Skip to main content

"That is sad that you were used as cannon fodder in elite imperialist war games...and identify with it!

Yes Oshun it is sad, but so were the black men who fought in the

Revolutionary War
Civil War
World War I
World War II
The Korean War
...in fact all of America's Wars

As I said, I suppose you Oshun with all that bravado about Africa will fight Africa's Wars and die there. I'm just curious why you are not in Darfur right now?

...and what was that stranger , "That isn't even half of the truth. Many of the times, the slaves weren't sold but TAKEN by the Europeans. Only some, if not, a few were sold into slavery."

Oh really!

Well let me repost an essay I did several weeks ago that includes noted resources. I suppose you will reduce my resources to a mere "bibliography" because like Oshun you was BORN already knowing this, you don't' need no Amerikkkan education!

Nmaginate, here is the rest of that BS

West African Slavery

Many African Americans today view slavery as mostly the evil of the white man, i.e., the Europeans and Americans. This perspective holds that slavery was a three-quarters verses one-quarter affair. That is to say, that three quarters of the responsibility for slavery rest with white people and one quarter with (west-coast) Africans. This view also purports that for three centuries it was the whites that ventured deep into the interior of Africa and stole, kidnapped and forced Africans into slavery. The West African minimization theory has lead many African Americans to view African slavery as mostly the fault of the "white man."

Yet contrary to that perspective, documented evidence shows that for three centuries West African Kingdoms, Chieftains and tribal leaders, as well as Africans at-large, - all were indispensable participants integral to the success of the Atlantic slave trade. Thusly, this essay challenges the erroneous notion of minimal West African involvement in the Atlantic slave trade. Historical documentation henceforth shows the dichotomous nature of the West African trans-Atlantic slave trade.

To be precise, viewed from a metaphorical perspective like that of a seesaw, - at one end of the plank sits the parameter of Africans who controlled internal slavery within Africa, and who captured and sold slaves. At the other end of the plank, the parameter of Europeans and Americans who controlled external slavery outside of Africa and purchased and transported slaves. Each end is balanced in the middle by a slave trade pyramid.

Historical documentation also demonstrates that the demand and provision of slaves would not have succeeded unless the suppliers (those who captured and sold slaves) were successful in their slave raiding endeavors. The documentation also shows that the success of (those who purchased and transported slaves) depended solely upon the achievements of West African supply and availability of slaves-the willingness of European and American purchasers to accept the dangers inherent with the high seas, - as well as the horrific gruesomeness associated with the forced transport of humans across the ocean. For centuries this descriptive analogy maintained equilibrium necessary to the success of the West African slave trade.

Still, it is imperative that attention be given to the economic engine that for three centuries powered the four necessary elements required for the success of the Atlantic slave trade, (capture and sale-purchase and transport). Historic documentation reveals unequivocally, the economic motive for West African slave raiding and the provision of slaves to be sold as an undeniable fact. Slaves purchased at West African slave markets or (barracoons) to be transported to the new world, once there produced cash crops and products sold globally, e.g., sugar, molasses, rum and later tobacco and cotton. These slave-produced products minus the slaves and with the addition of muskets, - all returned to West Africa and were used to barter for more slaves. For all those involved in the purchasing, transporting and utilization of slave labor, the sales of slave-produced products represented millions of dollars annually, and by 1865, dollars in the billions. Clearly, the economic motive for European and Americans buying and transporting West African slaves were unquestionable.

The role of West Africa in the procurement of slaves for the New World

Daniel P. Mannix in his Black Cargoes states that, "Slavery in Africa was an ancient and widespread institution, but it was especially prevalent in the Sudan. Many of the Negroes transported to America had been slaves in Africa." According to Davis Brion Davis, - Inhuman Bondage-he argues that "In the 1400s, as in many preceding centuries, indigenous slavery and slave trading were very wide spread in West Africa. Slavery was widespread in Atlantic Africa because slaves were the only form of private, revenue–producing property recognized in African law...and thus the main symbols of private wealth and success were large numbers of slaves (and wives, in accordance with socially accepted polygamy)...African "political and economic elites" were eager to sell large numbers of slaves to whoever would pay and thus fueled the Atlantic slave trade." In the 15th century the Spaniards inability to enslave the Hispaniola Indians and their succeeding mass death as a result of violence, heavy labor and European diseases, - all ushered in the mass importation of African slaves to the Caribbean island.

Daniel P. Manix in his – A History of the Atlantic Slave Trade Black Cargoes, writes that "...in 1517 Bartolome de Las Casas, later Bishop of Chiapa in Mexico and known as the Apostle to the Indies...stood before the throne of Charles V, ...and implored him to spare the last of the Indians...As an act of mercy toward the Indians, Las Casas begged his majesty to import Negroes. As early as 1518...the Atlantic slave trade was under way." Robert Edgar Conrad-Children of God's Fire A Documentary History of Black Slavery in Brazil writes that "...after 1500...African slaves began to reach Brazil in substantial numbers... from 1676 until 1851, over 3,000,000 slaves went to Brazil from Africa.

During two-thirds of Brazil's recorded history it was an established and nearly unquestionable practice to uproot black people from their native societies and transport them across the Atlantic to Brazil...Once referred to by a slave trader as "the most lucrative trade under the sun," this trafficking in human beings was a fully integrated component of African cultures, of the Portuguese Atlantic system, and of the Brazilian colonial economy."

Slave Kidnappings

Daniel P. Manix in his – A History of the Atlantic Slave Trade Black Cargoes, contends that "by the middle of the eighteenth century most of the slaves purchased by the English either had been captured in local wars (which had become, in large part, mere slave-raiding expeditions) or else had been kidnapped. Both techniques were highly organized and were conducted on a large scale...Simple kidnapping had become much more common than sale for pretended crimes. Kidnapping of Negroes by white men called "buckra panyaring" was a fairly common practice. Even so, "Whites and blacks cooperated in ...panyaring the famous case of the Old Calabar River is one example were ...kidnapping amounted about seven thousand slaves a year...Although panyaring by professionals had become an important source of slaves, it continued to rank second to wars among nations, tribes and villages...these wars were conducted chiefly for the purpose of obtaining captives for sale."

According to Lamb (The Africans), "... For the most part the Arab traders did not venture far into the interior to capture slaves. That service was provided by African Kings and chieftains who, unable to adjust to the new economic temptations of a changing world, subjugated and sold their people for the luxuries and essentials they had only recently been introduced to: cloth, metals, beads, spirits, tobacco, firearms. The slave trade made Kings rich in the interior, and along the coast created a new class of African merchants." Daniel P. Manix argues that "grand pillage is executed by the King's soldiers, from three hundred to three thousand at a time, who attack and set fire to a village and seize the inhabitants as they can...the lesser pillage...is done by individuals who do not belong to the King but are private robbers." Found in J.C. deGraft-Johnson's, - African Glory, "Professor Torday points out that it was on a peasantry...that the slave trade fell...Tribal life was broken up or undermined and millions of de-tribalized or decentralized Africans were let loose upon each other...Tribes had to supply slaves or be sold as slaves themselves...Violence, brutality, and ferocity became the necessities of survival, for generosity and good neighborliness had lost their meaning...The excesses of the slave trade must never be forgotten, for in them lie much of the horrors of the African continent."

15th century tribalism defines "other African people."

David Brion Davis (Inhuman Bondage) argues that just as "...Joseph Cinque (whose real name was Mendean Sengbeh) who was seized by four black strangers from his own tribe or clan and marched like a prisoner to Lomboko, on the Sierra Leone coast...For nearly four centuries West Africans had been devising techniques, including war, to enslave other Africans-usually members of other lineage or ethnic groups – to sell to European and American traders on the coast...virtually all of the enslavement of Africans was carried out by other Africans, but as the African American historian Nathan Huggins pointed out long ago, the concept of an African "race" was the invention of Western rationalist, and most African merchants "saw themselves as selling people other than their own."

Even if Nathan Huggins's notion of African merchants selling people that they regarded as "other than their own" is only half true, - when you add Lamb's contention that "...in addition to half a dozen imported European languages, (Africans) speak 750 tribal tongues, fifty of which are spoken by one million or more people. Both Swahili in East Africa and Hausa in West Africa are spoken by more than 25 million people. In Zaire alone, there are seventy-five different languages...in Africa (Africans stay within the security of (their) linguistic boundaries." At the very least, Huggins's theory illuminates several ascertainable points. First, although Huggins's does not specifically say so, it is safe to assume that these "other" Africans or "other" (tribes) nonetheless belong to the same Negro race as the merchants who sold them. Secondly, while not specifically spelled out or written, Huggins's contention of "otherness" suggest difference is not based on race, but rather some other entity. Additionally, when contemplation is given to Lambs "750 tribal tongues," the concept of inter-African difference, - more likely than not is based on tribal language and culture. And finally, during the period of West African slave trading, given the preceding points on race and tribe, it seems reasonable to conclude that "other African people," meant those who were neither members of any of the merchant tribes (Mandingo as one example) nor belonged to any of the coastal Kingdoms (Ghana as another example). Thus, as noted by J.C. deGraft-Johnson-millions of African slaves were taken from the tribalized interior and brought to the coastal Kingdoms to be sold and transported.

"...Steps to abolish slavery were taken outside Africa, not in it"

David Brion Davis (Inhuman Bondage) offers readers one instance of an African ruler who calls for the abolition of slavery. In the early 1500s Portugal's King Manual I recognized the African King of Kongo Alfonso I ...also known as Nzinga Mbemba (who) ...corresponded extensively with Portugal's ruler...(in) a letter dated July 6, 1526 in which he pleads for help in curbing the terrible damages inflicted by the slave trade:

"Merchants are taking every day our natives, sons of the land and sons of our noblemen and vassals and our relatives because the [African] thieves and men of bad conscience grab them wishing to have the things and wares of this Kingdom...[S]o great, Sir, is the corruption and licentiousness that our country is being completely depopulated...[It] is our will that in these Kingdoms there should not be any trade of slaves nor outlet for them"

David Lamb (The Africans) writes that, "...the steps to abolish slavery were taken outside Africa, not in it. Denmark barred its citizens from slave trading in 1803, Britain followed in 1807, the United States in 1808 and France in 1818. Despite the ban, US citizens continued to buy slaves, and slaving still flourished in many areas of the world because African and European merchants were unwilling to server this lucrative economic link. Britain meanwhile had set out to enforce its abolishment decree, establishing a twenty-ship antislavery fleet that patrolled the West African coast and stopped vessels suspected of carrying slaves.

Between 1825 and 1865, Britain detained 1,287 slave ships and liberated 130,000 slaves. The decisive factor ending the trade was the US Civil War and the resultant emancipation of slaves...(in) a continent where up to 50 million people ...were forced to migrate to other worlds...The migration had influenced events economically, politically and socially in the United States to this day." Aside from King of Kongo Alfonso I, - I have not found any documented evidence of any West African King, tribal leader, or Chieftain who called for an abolition or cessation of West African domestic slavery or the Atlantic slave trade.

Conclusion

The evidence I have presented here shows clearly that West Africa has for centuries controlled its own domestic slavery. The documentation also shows that Europe and America controlled slavery external to Africa. My intent here is not to demean or bemoan Africa; instead, my purpose is to reiterate the facts of West African slave trading based solely on a review of the available literature and documentation. Only in this manner can we dispel the fiction that West Africa only had a casual relationship with slavery. Or, as some African Americans believe, - that it was the "white man" who for three centuries kidnapped and forced blacks into slavery.

I have argued that the internal/external slave trade configuration counters any notion that West Africa had only a casual relationship with the sale of its own people. The documentation I presented here demonstrates clearly that it required immense African participation to forcefully remove from 50 to 100 million Africans over three centuries.

It is no wonder why when African scholars come to the United States rarely if ever does one hear them address the issue of West African slavery. More often than not they are hear to recruit the best and brightest of African Americans to go to Africa and assist them in their many social dilemmas.

When I was an undergraduate I took a special topics course on Post Colonial Africa from a West African professor whom as I recall, bragged about his royal Ashanti status, (in fact, Joe Appiah is his brother). While the course did open my eyes to Africa, he never once discussed West African slavery! Ignorant of the relationship West Africa had with my very being, I never questioned the Ashanti professor about slavery. In addition to my ignorance, like many other African Americans I was of the opinion that the "white man did it," and so, I left the issue of slavery in the white man's lap.

However, over the last ten or so years, I have resumed my African studies and have learned otherwise. What I have reiterated here is an attempt to share that learning. Unfortunately there are those who will continue to hold the myth of West African slave trading, denounce and "diss" me personally, and label me "anti-African." Be that as it may, I challenge anyone who has read this essay to counter what I have stated here by producing Journal articles, dissertations (masters or PhD), scholarly and/or research papers found in any book on the subject of West African slave trading.

I make this request with sincerity, not because I think I am right, but rather in the name of scholarly accuracy and integrity. I would rather be shown the errors in my thinking than to continue to write that which is neither supported by the literature or documentation anywhere.
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
quote:
Originally posted by kraaal:
Listen up Oshun !

I am an honorably discharged Vietnam Vet, I put my blackass on the line and fought for America not AFRICA!! I don't give a sh!t how much whitey, the Klan, Aryan nation or any other red neck racist hates me, I will fight and die to remain American not AFRICAN!!!


That is sad that you were used as cannon fodder in elite imperialist war games...and identify with it!

quote:
Kraal does not speak African


Nobody does. There is no "African language".

quote:
I don't dress African
My culture is American.
I owe Africa NOTHING and Africa owes me NOTHING!
I pay my taxes in America NOT AFRICA!!
My sons are born American not AFRICAN!


I never stopped you from being a self hater, I just point to it out. Don't kill the messenger, particularly when you are espousing the same message.

quote:

You can call me what the fu(k you want, I'm still an American entitled to all the rights of any other American. And while YOU hug Africa my work and my sons work as well as my grand sons remains HERE in America fighting the same idiot bastards as my American forefathers – those who wanted to deny what is owed to all African Americans, - an opportunity to live the so-called "American dream" NOT AN AFRICAN REPATRIATION DREAM!!!!


The Amerikkkan dream is capitalist mythology.

quote:
I know where the fu(k I come from Oshun, I don't NEED YOU to tell me


REally mature Kraal.

quote:
You think just because my skin is black I OWE SOMETHING TO AFRICA! If that is what you think then YOU Oshun are the fool!!

LISTEN UP, I OWE AFRICA NOTHING!!!!


That's fine kraal. Our opinions will always differ, I guess you got a little pissed about my FACTUAL CORRECTIONS of your post. Oh, well.

quote:
OSHUN, IF YOU ARE NOT IN Africa, I suggest you take your arse there RIGHT NOW and while you are there maybe you can join the Angolan Rebels or do some work in Darfar or help Africa with its AIDS crises. In this way you can better focus on Africa rather than wasting your damm time talking to what YOU describe as ANTI-AFRICAN niggers like kraal!


I would never refer to you or anyone else with the n-word. And I have been and do work closely with many an African cause. But pointing out the error in your ideology and factual errors in your post are not a waste of time on a MESSAGE BOARD where others read your dribble.

quote:
I don't care or give a damm what you say Oshun, WEST AFRICA SOLD ME and millions like me the same way as the white man sells his cattle!!!!!. I had no choice but to be an American.


If you don't care, why the anger and foul words?

quote:
And so it is what it is!! Africa for the Africans
America for Americans, - it is what it is!!

lol

quote:
Let me tell you something Oshun, - there is no amount, no degree no intensity of hate or racism that white folk can perpetrate that will ever cause me to deny my Americanism!!!!! Did you HEAR ME Oshun

I AM AN AMERICAN! I only come from Africa. I am an American created from the greed and averice of your beloved West African slave raiders!!!!


lol Let all that self htred out kraal. Doesn't that feel better to be honest?

quote:
So what does Africa mean to a Nig like kraal?
Since emancipation what has Africa done for American blacks?

Let me answer for you Oshun , - NOTHING!!!!

This is precisely why my work is here, NOT IN AFRICA!!!


End of Story Oshun!!!


Wow, the character finally comes through in the end doesn't it?...


OA, Stranger, Faheem,

This is a sad example of self-hate in Black people. Self-haters like this feel the need to dump on Africa while taking pride in their association with (White, Western) America.

If he doesn't give a damn about Africa, why did the MF make his moniker "kraal", the Dutch word for a Zulu town?

Also, notice how he used the term "miscegnation" and takes pride in claiming that African-Americans are a "new race" seperate from Africans? Even saying that our blood wouldn't register as African? I think this "brother" has been spending too much time at VDARE.
quote:
Originally posted by kraaal:
Light skinned blacks who are raised in the black community tend to adopt the culture of "blackness," i.e., in their dress, language and cultural habits that whites associate with blackness. These "light skinned" black raised African Americans are identified and treated by the white community as black persons, (Louis Farrakhan is a perfect example).


I'm a light-skinned Black person. Am I some sort of poser "adopting Blackness"? sck
quote:
If he doesn't give a damn about Africa, why did the MF make his moniker "kraal", the Dutch word for a Zulu town?


Empty Purnata you don't know what the hell your talking about!!!

A kraal is not simply a "the Dutch word for a Zulu town?" It is the Zulu kraal that is the primary locus for ritual action. It is the religious space that crucial religious performances occur periodically...the kraal is the traditional village...it consist of a circular arrangement of thatched huts, each shaped something like a beehive. The circular huts surrounds a circular cattle enclosure at the very center of the village. This inner circle is also called a kraal...the inner circle is the cattle kraal. As with all Bantu –speaking peoples, cattle are of extreme practical and religious importance. It is in the cattle kraal that most of the important Zulu religious rituals are performed.

EP if your gonna run your mouth and refer to me as a MF, at least know what the fu!k your talking about!

And here EMPTY, here is where the information you didn't have came from.

Religions of Africa, - E. Thomas Lawson

Read it EP and know what you are talking about or ignore it and stay dumb!!!!
quote:
Originally posted by kraaal:
"That is sad that you were used as cannon fodder in elite imperialist war games...and identify with it!

Yes Oshun it is sad, but so were the black men who fought in the

Revolutionary War
Civil War
World War I
World War II
The Korean War
...in fact all of America's Wars


Yes, but were we treated like we were American or second class citizens? I believe it was the latter of the two. We are still not seen as "just American", yet many white people REFUSE to call us African-American...why is that? What is their beef? Maybe it is because they do not want to reminded of Africa and what they did her and her people?


quote:
Originally posted by kraaal:
Many African Americans today view slavery as mostly the evil of the white man, i.e., the Europeans and Americans. This perspective holds that slavery was a three-quarters verses one-quarter affair. That is to say, that three quarters of the responsibility for slavery rest with white people and one quarter with (west-coast) Africans. This view also purports that for three centuries it was the whites that ventured deep into the interior of Africa and stole, kidnapped and forced Africans into slavery. The West African minimization theory has lead many African Americans to view African slavery as mostly the fault of the "white man."


Who was it that dehumanized us? Was it our West African brothers and sisters or was it the white man? Who treated us like we were less than human for over 300 years? Who taught us to hate ourselves, our image, our bodies, our whole entire being? Who set us back hundreds of years? Whose fault is it that many of our black men and women feel less than worthy of love? I can tell you that it was NOT our West African brothas and sistas, it was the white man.

quote:
Originally posted by kraaal:
Yet contrary to that perspective, documented evidence shows that for three centuries West African Kingdoms, Chieftains and tribal leaders, as well as Africans at-large, - all were indispensable participants integral to the success of the Atlantic slave trade. Thusly, this essay challenges the erroneous notion of minimal West African involvement in the Atlantic slave trade. Historical documentation henceforth shows the dichotomous nature of the West African trans-Atlantic slave trade.


You are maximizing the West African's involvement in the slave trade and minimizing the European's involvement in the slave trade.


quote:
Originally posted by kraaal:
To be precise, viewed from a metaphorical perspective like that of a seesaw, - at one end of the plank sits the parameter of Africans who controlled internal slavery within Africa, and who captured and sold slaves. At the other end of the plank, the parameter of Europeans and Americans who controlled external slavery outside of Africa and purchased and transported slaves. Each end is balanced in the middle by a slave trade pyramid.


Guess who also captured and enslaved us, moreso than the African? It was the European man and the Arab. And deep down, you already know this.


quote:
Originally posted by kraaal:
Clearly, the economic motive for European and Americans buying and transporting West African slaves were unquestionable.


Obviously. They were way more greedy than the West African was. Did it ever occured to you that if the West Africans had known what the white man was going to do to their brothas and sista, that they would NOT have sold us into slavery? Hmm?



quote:
Originally posted by kraaal:
Daniel P. Manix in his – A History of the Atlantic Slave Trade Black Cargoes, contends that "by the middle of the eighteenth century most of the slaves purchased by the English either had been captured in local wars (which had become, in large part, mere slave-raiding expeditions) or else had been kidnapped. Both techniques were highly organized and were conducted on a large scale...Simple kidnapping had become much more common than sale for pretended crimes. Kidnapping of Negroes by white men called "buckra panyaring" was a fairly common practice. Even so, "Whites and blacks cooperated in ...panyaring the famous case of the Old Calabar River is one example were ...kidnapping amounted about seven thousand slaves a year...Although panyaring by professionals had become an important source of slaves, it continued to rank second to wars among nations, tribes and villages...these wars were conducted chiefly for the purpose of obtaining captives for sale."




quote:
Originally posted by kraaal:
David Brion Davis (Inhuman Bondage) argues that just as "...Joseph Cinque (whose real name was Mendean Sengbeh) who was seized by four black strangers from his own tribe or clan and marched like a prisoner to Lomboko, on the Sierra Leone coast...For nearly four centuries West Africans had been devising techniques, including war, to enslave other Africans-usually members of other lineage or ethnic groups – to sell to European and American traders on the coast...virtually all of the enslavement of Africans was carried out by other Africans, but as the African American historian Nathan Huggins pointed out long ago, the concept of an African "race" was the invention of Western rationalist, and most African merchants "saw themselves as selling people other than their own."


That is Bull shit. How can this even be proven? Unless the writer of this garbage was there to say that most Africans were sold into slavery by other Africans, than he needs to keep his mouth SHUT.



"Merchants are taking every day our natives, sons of the land and sons of our noblemen and vassals and our relatives because the [African] thieves and men of bad conscience grab them wishing to have the things and wares of this Kingdom...[S]o great, Sir, is the corruption and licentiousness that our country is being completely depopulated...[It] is our will that in these Kingdoms there should not be any trade of slaves nor outlet for them"



quote:
Originally posted by kraaal:
Or, as some African Americans believe, - that it was the "white man" who for three centuries kidnapped and forced blacks into slavery.


They believe this because it is FACT.

The fact that you believe this crap is ridiculous. Quit lessing the crimes of the White man. Why don't you watch Roots. You may just learn something.
quote:
Originally posted by Empty Purnata:
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
quote:
Originally posted by kraaal:
Listen up Oshun !

I am an honorably discharged Vietnam Vet, I put my blackass on the line and fought for America not AFRICA!! I don't give a sh!t how much whitey, the Klan, Aryan nation or any other red neck racist hates me, I will fight and die to remain American not AFRICAN!!!


That is sad that you were used as cannon fodder in elite imperialist war games...and identify with it!

quote:
Kraal does not speak African


Nobody does. There is no "African language".

quote:
I don't dress African
My culture is American.
I owe Africa NOTHING and Africa owes me NOTHING!
I pay my taxes in America NOT AFRICA!!
My sons are born American not AFRICAN!


I never stopped you from being a self hater, I just point to it out. Don't kill the messenger, particularly when you are espousing the same message.

quote:

You can call me what the fu(k you want, I'm still an American entitled to all the rights of any other American. And while YOU hug Africa my work and my sons work as well as my grand sons remains HERE in America fighting the same idiot bastards as my American forefathers – those who wanted to deny what is owed to all African Americans, - an opportunity to live the so-called "American dream" NOT AN AFRICAN REPATRIATION DREAM!!!!


The Amerikkkan dream is capitalist mythology.

quote:
I know where the fu(k I come from Oshun, I don't NEED YOU to tell me


REally mature Kraal.

quote:
You think just because my skin is black I OWE SOMETHING TO AFRICA! If that is what you think then YOU Oshun are the fool!!

LISTEN UP, I OWE AFRICA NOTHING!!!!


That's fine kraal. Our opinions will always differ, I guess you got a little pissed about my FACTUAL CORRECTIONS of your post. Oh, well.

quote:
OSHUN, IF YOU ARE NOT IN Africa, I suggest you take your arse there RIGHT NOW and while you are there maybe you can join the Angolan Rebels or do some work in Darfar or help Africa with its AIDS crises. In this way you can better focus on Africa rather than wasting your damm time talking to what YOU describe as ANTI-AFRICAN niggers like kraal!


I would never refer to you or anyone else with the n-word. And I have been and do work closely with many an African cause. But pointing out the error in your ideology and factual errors in your post are not a waste of time on a MESSAGE BOARD where others read your dribble.

quote:
I don't care or give a damm what you say Oshun, WEST AFRICA SOLD ME and millions like me the same way as the white man sells his cattle!!!!!. I had no choice but to be an American.


If you don't care, why the anger and foul words?

quote:
And so it is what it is!! Africa for the Africans
America for Americans, - it is what it is!!

lol

quote:
Let me tell you something Oshun, - there is no amount, no degree no intensity of hate or racism that white folk can perpetrate that will ever cause me to deny my Americanism!!!!! Did you HEAR ME Oshun

I AM AN AMERICAN! I only come from Africa. I am an American created from the greed and averice of your beloved West African slave raiders!!!!


lol Let all that self htred out kraal. Doesn't that feel better to be honest?

quote:
So what does Africa mean to a Nig like kraal?
Since emancipation what has Africa done for American blacks?

Let me answer for you Oshun , - NOTHING!!!!

This is precisely why my work is here, NOT IN AFRICA!!!


End of Story Oshun!!!


Wow, the character finally comes through in the end doesn't it?...


OA, Stranger, Faheem,

This is a sad example of self-hate in Black people. Self-haters like this feel the need to dump on Africa while taking pride in their association with (White, Western) America.

If he doesn't give a damn about Africa, why did the MF make his moniker "kraal", the Dutch word for a Zulu town?

Also, notice how he used the term "miscegnation" and takes pride in claiming that African-Americans are a "new race" seperate from Africans? Even saying that our blood wouldn't register as African? I think this "brother" has been spending too much time at VDARE.


Sad, but true. AAs are NOT a "new race." AAs are of mostly of African descent with a *little* bit of other heritages thrown in the mix. Many of us still mirror our African counterparts, the resemblance does not lie. I don't know why he is being so hostile to Africans when he is a descendant of the African himself.
On the issue of being bi-racial, I don't believe in it. Based on the definition of race. Race is a competition to see who can win. I don't understand why people use the term 'race' in the context of discussing human phenotypes. The thing in my opinion that greatly distinguishes white phenotypes from all other human phenotypes is the natural genetic ability to produce melanin. Melanin in turn gives certain phenotypes the ability to produce vitamin D when exposed to sunlight. Vitamin D is an essential vitamin to human beings. This is why they put it in milk. However, because people who are classifed as white cannot produce melanin they are a genetic anamoly an unnatural mutation ie albinos.
White phenotypes know this. Why do you think that they are always complaining about how many Mexicans are coming into this country and will be the largest population, etc. etc. They continue to demonize the normal melanin producing people of the world.
I digress this is about being 'bi-racial'. If a child is born to a white parent and a black parent, the dominant genetic codes will take affect which means the child will be able to produce melanin. Thus making the child/offspring 'black'.
Again whites know this and all of their actions show that they are well aware of this. They won't allow themselves to get screwed out of existence.
quote:
Originally posted by kraaal:
quote:
If he doesn't give a damn about Africa, why did the MF make his moniker "kraal", the Dutch word for a Zulu town?


Empty Purnata you don't know what the hell your talking about!!!

A kraal is not simply a "the Dutch word for a Zulu town?" It is the Zulu kraal that is the primary locus for ritual action. It is the religious space that crucial religious performances occur periodically...the kraal is the traditional village...it consist of a circular arrangement of thatched huts, each shaped something like a beehive. The circular huts surrounds a circular cattle enclosure at the very center of the village. This inner circle is also called a kraal...the inner circle is the cattle kraal. As with all Bantu –speaking peoples, cattle are of extreme practical and religious importance. It is in the cattle kraal that most of the important Zulu religious rituals are performed.


Thanks for the lesson, sensei, but I already know this.

That still doesn't answer the question why you would name your moniker after something African if you don't give a damn about Africa.

quote:
EP if your gonna run your mouth and refer to me as a MF, at least know what the fu!k your talking about!

And here EMPTY, here is where the information you didn't have came from.

Religions of Africa, - E. Thomas Lawson

Read it EP and know what you are talking about or ignore it and stay dumb!!!!


sleep
Thanks for the lesson, sensei, but I already know this.

...Oh really EP, "you already know this," well, not according to your ""kraal", the Dutch word for a Zulu town" statement. Your laconic definition is simply WRONG!!..And if you indeed actually knew the full definition of the word kraal, then your statement below is a deliberate attempt to incite and start sh!t!!

If he doesn't give a damn about Africa, why did the MF make his moniker "kraal?"

EP did I ever tell you or post on AA.org that I did not "give a damn about Africa?"

I have studied Africa for over a decade, I could have chosen Kaffir, Wabenzi or some other African term. The words Kaffir and Wabenzi may be offensive to Africans but not to me. I chose Kraal because it has significant traditional and spiritual meaning for the Zulus.

And furthermore, am I not free to choose whatever "moniker" I wish? Who in hell made the rule that I have to care about something before I'm allowed to use a certain word, who-you and Oshun?
quote:
Originally posted by kraaal:
Thanks for the lesson, sensei, but I already know this.

...Oh really EP, "you already know this," well, not according to your ""kraal", the Dutch word for a Zulu town" statement. Your laconic definition is simply WRONG!!..And if you indeed actually knew the full definition of the word kraal, then your statement below is a deliberate attempt to incite and start sh!t!!

If he doesn't give a damn about Africa, why did the MF make his moniker "kraal?"

EP did I ever tell you or post on AA.org that I did not "give a damn about Africa?"

I have studied Africa for over a decade, I could have chosen Kaffir, Wabenzi or some other African term. The words Kaffir and Wabenzi may be offensive to Africans but not to me. I chose Kraal because it has significant traditional and spiritual meaning for the Zulus.

And furthermore, am I not free to choose whatever "moniker" I wish? Who in hell made the rule that I have to care about something before I'm allowed to use a certain word, who-you and Oshun?


18
Is being a Black(African-American) a color or a culture ?

If America is to establish a "Mulatto Nation" how many of us would qualify by just facial features or physical characteristics alone?

In my experience I've seen Blacks of a very dark complexion with 100% all-natural blue , green, light brown and even gray eyes; are they dark mulattoes or Black with a drop or two of white blood?

We must remember that on those Plantations our Black women/sisters were being raped two at a time by ol'massa and of course pregnancies were the end result.

But my prevaling question is being "Black"(African-American) a color or a culture?


I think Halley Berry and Barack Obama would be interested in some of the opinions expressed on this issue.
Interesting conversation up in here...
quote:
Originally posted by Dell Gines:
I have always used the "Klan Test" as an analogy. If the Klan was coming down the street hanging black people, could Tiger Woods or any other 'mixed' person with pronounced black genetics mixed with another race be like, "Wait a minute, my mother is white, so I really am not black".

I like that analogy.

Stranger asked why you would let a group like the Klan define you, but I don't believe that is what's happening here. This analogy isn't about self determination, but understanding of how others define us. For each and every person, how we view ourselves verses how others view us is never the same, and is often drastically different.

quote:
Originally posted by Empty Purnata:
Blackness is more than just a culture or upbringing IMHO. Otherwise so-called "wiggers" could be considered "Black".

Of course you're right EP... Blackness is more than culture or upbringing. However, I think your rather rigid definitions defy the nature of "race" as a social construct. Social constructs of any sort are never so rigid. This particular construct is, and has always been, defined by the dominant social order. Neither Blackness not Whiteness actually exists in the scientific basis your coming from. It's not the genetic markers themselves that prevent "wiggers" from being Black... it's the status that society puts on those genetic markers. No matter how "Black" they act they will always benefit from White privilege as long as White privilege exists.

Wiggers will pass the Klan test.

I would not.
quote:
Originally posted by Black Viking:
Of course you're right EP... Blackness is more than culture or upbringing. However, I think your rather rigid definitions defy the nature of "race" as a social construct. Social constructs of any sort are never so rigid. This particular construct is, and has always been, defined by the dominant social order. Neither Blackness not Whiteness actually exists in the scientific basis your coming from. It's not the genetic markers themselves that prevent "wiggers" from being Black... it's the status that society puts on those genetic markers. No matter how "Black" they act they will always benefit from White privilege as long as White privilege exists.

Wiggers will pass the Klan test.

I would not.


My problem with this is that Blackness and Whiteness are still being defined by White standards. I noticed you used the Klan as a reference point. That's a very bad refernce point with which to evaluate race. The KKK doesn't even consider some European ethnicities and Ashkenazim (European) Jews to be White.

We should have a more objective view of race rather than defining Blackness by using Whiteness as a starting point and judging what is Black by what Whiteness consider to be "not White".
quote:
Originally posted by Empty Purnata:
quote:
Originally posted by Black Viking:
Of course you're right EP... Blackness is more than culture or upbringing. However, I think your rather rigid definitions defy the nature of "race" as a social construct. Social constructs of any sort are never so rigid. This particular construct is, and has always been, defined by the dominant social order. Neither Blackness not Whiteness actually exists in the scientific basis your coming from. It's not the genetic markers themselves that prevent "wiggers" from being Black... it's the status that society puts on those genetic markers. No matter how "Black" they act they will always benefit from White privilege as long as White privilege exists.

Wiggers will pass the Klan test.

I would not.


My problem with this is that Blackness and Whiteness are still being defined by White standards. I noticed you used the Klan as a reference point. That's a very bad refernce point with which to evaluate race. The KKK doesn't even consider some European ethnicities and Ashkenazim (European) Jews to be White.

We should have a more objective view of race rather than defining Blackness by using Whiteness as a starting point and judging what is Black by what Whiteness consider to be "not White".


I understand what you are saying EP, but I think since 'race' as we know it, and how it effects our political, social, economic ect., realities was actually created, and defined, and implemented by white patriarchal supremacy, then I think using the 'originators' rules makes sense...Until we are no longer forcibly playing by these rules.

If white patriarchal supremacy wasn't dominating most of our realities than 'race' wouldn't even be much of an issue. Until the caste system is done away with then...
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
quote:
Originally posted by Empty Purnata:
quote:
Originally posted by Black Viking:
Of course you're right EP... Blackness is more than culture or upbringing. However, I think your rather rigid definitions defy the nature of "race" as a social construct. Social constructs of any sort are never so rigid. This particular construct is, and has always been, defined by the dominant social order. Neither Blackness not Whiteness actually exists in the scientific basis your coming from. It's not the genetic markers themselves that prevent "wiggers" from being Black... it's the status that society puts on those genetic markers. No matter how "Black" they act they will always benefit from White privilege as long as White privilege exists.

Wiggers will pass the Klan test.

I would not.


My problem with this is that Blackness and Whiteness are still being defined by White standards. I noticed you used the Klan as a reference point. That's a very bad refernce point with which to evaluate race. The KKK doesn't even consider some European ethnicities and Ashkenazim (European) Jews to be White.

We should have a more objective view of race rather than defining Blackness by using Whiteness as a starting point and judging what is Black by what Whiteness consider to be "not White".


I understand what you are saying EP, but I think since 'race' as we know it, and how it effects our political, social, economic ect., realities was actually created, and defined, and implemented by white patriarchal supremacy, then I think using the 'originators' rules makes sense...Until we are no longer forcibly playing by these rules.

If white patriarchal supremacy wasn't dominating most of our realities than 'race' wouldn't even be much of an issue. Until the caste system is done away with then...


Maybe you are right. I mean, we do seperate people into income levels and classes even though those are socio-economically created conditions that are only measured relative to how much property they control or what kind of possessions they own.

However, I have doubts about the feasability of defining Blackness if we use the 'originators' rules'. Remember, the rules creates by the originators are self-serving, they are created to always have the White man on top. It's hard to win if you play by the devil's rules (I'm not calling White people the Devil, they are just flawed human beings just like the rest of us, I'm just using an old saying).
quote:
Originally posted by Empty Purnata:
Maybe you are right. I mean, we do seperate people into income levels and classes even though those are socio-economically created conditions that are only measured relative to how much property they control or what kind of possessions they own.

However, I have doubts about the feasability of defining Blackness if we use the 'originators' rules'. Remember, the rules creates by the originators are self-serving, they are created to always have the White man on top. It's hard to win if you play by the devil's rules (I'm not calling White people the Devil, they are just flawed human beings just like the rest of us, I'm just using an old saying).


I feel what you are saying about using the 'devil's rules'... I think one of the ways of avoiding the 'devil's rules' is identifying people as 'Africans' or people of 'African descent' rather than 'Black'. My original 'thought' in response to this thread is that nobody qualifies as 'Black' IMO... That ethnic/racial identity should be based on land, and there is no Black-land. But I didn't want to muddle the conversation with more Pan African propoganda, because I knew what people were 'saying'. Also, I didn't want to inadvertantly negate the colour/phenotype caste system that exists. The one thing that I think works in our favour is that those that are actually 'defined' as the 'white' privaledges class are a small world minority... Even by the 'devil's rules'... The problem is that people keep 'aspiring' to be in a 'better/higher position' than the 'bottom' of the caste system, instead of wanting to do away with it altogether. This causes folk of African descent to 'run' from their Africaness/Blackness(lower position) if given even the slightest chance to identify with something 'other' rather than deal with the reality of the exploitation and oppression that should be fought against.
quote:
Originally posted by Empty Purnata:
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
quote:
Originally posted by Empty Purnata:
quote:
Originally posted by Black Viking:
Of course you're right EP... Blackness is more than culture or upbringing. However, I think your rather rigid definitions defy the nature of "race" as a social construct. Social constructs of any sort are never so rigid. This particular construct is, and has always been, defined by the dominant social order. Neither Blackness not Whiteness actually exists in the scientific basis your coming from. It's not the genetic markers themselves that prevent "wiggers" from being Black... it's the status that society puts on those genetic markers. No matter how "Black" they act they will always benefit from White privilege as long as White privilege exists.

Wiggers will pass the Klan test.

I would not.


My problem with this is that Blackness and Whiteness are still being defined by White standards. I noticed you used the Klan as a reference point. That's a very bad refernce point with which to evaluate race. The KKK doesn't even consider some European ethnicities and Ashkenazim (European) Jews to be White.

We should have a more objective view of race rather than defining Blackness by using Whiteness as a starting point and judging what is Black by what Whiteness consider to be "not White".


I understand what you are saying EP, but I think since 'race' as we know it, and how it effects our political, social, economic ect., realities was actually created, and defined, and implemented by white patriarchal supremacy, then I think using the 'originators' rules makes sense...Until we are no longer forcibly playing by these rules.

If white patriarchal supremacy wasn't dominating most of our realities than 'race' wouldn't even be much of an issue. Until the caste system is done away with then...


Maybe you are right. I mean, we do seperate people into income levels and classes even though those are socio-economically created conditions that are only measured relative to how much property they control or what kind of possessions they own.

However, I have doubts about the feasability of defining Blackness if we use the 'originators' rules'. Remember, the rules creates by the originators are self-serving, they are created to always have the White man on top. It's hard to win if you play by the devil's rules (I'm not calling White people the Devil, they are just flawed human beings just like the rest of us, I'm just using an old saying).

Good discussion -
I like what OA has to say, and I think that this type of discussion is helpful. I understand EP desire for some kind of objectivity in terms of defining Blackness, but I am not sure that they kind which he seeks can be found in the context of a socially constructed construct.

I also understand the desire not to be defined by white folks, but I also think that if we do not acknowledge the power of white patriarchal supremacy, that we are deluding ourselves, and are engaged in what Sartre and also Fanon, would refer to as bad faith. This was the point in my telling the story from Fanon earlier. Being black is not simply cultural or even biological. Because of my training, I do like to understand it existentially. It is know the experience of fear, dread, and anger when you are going about your business and get pulled over by the police, or seeing the klan walk down the street.

Existence (experience) is constitutive of Blackness. This is something that a wigger can not claim.

On a related theme, the black theologian James H. Cone talks about ontological blackness. It is an existential ontology, meaning that existence precedes essence. So, being oppressed, marginalized, disinherited are part of blackness. But so is resistance to such.

One of the things that white students would always ask Dr. Cone in class when he stated his thesis of ontological blackness, and that God was black and was on the side of black folk, "what could they do to be saved?" 20

He would say that it was possible if they completely renounced white privilege, and completely identified with the poor and oppressed, that it might be possible. In private, however, he would say that the only person that he would consider coming close to that standard was John Brown, who actually fought and was killed for black folk.

Just more stuff to mull over.

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×