables Mike is that [b] those blacks who fought with the British during the U.S. War of Independence traveled to Britain with the defeated Red Coats but they found the place too cold and strange and petitioned to be sent to Africa. They were complied with and were sent to Freetown, Sierra Leone. If Europe were their original home why would they petition to be sent to Africa? [b]
Another empirical fact you keep dodging from is that DNA analysis shows that the vast majority(95%) of AA females carry the signature African MtDNA haplogroups L1 and L2. With AA males it is approximately 70% for E1b1a--a signature West African haplogroup. Others show R which is also West African--though common in Europe.
That's the real issue Mike. When you switch gears and jump to something else--it is so painfully obvious. You are not very bright Mike. And when one mixes intellectual dullness with childish fantasies the Mike persona emerges.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: Mike, you are a consummate prevaricator. You say things which turns out to be a made-up fairy tales, then when caught you switch to something irrelevant.
Whatever AAs should make of their initially enforced journey to the Americas and the U.S. in particular is for them to decide.
The main criticism of your bogus ideas stems not from what should be the future path of AAs but from your nonsensically absurd idea that most AAs derive from Europe. You claim that the AAs chose the same route to travel to the U.S. as the white Europeans who settled the land. There are historical[archives,shipping manifests, etc.] documentations of the European immigration movement from all parts of Europe to the U.S. Mike--and there is absolutely no evidence that blacks were part of that movement. One bit of evidence to discount your fables Mike is that those blacks who fought with the British during the U.S. War of Independence traveled to Britain with the defeated Red Coats but they found the place too cold and strange and petitioned to be sent to Africa. They were complied with and were sent to Freetown, Sierra Leone. If Europe were their original home why would they petition to be sent to Africa?
Another empirical fact you keep dodging from is that DNA analysis shows that the vast majority(95%) of AA females carry the signature African MtDNA haplogroups L1 and L2. With AA males it is approximately 70% for E1b1a--a signature West African haplogroup. Others show R which is also West African--though common in Europe.
That's the real issue Mike. When you switch gears and jump to something else--it is so painfully obvious. You are not very bright Mike. And when one mixes intellectual dullness with childish fantasies the Mike persona emerges.
Claims contained in your nonsense above:
1) When caught in a lie I switch to something else.
Please provide an example.
2) A.As. should decide their stance toward their forced emigration.
They can't, their history has been stolen. Most don't know the circumstance of how the wound up in the Americas.
3) You say that it is impossible that European Blacks used the same paths to the U.S. as European Albinos did - indentures. You say that there is no documentation that any of those people were Blacks.
Ha,ha,ha,ha: You are using the racial opacity of many Albino scientists, to hide the fact the ancient Europeans were Black.
Not this time asshole: YOU show me proof that ANY of those people were White!
If there is no data to prove that any of them were White, then why should there be data that they were Black - asshole! Your stupidly is irksome.
4) You say that Black loyalists petitioned to be sent to Africa.
Please provide some proof of that.
5) Then you say THIS:
DNA analysis shows that the vast majority(95%) of AA females carry the signature African MtDNA haplogroups L1 and L2. With AA males it is approximately 70% for E1b1a--a signature West African haplogroup. Others show R which is also West African--though common in Europe. He,he,he: Damn you're stupid!
Clearly you are an idiot, a lunatic, and a liar.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: The first known colonization effort took place in Sierra Leone, home to the Temne, Mandingo, Fulani, Bullom, and Kru people.
The original settlers, 450 destitute black men and women from England, called the Black Poor, arrived in 1787.
I wonder why none of you commented on this.
I am assuming you are fixating on the fact the blacks came from Europe? Well that is fine but what is their origin? Can you prove that they were always in Europe? It could very well be that they were the result of slaves brought to Europe. You have to research and find out their origin.
Posts: 1296 | From: the planet | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: The first known colonization effort took place in Sierra Leone, home to the Temne, Mandingo, Fulani, Bullom, and Kru people.
The original settlers, 450 destitute black men and women from England, called the Black Poor, arrived in 1787.
I wonder why none of you commented on this.
I am assuming you are fixating on the fact the blacks came from Europe? Well that is fine but what is their origin? Can you prove that they were always in Europe? It could very well be that they were the result of slaves brought to Europe. You have to research and find out their origin.
Damn - Either you're White, or you're quite the Negro, aren't you.
Judging by the participation in these threads, you're not alone.
Well actually no, this is not about me proving anything to anyone except myself. I engage in these debates to vet my own thinking and conclusions. At least that was the original plan, as of late, I have gotten so little worthwhile feedback, that it's hardly worth the time and effort.
As to people like you, of which there are far too many: that is, those who think that their origins and history is an armchair exercise;
Please don't take this wrong, but that speaks volumes about what you think about yourselves, and certainly what I think of you.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most blacks in America derive from the first European blacks of colonial America, the first 75 years, 1607-1682
If you read the early accounts these were Black European Catholics who spoke fluent Dutch, German, English, Spanish or French and were versed in European history, culture and law
They were astonished when later smaller numbers of blacks from Africa showed up looking just like them
-Mike University
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Not meaning to beat a dead Horse, but I have always wondered about this.
Almost every single Black American (as in the literal American), except in Belize and most of the Caribbean: lives in a "Hostile" environment. That is, an environment which has tried to do you grievous harm in the past, and of which powerful remnants still exists in society, and especially in government, to continue your oppression in one form or another. (Think especially of Brazil).
Yet you people think nothing of taking the word of your proven enemy, and if no longer enemy, then certainly your competitor, as to who you are, and where you came from.
Well pardon my saying so, but that makes you people incredibly stupid, and deserving of what you are getting, and what you will continue to get. Somebody has to be on the bottom, who better to be there, than the stupid?
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^Not meaning to beat a dead Horse, but I have always wondered about this.
Almost every single Black American (as in the literal American), except in Belize and most of the Caribbean: lives in a "Hostile" environment. That is, an environment which has tried to do you grievous harm in the past, and of which powerful remnants still exists in society, and especially in government, to continue your oppression in one form or another. (Think especially of Brazil).
Yet you people think nothing of taking the word of your proven enemy, and if no longer enemy, then certainly your competitor, as to who you are, and where you came from.
Well pardon my saying so, but that makes you people incredibly stupid, and deserving of what you are getting, and what you will continue to get. Somebody has to be on the bottom, who better to be there, than the stupid?
You're right about how SOME AAs and Brazillians would rather take the word of an outsider then there own, but thats changing.
As we see in Brazil with the Youth forcing there ways into malls and promoting that they aint going nowhere so you must accept them.
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KING: You're right about how SOME AAs and Brazillians would rather take the word of an outsider then there own, but thats changing.
As we see in Brazil with the Youth forcing there ways into malls and promoting that they aint going nowhere so you must accept them.
Actually, to me, Brazil IS the exception. I believe that most of them are indeed Africans.
I note that there has always been an ongoing relationship - even to where Africans came to Brazil to free their kidnapped nobles.
Then we note how easily the Albino people were able to manipulate and almost destroy them, though they had the superior numbers - what could be more African than that?
Then we note how well they have taken marginalization for so long. Again, what could be more African?
Then compare them to others:
In Peru, Bolivia, etc. the Blacks are very suspicious and resentful of Government. Which shows good common sense, as these are the Paleoamericans.
In other places, when the opportunity arose, those Blacks took control.
See how different Brazilians (the Africans) are?
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KING: You're right about how SOME AAs and Brazillians would rather take the word of an outsider then there own, but thats changing.
As we see in Brazil with the Youth forcing there ways into malls and promoting that they aint going nowhere so you must accept them.
Actually, to me, Brazil IS the exception. I believe that most of them are indeed Africans.
I note that there has always been an ongoing relationship - even to where Africans came to Brazil to free their kidnapped nobles.
Then we note how easily the Albino people were able to manipulate and almost destroy them, though they had the superior numbers - what could be more African than that?
Then we note how well they have taken marginalization for so long. Again, what could be more African?
Then compare them to others:
In Peru, Bolivia, etc. the Blacks are very suspicious and resentful of Government. Which shows good common sense, as these are the Paleoamericans.
In other places, when the opportunity arose, those Blacks took control.
See how different Brazilians (the Africans) are?
Man Mike, I would laugh, But what you state about the majority Black brazil is true
Brazil should never of gotten as chaotic as it did. Now All Youth realize they are the future and the backbone of Brazil. Will be interesting if them brothers step up to make statements during this worthless world cup.
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
One more subject in my Black edification. For certainly there is much about certain Black people that I just don't understand.
This concerns Florida U.S.
A Black teenager named Jordan Davis was shot dead by a White man after he refused to turn down his car radio at a gas station.
For my purpose, the actual facts are of no consequence here, my interest is in the thinking of Jordan Davis and his family.
Here again, we get to the most basic human instincts and concepts. That is, the basic understanding of when and where you are in danger.
(This speaks to my earlier comments about a "Hostile Environment" or rather, how certain Blacks can't seem to understand when they are in one).
I just can't get my head around this:
Jordan Davis and his family live in Florida U.S. WHERE IT HAS BEEN PROVEN, THAT THEY WILL SHOOT AND KILL - AND GET AWAY WITH IT - BLACK TEENAGERS!
Yet Jordan Davis family apparently never instructed him as to how to handle those situations. And he (Jordan Davis) clearly thought nothing of engaging a White man who was most likely "ARMED".
(Florida encourages it's White citizens to arm themselves).
Somebody please help me understand this. I am tired of saying bad things about Black people, especially in light of these tragedies.
BTW - I saw a source which said that 23 other Blacks had been shot under similar circumstances.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Here again, I mean no disrespect for the dead. BUT - failure to act, and react intelligently, all too often gets one killed.
Michael Dunn, the murderer of Jordan Davis, is intelligent enough to not try that in someplace like say - Compton California.
Because he knows that as soon as he pulled his pistol, the Black youths in the other car would surely have pulled a shotgun (as he claims he saw - but there was none), but also a fifty cal. machine gun, an RPG (Rocket propelled Grenade), and possibly a surface to surface missile.
The Albino people understand situational awareness like that, why can't Black people - especially Black youth?
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Jordan Davis and his family live in Florida U.S. WHERE IT HAS BEEN PROVEN, THAT THEY WILL SHOOT AND KILL - AND GET AWAY WITH IT - BLACK TEENAGERS!
The 45 year old shooter Micheal Dunn was found guilty on 4 out of 5 counts and faces a 60 year sentence
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: The first known colonization effort took place in Sierra Leone, home to the Temne, Mandingo, Fulani, Bullom, and Kru people.
The original settlers, 450 destitute black men and women from England, called the Black Poor, arrived in 1787.
I wonder why none of you commented on this.
I am assuming you are fixating on the fact the blacks came from Europe? Well that is fine but what is their origin? Can you prove that they were always in Europe? It could very well be that they were the result of slaves brought to Europe. You have to research and find out their origin.
Damn - Either you're White, or you're quite the Negro, aren't you.
Judging by the participation in these threads, you're not alone.
Well actually no, this is not about me proving anything to anyone except myself. I engage in these debates to vet my own thinking and conclusions. At least that was the original plan, as of late, I have gotten so little worthwhile feedback, that it's hardly worth the time and effort.
As to people like you, of which there are far too many: that is, those who think that their origins and history is an armchair exercise;
Please don't take this wrong, but that speaks volumes about what you think about yourselves, and certainly what I think of you.
All that typing, and to have said absolutely nothing.
Posts: 1296 | From: the planet | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
Jordan Davis and his family live in Florida U.S. WHERE IT HAS BEEN PROVEN, THAT THEY WILL SHOOT AND KILL - AND GET AWAY WITH IT - BLACK TEENAGERS!
The 45 year old shooter Micheal Dunn was found guilty on 4 out of 5 counts and faces a 60 year sentence
You stupid, mindless, crotch rotted Cow, can't you for once, but aside your innate Albino urge to lie?
Micheal Dunn was found guilty of attempting to murder the other three boys - who were not injured.
On the count of murdering Jordan Davis, the Albinos refused to convict and hung.
Clearly they knew that he was guilty as hell, thus the bullsh1t guilty verdict for those who were not even injured.
They wanted to get the homicidal Micheal Dunn off the streets, no telling who he would kill next - maybe even someone White.
So this verdict was clearly to get rid of Dunn, but at the same time, to provide leeway for the next Albino who might find it necessary to murder another Black boy.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Vai are best known for having created a written alphabet for their language in 1833.
quote:
Actually,its at least 2 millenia old. I think I saw a comparison of Olmec/Vai script Clyde did.
Posts: 433 | From: nairobi | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
I think that we need to closely scrutinize the "Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade". There are so many nuances that are senseless.
1. Why would Europeans travel to Africa to steal a "forced labour" workforce while passing over the countless peasants who were already in Europe. Europe has not always been "rich".
2. What kind of wealth did Europe have in the 15th - 16th centuries to be able to afford the 3-6 month trip to the Americas from Africa (and throughout the Atlantic)?
3. If "Africans" were trading other "Africans", then what happened to that accumulation of wealth in Africa? What were they getting....booz, mirrors and guns? How much booz, mirrors and guns could be traded for 20,000,000 people over 2-3 centuries?
During this time span, not one African was industrious-minded enough to learn how to make booz or build guns to build a market there in Africa? Ideas had to be traded along with people, booz, guns and mirrors, right? That's only natural due to the exposure to different cultures.
4. How did the "Africans" survive in the hull of the ship in such horrid conditions for months at a time? Think about sanitation and diseases that spread due to unsanitary conditions.
Do You believe that this is a "Rare photo of African slaves while still aboard the ship"
You have GOT to be fucking kidding me!
How about these famous picture:
Are people so unbelievably stupid that ^^^^ this satiric level of bullshit is seen as being real history? I am actually looking for an "actual" image of Noah and his Ark.
Those people laid/sat like that in piss and **** for 3-6 months! What about Food, Water and Space (to keep sanity)? Europeans definitely did not know about cleanliness/sanitation in this era, so the boats would have been downright filthy and disgusting. Every culture that had contact with Europeans complained about their smell.
As BUCKWILD as my people are in the so called "diaspora", how in the **** did they get our ancestors to gather on the so called slave ships and sit obediently like some goddamn livestock?
Anyway, I am going to close it here. I could go on, but I have things to enjoy.
My last statement is this: I sat in a graduate course with smart people who were from all over the world...Africa, Israel, Europe and the Americas.
When the question was posed by this young Canadian girl "Why were Africans picked for slavery?" Not a SINGLE goddamn person had an answer.
Something is VERY fishy......
Posts: 108 | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
like geeskee55 is doing, QUESTION EVERYTHING.
Don't let people like Lioness and her google scholarship stop you from realizing that there is a HEAVY coverup of things.
Was there slavery from Africa, to the Americas?Yes. Was it as huge as the euros make it out to be? probably not.
Why you may ask, its because to think that a human being would sit in silence for 5 months and be given poor nourishment and not only that, but sit in there own filth, without the disease spreading to all the people on board the ships is an ridiculous idea.
Edit: Let me add that the less we question, the more we are enslaved in the mind and the more the elites do there "union of convenience" and make moves to put power in few hands. Like I posted in the other thread....People Black and white have to always question things and not take everything at face value
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
We are survivors Once we understand that we can move forward
RESPECT WHAT THE ANCESTORS WENT THROUGH, THEIR STRUGGLE, DAMNIT
Do you see Jews pretending their was no Holocaust ??
Black people wake up
We are African, not European
The title of this thread is pure confusion and weak minded
Our African identity is the truth and should be a source of pride
If you think you are a native to Europe you are a beaten down Negro living in a bizarre fantasy -wanting to be the damn oppressor, it's a sickness
^^ you think you can't see such scenes in 2014 U.S. prison system??
So Stupid lioness, WHERE IN MY POST DID I DENY THE SLAVERY OF AFRICANS???
I would never deny the African slave holocaust you weak minded brain dead listen to everything an euro book states person.
There is More to this then meets the eye is all I am saying.
If you know these books, then post from it what it says about Africans in the slave ships and how they survived the trip.
Why you think in PRISIONS you always hear about riots and murders etc. You can't look at these people in the penal system and make statements that the slave ships was like that because as we see The Africans who survived, HAD TO BE STRONG...and Not hide there strength.
Its the system of things I am speaking on, not really the slave trade...I'm saying how can 11 million people and over 50 000 voyages been taken place in less then 500 years?? Most people died on the voyage yet the # of Africans in countries like Brazil and the Caribbean, outnumber other places especially since they would rather work the people to death. Have you ever seen a Million people lioness? much less think what 11 million people look like in person... Also these slave ships would of been passing each other like a traffic jam on the ocean for it to be as big as it is supposedly told it was.
Trips to America from Africa would take how long Lioness? Also how would you feed all these people since they would be bought and sold when they got to American soil at the ready or do you think they fed them good when they got their?
There is something fishy going on Lioness, instead of taking every white book written by euros for euros, you should consider that there is always truth largely ignored for evil purposes. To learn that truth and reveal it to others, even though it ain't mainstream, leads to shackles being TORN OFF.
Look at Ancient Egypt....Herodutus SAID AND HE LIVED IN THE TIME OF ANCIENT EGYPT THAT THEY WERE BLACK PEOPLE.....Yet mainstream denys this calls him a liar and claims he was wrong about this. It was MAINSTREAM TO CLAIM THAT WONDERING CAUCASIANS BUILT GREAT ZIMBABWE. There is books by these people who did these things. It was mainstream to claim that Africans never had civilization that they all lived in huts and were hunter gathers exclusively and that Egypt and Kush were separate from the rest of Africa because of outside influences. There were books on that too Lioness. It was Mainstream to think that Africans never traveled outside there continent there were books on that too Lioness. It was Mainstream to think that Greeks were a miracle and learned from none but just knew everything kinda like you...That was mainstream and there were books on that too.
Fact is that anyone can write a book, Lioness, and be agreed upon by the establishement its those who QUESTION!!!!, why we get THE REAL TRUTH OUT THERE. Uncle toms who think everything is Oakley dokely and just accepts things at face value is the reason why lies are pushed as truth and the people get suppressed longer then they should.
You would be right there Lioness if you lived in the 1800's telling Africans...."Oh it's true we never made anything great, but Now its our time and we are going to lead the world because everyone has a chance to lead its our time now, Black Power". Then there would be the 1 person saying "Wait a minute people why are we taking the words of these slave drivers at face value, why not investigate and see for ourselves whether we Built Ancient Egypt and Kush and if Great Zimbabwe etc were built by Blacks or not" You would yell him/her down and scream JUST ACCEPT IT ITS FACT ITS WRITTEN IN BOOKS.
If the euros can silence there own historians, then they can silence anyone.
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
We are survivors Once we understand that we can move forward
RESPECT WHAT THE ANCESTORS WENT THROUGH, THEIR STRUGGLE, DAMNIT
Do you see Jews pretending their was no Holocaust ??
Black people wake up
We are African, not European
The title of this thread is pure confusion and weak minded
Our African identity is the truth and should be a source of pride
If you think you are a native to Europe you are a beaten down Negro living in a bizarre fantasy -wanting to be the damn oppressor, it's a sickness
^^ you think you can't see such scenes in 2014 U.S. prison system??
So Stupid lioness, WHERE IN MY POST DID I DENY THE SLAVERY OF AFRICANS???
I would never deny the African slave holocaust you weak minded brain dead listen to everything an euro book states person.
There is More to this then meets the eye is all I am saying.
If you know these books, then post from it what it says about Africans in the slave ships and how they survived the trip.
Why you think in PRISIONS you always hear about riots and murders etc. You can't look at these people in the penal system and make statements that the slave ships was like that because as we see The Africans who survived, HAD TO BE STRONG...and Not hide there strength.
Its the system of things I am speaking on, not really the slave trade...I'm saying how can 11 million people and over 50 000 voyages been taken place in less then 500 years?? Most people died on the voyage yet the # of Africans in countries like Brazil and the Caribbean, outnumber other places especially since they would rather work the people to death. Have you ever seen a Million people lioness? much less think what 11 million people look like in person... Also these slave ships would of been passing each other like a traffic jam on the ocean for it to be as big as it is supposedly told it was.
Trips to America from Africa would take how long Lioness? Also how would you feed all these people since they would be bought and sold when they got to American soil at the ready or do you think they fed them good when they got their?
There is something fishy going on Lioness, instead of taking every white book written by euros for euros, you should consider that there is always truth largely ignored for evil purposes. To learn that truth and reveal it to others, even though it ain't mainstream, leads to shackles being TORN OFF.
Look at Ancient Egypt....Herodutus SAID AND HE LIVED IN THE TIME OF ANCIENT EGYPT THAT THEY WERE BLACK PEOPLE.....Yet mainstream denys this calls him a liar and claims he was wrong about this. It was MAINSTREAM TO CLAIM THAT WONDERING CAUCASIANS BUILT GREAT ZIMBABWE. There is books by these people who did these things. It was mainstream to claim that Africans never had civilization that they all lived in huts and were hunter gathers exclusively and that Egypt and Kush were separate from the rest of Africa because of outside influences. There were books on that too Lioness. It was Mainstream to think that Africans never traveled outside there continent there were books on that too Lioness. It was Mainstream to think that Greeks were a miracle and learned from none but just knew everything kinda like you...That was mainstream and there were books on that too.
Fact is that anyone can write a book, Lioness, and be agreed upon by the establishement its those who QUESTION!!!!, why we get THE REAL TRUTH OUT THERE. Uncle toms who think everything is Oakley dokely and just accepts things at face value is the reason why lies are pushed as truth and the people get suppressed longer then they should.
You would be right there Lioness if you lived in the 1800's telling Africans...."Oh it's true we never made anything great, but Now its our time and we are going to lead the world because everyone has a chance to lead its our time now, Black Power". Then there would be the 1 person saying "Wait a minute people why are we taking the words of these slave drivers at face value, why not investigate and see for ourselves whether we Built Ancient Egypt and Kush and if Great Zimbabwe etc were built by Blacks or not" You would yell him/her down and scream JUST ACCEPT IT ITS FACT ITS WRITTEN IN BOOKS.
If the euros can silence there own historians, then they can silence anyone.
KING
Don't bother dialoging with liars.
I never pay this "lioness" character any attention.
He is a "black woman" who has no understanding of black hairstyles or hair care.
This character has been caught promoting too many lies to offer any legitimacy.
and the books by English authors as well as juxtaposing the hull of a slave ship against the American Prison system were downright laughable.
I will do this again....
Our people being incarcerated or kidnapped against their will in modern times:
4 Devils...1 black man
Notice what the devils are holding in this picture to control the 9 black men. Also, notice that there are at least 8 devils in the photo. I am sure that there are others who are not pictured.
Watch the number of devils who chose to participate in the kidnapping and torture of this 20 year old African (who was mistaken for being one of us). Watch this video at 2:12 and after to get my point. Do you see the number of devils for 1 black man?
posted
Now compare the assaults, kid-napping and torture above...of how OUR PEOPLE ARE CAPTURED AGAINST THEIR WILL TODAY...to the depictions of Africans being forced into chattel servitude 300 to 400 years ago...We trivialize the feasibility of their "experiences". These were people who were taken from their villages, families, culture, lifestyle and their humanity. The human response would be to fight to the death.
How many devils are shown here in this picture? For this picture to be legitimate there would have to be at least 1 armed devil for every 2 Africans on the ship. Do these people look like they were fighting for their lives?
Imagine black Americans, Jamaicans and other peoples in the diaspora sitting obediently like this for 3-6 months. There are obvious racial undertones in the depiction. The artist who drew this picture was told to make blacks look like livestock to dehumanize them. The individual who is face-palming in the lower right looks like he just got a speeding ticket. Everyone else looks indifferent. They have no emotion! This is obvious bullshit.
The following photo is similar to the depiction above. Observe this photo and think about the body language being displayed by the sheep and the so called Africans in the previous picture.
Here is another alleged slave ship depiction. How many devils are there for every black person here?
Same point here
Same Point here...FANTASY & LIES
The Fakeness is just oozing from this picture. Could you image black Americans, Jamaicans or other peoples from the alleged diaspora being docile in this type of environment?
I leave this thread with the most legitimate depiction of being in the hull of a ship. Notice who the prisoners of war are and how the prisoners of war look. They are WOMEN and CHILDREN. They are starving. There are a small number of POWs. How many trips would it take to ship 10,000,000 - 20,000,000 people like this?
posted
Great pictorial roundup. Do you have any info on Africans WITHIN Africa, revolting, rebelling or fighting he salve traders? Not looking for the salve ship rebellions, plantation runaways etc but stuff inside Africa before slaves were shipped out to the point of no return.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: Great pictorial roundup. Do you have any info on Africans WITHIN Africa, revolting, rebelling or fighting he salve traders? Not looking for the salve ship rebellions, plantation runaways etc but stuff inside Africa before slaves were shipped out to the point of no return.
Good Question...
Data on rebellions is scarce to say the least. Most of the written records comes from Devils and by now we know how reliable and factual their information is. We must also take into account how devils have implemented an education system since the colonization of Africa that has taught Africans about the slave trade.
I have actually read excerpts written by 19th century devils who used "eye-witness accounts" to promote the idea that enslaving Africans in the "New World" was an act of benevolence. It seems that dominant African tribes were trying to cannibalize subordinate African tribes. Apparently mass scale cannibalization contributed to the alleged Atlantic Slave trade.
No ****...If anyone wants a link to the book, then let me know (I have to search for it again though). I found that information in the 19th century section of Google books.
It's almost as if these 10,000,000 - 20,000,000 people walked right onto the ships without any resistance.
What group of people hears about mass kidnapping and does nothing to stop it?
We owe it to our ancestors to think critically and ask:
Are there records of a MASS MIGRATION of people moving towards the interior of Africa to avoid the kidnappings? Who stays in a region that holds so much risk?
Are there records of communication between the men of separate villages and other communities to coordinate defensive measures against the kidnappings? There has to be defensive measures. Every civilization (whether they are advanced or not) has defensive measures. Even the Sentinelese (hunter gatherers) in India have slain foreigners in modern times who were impeding on their territory. The extreme rate of kidnapping had to promote some kind of action.
After bartering guns for 2-3 centuries in Africa, how could Europeans colonize Africa with ease? What happened to all the guns? Why didn't the Africans try to reproduce the military technology for a defensive measure? Are we supposed to believe that Africans were too stupid to reproduce the technology? Even today Africans have redesigned broken artillery left by past military conquests!
What sense does it make that a leader would sell his or her own people when even animals in nature realize that there is strength in numbers. How large was the population in western/central Africa to be able to consistently supply so many people (supply/demand). If devils were kidnapping young people and adults how could this region reproduce its own population and function. The population had to have a MAJOR hit. Again, what leader, who is supported by advisers who are specialized in social/communal knowledge, would not see this as a negative factor affecting the integrity of his or her kingdom? Africa has had kingdoms and civilizations for at least 8,000 years. Their leaders were not "Brand new". Knowledge and history had to have been passed down through the generations.
For the (African) kidnappers: How did their lifestyles improve from kidnapping other Africans. What was seen as "prosperity" and how did working in the trade achieve this? If these traders were becoming prosperous by kidnapping, what other businesses formed in their vicinity in the slave port cities (Economics has a domino effect). There should have been numerous African "start-ups" of all types ready to get patronized by the African kidnappers (think Zanzibar or MECCA). The economics in the context of kidnapping and selling more than 10,000,000 people should have produced permanent business interests in these port cities. What African port cities developed economically due to the "slave trade"?
The idea that African tribes were kidnapping in retaliation because enemy tribes kidnapped their own people for 2 centuries is LAUGHABLE and makes no goddamn sense.
Actually, I am very happy with being able to post these timeline tables on a message board. Now I can compare and contrast their validity.
I will note the peculiarities here:
KEEP in MIND that we must look at these tables as if they were on-top of each-other.
1. The rate of resistance remains below 5% from about 1675 to 1860. Is this realistic? So the vast majority of the POWs went along with being kidnapped? Someone or something is not truthful.
2. But there was an increase of devil deaths from 1700 to 1800. Then devil deaths dropped off completely in 1810 (British nationals could not transport slaves after 1807).
3. After the 1800s the average # for the crew of devils decreased.
4. The number of guns on a ship decreased after the 1700s...spiked in 1780....and spiked again in 1800 and then decreased thereafter.
5. In the context of a decreased crew of devils and a deceased number of guns the average # of prisoners of war increased dramatically from 1750 to 1850. (WTF?)
6. Also, there are no relationships between the number of guns, the number of crew members, the average number of POWs, or the rate of resistance. How logical is this? We are talking about the concept of shipping kidnapped PEOPLE not cars, not food products, not livestock or manufactured goods.
7. What we have here in this timeline is a system that is trying to define the present by manipulating (or flat-out making up) data from the past. This data makes absolutely no sense and is the best that the system has to offer.
Here are the timelines from the voyages website here:
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
Great pictorial roundup. Do you have any info on Africans WITHIN Africa, revolting, rebelling or fighting he salve traders? Not looking for the salve ship rebellions, plantation runaways etc but stuff inside Africa before slaves were shipped out to the point of no return.
.
The reason it's called slave trade is because Africans were trading partners in a business deal so no on continent revolts. But here's something partially in answer to your question.
Originally posted by alTakruri on February 14, 2007:
What follows is a mostly, though not completely, accurate essay. Bracketed words and hi-liting are my editing. Otherwise it appears as originally presented on www.netnoir.com in 1997.
quote: THE AFRICAN SLAVE TRADE The First Slav[ing] Expeditions to [West] Africa by Anthony A. Lee
Kidnapping [people] from the African coast was part of European practice even before Portuguese ships had explored the coast of the continent or discovered a new route to India. One of the first expeditions to the Senegal River, led by the Portuguese in 1444, brutally seized the black residents of several off-shore islands near the river and carried them off to be sold as slaves. Other expeditions from Europe about this time did more or less the same.
But it was not long before African armies became aware of the new dangers, and Portuguese ships began to meet their match. For example, in 1446, two years later, a ship commanded by Nuno Tristão attempted to land in the Senegal region. It was attacked by African fighters in canoes, and the crew of the ship was wiped out. And in 1447, a Danish raider commanding a Portuguese ship was killed, along with most of his crew, when local African boats attacked.
Of course, this fact of history makes the Atlantic slave trade a bit more problematic, from a moral perspective. It is not simply a question of black and white. Slavery was well known in [many] African societies, as much as it was a fact of life everywhere else in the world during those times.
As soon as Diogo Gomes' diplomatic expedition to West Africa had succeeded, the export of slaves began to number in the thousands. During the bloody course, perhaps 10 or 15 million Africans had been delivered as slaves to the New World, and perhaps just as many more had died in the process. These [people] were captured in Africa by Africans, shipped to the African coast by Africans, and only then sold to European traders in trade ships to begin the dreaded Middle Passage to America. African kings and rulers were active and willing participants in the slave trade, which made them rich[er], and which could not have existed without their full cooperation and support.
Indeed, when African kingdoms decided to stop trading in slaves -- for their own reasons -- there was no way for European nations to force them to continue. The earliest example of this is the Kingdom of Benin on the West African coast (in what is now Nigeria) In the 1520's this state began to restrict the sale of slaves, finally cutting it off entirely by about 1550. This was probably not done for moral reasons, however. Records from this period show that the kingdom was becoming wealthi[er] from the export of cloth and pepper. Although it is only a guess, we can imagine that slaves were needed within Benin itself to produce these valuable products which could bring more wealth to the king than the sale of human beings.
As uncomfortable as this aspect of Black History may be, it at least explodes the myth of a "dark," helpless and ignorant African continent that was always at the mercy of European greed. Nothing could be further from the truth. The more we learn about African history, going back even to the middle ages, the more we learn that Africans were full and active participants in the world -- on both sides of the Atlantic.
Lee has an entry, Slave Trade Wars: 1400 to 1900: Africa(link), in Cultural Sociology of the Middle East, Asia, & Africa: An Encyclopedia (2012)
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
@Tukler Great reference Takuri- will add to my archives. Below is a newly harvested item for ES. Didn't quite know where to put it, but this thread touches on the subject matter.
----------------------------
@ geeskee55 Good info, but few credible historians say Africans were just docile sheep. Only bogus race propagandists make this bogus claim. To the contrary there are several documented instances of slave revolts aboard slave ships. Someone no doubt has the info on this. See Tukler's detailed info above on attacks on the vessels.
These were people who were taken from their villages, families, culture, lifestyle and their humanity. The human response would be to fight to the death.
That would only be the response of SOME people. Other people are not that heroic, and just kept responding to whip and club in hopes of survival somewhere at the end of the ordeal. A tired, pregnant woman, brutalized and beaten over a 100 mile trek to the coast, is in no position to mount any death at all costs "banzai" charges. Its simply not realistic in any era for most women. Likewise some captive women killed their children to spare them the horrible misery and suffering, but to expect the mass of mothers to slaughter their own kids is also unrealistic. Men too- SOME had the energy and will, others just went along- disoriented tired, starving, beaten, hoping to survive. That too is a common, and realistic human response. They had to weigh their options. Do I expend my last reserves of energy on a suicide charge that most likely will fail, or conserve what little I had left just trying to survive? Both survivors and heroic suiciders deserve credit.
It's almost as if these 10,000,000 - 20,000,000 people walked right onto the ships without any resistance. What group of people hears about mass kidnapping and does nothing to stop it?
See Tukler's info above. Also see the new info below.
^^Note the substantial force mustered to take on the trapped vessel. Also note the wide-ranging mobilization across the region, with couriers carrying news. Recon parties must have kept tabs on the European intruders across a wide zone, then relayed the info for a final mobilization order by the appropriate war chief or leader, who put some 1500-3000 warriors on the floor for battle. I find the African response and organization here impressive. This was no mere local village turning out a light posse to rescue some local victims.
One thing missing here from the African arsenal is the archery of poisoned arrows. These were effective in 15th century battles that repulsed European slave traders. Compare to the clashes Tukler references.
------------------------------------------------- Wik In the 15th century for example the Portuguese engaged in a series of ruthless raids against the Senegal coast, hunting for slaves. While powerful on the open sea, the Portuguese ships were less impressive in the shallow waters near to shore. Using war canoes the African tribes of the coast fought back with lance, club, sword, and especially poisoned arrows. Poisoned missile fire from fast moving canoes neutralized Portuguese armor and decimated the European naval crews. The Portuguese were eventually forced to abandon raiding and set up peaceful trading arrangements with local African rulers using diplomacy. Scholarly Book reference- http://books.google.com/books?id=S42CypbRTlQC&pg=PA9
------------------------------------
One question: Muskets may have helped in this era but did the African weapons kit in this instance lack enough firepower by not using indigenous firepower- i,e. the poisoned arrow archery barrage that had proven effective before? Anyone have more info on poisoned arrow archery in African militaries?
7. What we have here in this timeline is a system that is trying to define the present by manipulating (or flat-out making up) data from the past. This data makes absolutely no sense and is the best that the system has to offer. Agreed, some of the conclusions and ratios they draw are questionable.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
I'm, sorry but the detailed facts of the Triangular Trade will shock you. It was a straight up business and most of the enslaved were holed up by African government agents for maybe months before the Europeans came to buy them. Sometimes the bargaining went on for weeks while the Euros were fleeced for "docking" fees, lodging, food, and entertainment not to mention an overall trade tax before they were even shown which people were for sale.
Much is heard about El Mina but few know it was rented out by the Akan to the Euros. I understand they at least once rented the space to two Euro nations at the same time and told them to work out the actual occupation themselves.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: I'm, sorry but the detailed facts of the Triangular Trade will shock you. It was a straight up business and most of the enslaved were holed up by African government agents for maybe months before the Europeans came to buy them. Sometimes the bargaining went on for weeks while the Euros were fleeced for "docking" fees, lodging, food, and entertainment not to mention an overall trade tax before they were even shown which people were for sale.
Much is heard about El Mina but few know it was rented out by the Akan to the Euros. I understand they at least once rented the space to two Euro nations at the same time and told them to work out the actual occupation themselves.
A lot of people don't fully get how ridiculous that period was. They also believe Europeans had FAR more power than they actually did. Many Europeans were not even allowed on the continent, but were relegated to those small ports and such. I read one story where a team of Europeans tried to penetrate Senegal and make their way into Mali, only to have been rounded up and murdered for doing so.
People also act as if white slaves introduced into Africa had a cake walk, they too were brutalized just as bad, if not worse than Africans in the new world. I read one account where Europeans were fed nothing but bread and water for two years. That was a dark time in human history.
Posts: 1296 | From: the planet | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic