Skip to main content

BLACK WARRIORS, KINGS AND GODS


AUSAR (OSIRUS)

Ausar is one of the most important figures in the history of world civilization. According to ancient knowledge, Ausar (Osirus) contributed to the creation of Khemitic (Egyptian) civilization through a series of new programs that began long before the Great Flood. The prehistoric civilization of Ta-Seti was more advanced than Egypt and existed before Egyptian civilization by three thousand years (TIME MAGAZINE, 1999).

Ausar also travelled to the East and established settlements in India including a City called Nysa after the Nysa of Egypt (read "African Presence in Early Asia," edt. by Runoko Rashidi and Ivan Van Sertima, Transaction Publications. Also read "Susu Economics," pub. by 1stbooks Library, www.1stbooks.com

Ausar is credited for the inventiontion and improvement of forms of arts, sciences, literature, culture and many other arts and sciences.



KHEKPERE SENUSRET (CECROPS)

Khekpere Senusret known as "Cecrops" by the Greeks is said to have founded the City of Athens and contributed to the creation of Greek civilization before the Greek tribes migrated from Central Europe among a number of Europeans who migrated Southerward between 1700 B.C. and afterwards.

Senusret was also a warrior who established a colony on the Black Sea and maintained thousands of African troops from Egypt in the region. The Greek writer Herodotus describes these Africans as Colchians and compares them to the original Negro Egyptian people.

As recently as the 1940's, there were still remnants of African people living in the region of Armenia and the Black Sea region.



AHMOSE 1, THE PHARAOH WHO LIBERATED EGYPT FROM THE HYKSOS INVADERS

Ahmose 1 liberated Egypt from the Semitic Hyksos invaders after about two hundred years of brutal and oppressive rule. The Hyksos, who were pastoralist Semites from the Southwest Asia region invaded Egypt. After proper planning and military skill, Ahmose drove out the Hyksos armies. Yet, more Semites and others including the Assyrians, Babylonians, Libyans, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs and Europeans entered into Egypt as the centuries went by, changing the very gene pool of Egypt from Negroid African to being today more mixed in the North and purer Black Egyptian in the Southern part.


Tarharka Nubian Pharaoh of the 25th Dynasty, about 650's B.C.

ODE TO TARHARKA

I

The God has come from the lands upriver
to liberate and rule downriver,
the God so blessed by Re the Sun,
tall and well built, hue as the night so strong,
all the userpers fled out west,
these petty kings were not our guests,
for centuries invaders ruled in Khem,
ravaged our motherland, all them.

Chorus

Tarharka mighty God and King,
Swept from the South with lightening sting,
his armies destroyed all the invaders,
from lands beyond the sand and of mauraders,
who placed themselves on our throne,
claimed our history and claimed our homes,
but we the sons and daughters of Nubia-Cush,
no one shall make us slaves, not us.

II

And so he looked out to the Khuru Sea,
the barbarians assembled in the Polynese
and so his men they came from East,
and said be ready for the Nenivese,
The Sons of Asshur plan to attack,
and its our duty to push them back,
and keep Nubia-Cush safe from all of them,
and spread our power beyond Khem.

III

Year thirty-five thirty-nine after Solar Calendar,
we heard the thundering of the invader
their horses swept through the Sea of Sand
came across the Sinai one million,
but we Nubian-Cushites of the Gods,
used our minds and defeated the hordes.
and let our descendants know as well
in or lands no Shemites shall dwell.


Tarharka and the Nubians ruled Egypt during the 25th Dynasty. Tarharka was one of the most important Pharaohs in Egyptian history because he and those in his Dynasty restored Egyptian culture and greatness back to Egypt after Egypt had been dominated by a numnber of foreign rulers and the pure Egyptian culture and religions were being lost. Tarharka was a powerful Pharaoh who was controlled the Mediterranean region. He also established a Nubian presence in Spain and the Nubians maintained trade into the Atlantic during the 25 Dynasty. See more on the Nubian Dynasty at http://community.webtv.net/nubianem


NARMER, UNITED THE TWO KINGDOMS OF EGYPT ABOUT 3500 B.C.

Narmer was one of the early Egyptian Pharaohs and played a major role in uniting the Delta region with the rest of Egypt as early as 3500 B.C.


SAMOURY TOURE "THE BLACK NAPOLEON OF THE SUDAN" FOUGHT THE FRENCH FOR TEN YEARS BEFORE BEING CAPTURED AND EXILED TO CONGO FROM HIS HOMELAND SENEGAL


CUSHITE PHARAOH ASPELTA


MODERN SOUTH SUDANESE CUSHITE WARRIORS FIGHTING TO FREE THEIR NATION FROM SEMITIC COLONIALISM, ATROCITIES AND GENOCIDE


IS WAR IS REAL, IS WAR FOR ALL?

Tiny tots with minds to know,
saying Daddy, Daddy, is it so,
is war for real, is war, is real?
now Daddy, Daddy what's the deal?
and what's a Dad to tell his own,
so many suffer, so many have gone,

Tiny tots with minds of their own,
why do the tv (media) treat the people less grown,
asking Daddy, Daddy is war for all?
so to save the oppressed and heed the call?
Sudan, Mauritania and West Papua,
destroying, enslaving those who are other,
religious expanders on the go,
seeing a religious empire, but some say no.

And so today the braves they fight,
no one will enslave them, its their right,
Dinkas, Nubas, Papuans, Mandinkas
fighting against the northern invaders,
and do we wonder if its just,
those who want freedom from this thrust?
Nubia-Cushites (South Sudan) driven down to the dust
Shall rise again with our help they must.


WAR OF WORDS

Talk-show mouth porn is bad
drinking corn is bad
smoking gives lunng cancer
males just stay lowcount under
ork give you worms
dorks they have yearns
some women have it all
Black men must rise against the fall,
welfare destroys all families
childcare no, men work for their babies
men with good ways get the ladies
loud-mouthed women stay single Sadies,
disarm, that arm and can't harm
his marm, says homework for school marm,
read "Susu Economics," and "A History of
Racism and Terrorism, Rebellion and Overcoming,"
both from 1stbooks.com and barnesandnoble.com,
great works on Aframericanism and freedom
war here, war there fifty years of terror in Sudan,
for there, for where, no one wants to be dragged to the ground,
justice, just them invading our lands and ravaging our women,
iterracial rape, taking African women to the North to be bread,
biracial children calling them "Semites" when they are Africans instead,
Dinkas, Nubas and Nubians say enough of this evil and this dread,
talk shows, flock follows, hosts on cupcakes and jewel addiction,
walk those, mock those, their Tokyo Rose-type outtakes is cruel repitition,
pornography, warmorphology, tricknology, armageddon, religion,
promoted by,
photography, phallisology, accused of being warmongers promoting armageddon to bring holocausity.
....but its happening in Sudan, Mauritania, West Papua and Latin America.
ethnic clensing and genocide is when they destroy or confine all the males, elevate the females and then ravage her,
make her believe she has made it and have no need for the Black men who saved her
from Ahmose to Toussaint to Nat Turner fighting and defeating all the barbarians who crossed to invade our sisters.

more poems at http://community.webtv.net/paulnubiaempire


NUBIAN QUEEN AND SON SEES DESTRUCTON OF ROMAN FORT AT ASWAN BY NUBIAN SOLDIERS

A number of Nubian-Cushite queens called Ka'andakes (Candaces) ruled Nubia-Cush just before the birth of Christ. This queen and her son along with the Nubian-Cushite Army kept the Romans out of Nubia-Cush. In this scene, they are witnessing the burning of the Roman Garrison in Aswan. The Roman army were defeated in Nubia and never attempted to invade that nation again.

Today however, the Nubian-Cushites (South Sudanese) are dealing with a similar situation of foreign cultural and religious control and domination of their lands from a culture and people who also now dominate Egypt. Nubia-Cush was also the first nation on earth to be the victims of Semitic terrorism through the use of constant attacks on their territory, enslavement, destruction of their cities and persistant warfare. Emperor Kalydosos of Nubia-Cush defeated the Arab armies during the 600's A.D., yet later on the Semites were able to infiltrate Nubia-Cush in trickles and in waves and established themselves in the North and using the scheme of taking African women, while declaring the children part of the Semitic culture. This policy is totally against the African idea that no foreign race or group can claim a child or children born to African women on African soil as part of the invaders ethnic or racial group.

Today, the Nubian-Cushites continue to fight for their lands and to maintain their religions and cultures.


ANCIENT WARRIORS FROM BENIN, WEST AFRICA WITH CORAL HELMETS, SHIELDS AND JAVLINS

West Africa was and still is one of the core areas of prehistoric civilization on planet earth. The prehistoric Zingh Empire of the Southwestern Sahara was located in the region of Mauritania, Mali, Burkino Faso, Senegal and the vincinity. The Zingh Empire was the first regional empire to use the red, black and green standard. According to sources, the Zingh Empire existed about 15,000 years ago and included a region from West Africa to Turkey. This empire existed at a time when the Sahara was still covered with lakes, had plant and animal life, vegetation and teamed with human cultures. (Read about the Zingh Empire in the book, "Susu Economics: The History of Pan-African Trade, Commerce, Money and Wealth, " pub. by www.1stBooks.com


more:
http://community-2.webtv.net/Nubianem2/BLACKWARRIORSKINGS/page2.html
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Very good for you my friend. You don't know how many times I have ignorant caucasian males coming to me thinking that Africa is a land of Cannibals, Savages, and Primitive Despots. I let them know all things african that they participate in. If nothing good comes out of Africa then don't eat peanut butter, yams, or have anything to do with sorghum. I let them know not to drink coffee. When the listen to bluegrass ignore the Banjo. They are even shocked to find out that Banjo is an African word.

Knowledge is Power
Ignorance is Oppression
EgbertSouse the most blood thirsty evil race humanty has ever witnessed is white.

Starting with
1st and 2nd World Wars
Genocide of Native Americans
Genocide of black people during slavery
Genocide of Natural Wild life

Everywhere the white man has been he has left his mark of death, misery and desolation. It is like watching a horror movie

EgbertSouse you should hung your head in shame because you come from the nastiest, greediest and most evil living parasite that is fast destroying planet earth,

To cap it all the Bible says Satan is currently ruling this planet and it identifies your people as the Devil's chief and leading representative on earth. If you care to know where it says this in the Bible I would be VERY HAPPY to show you

_____________________________
Is it just talk or are you for solutions? If you are GENUINELY interested in solving black problems? Then join us at http://www.theguidedog.com/BlackNation.html
"EgbertSouse the most blood thirsty evil race humanty has ever witnessed is white.

Starting with
1st and 2nd World Wars
Genocide of Native Americans
Genocide of black people during slavery
Genocide of Natural Wild life

Everywhere the white man has been he has left his mark of death, misery and desolation. It is like watching a horror movie

EgbertSouse you should hung your head in shame because you come from the nastiest, greediest and most evil living parasite that is fast destroying planet earth,

To cap it all the Bible says Satan is currently ruling this planet and it identifies your people as the Devil's chief and leading representative on earth. If you care to know where it says this in the Bible I would be VERY HAPPY to show you"


Henry, that's a bit much. The domination of so much of the globe by Europeans is a function of power and the simple fact that they got it first. The Bantus did it to the San and Khoi during the Bantu expansion, the Chinese did it so effectively that now there are only the "Chinese" where once there were thousands of ethnic groups and languages. The Mongols did it to most of central Asia. The Moors did it to Southern Europe, the Arabs did it to everyone from Spain to India. There is no virtuous race, and no evil race. Europeans didn't do anything that anybody else wouldn't have done in their place. They are just the latest in a very long line of people who took advantage of what they had to get what they wanted. That's human nature, and so long as we are all human, what you recognize in them you recognize in yourself.
quote:
There is no virtuous race, and no evil race. Europeans didn't do anything that anybody else wouldn't have done in their place. They are just the latest in a very long line of people who took advantage of what they had to get what they wanted. That's human nature, and so long as we are all human, what you recognize in them you recognize in yourself.
I agree but this Egbertlouse is a white man whose only purpose here on this board is to insult black people so I am only giving back what he is dishing out.

_____________________________
Is it just talk or are you for solutions? If you are GENUINELY interested in solving black problems? Then join us at http://www.theguidedog.com/BlackNation.html
"They are just the latest in a very long line of people who took advantage of what they had to get what they wanted.That's human nature, and so long as we are all human, what you recognize in them you recognize in yourself."

_____________________ I do not believe that it is human nature to desire to conquer and dominate and subordinate other human beings; it has just been done for so long and the dominating groups have socially conditioned people to believe that it is only "human nature," when in truth, violence, hate, evil, and wilfull disregard for other human beings and distruction of the entire planet is contrary to human nature; it has just been being done so long that people believe that it is human nature when it is not, you like the genital mutilation of African women---as horrible as it is, it has been done for so long that they believe it is the natural thing to do, when it is not.
"I do not believe that it is human nature to desire to conquer and dominate and subordinate other human beings; it has just been done for so long and the dominating groups have socially conditioned people to believe that it is only "human nature," when in truth, violence, hate, evil, and wilfull disregard for other human beings and distruction of the entire planet is contrary to human nature; it has just been being done so long that people believe that it is human nature when it is not, you like the genital mutilation of African women---as horrible as it is, it has been done for so long that they believe it is the natural thing to do, when it is not."


It may not be brotherly, but disregard for others is something every culture knows. Genital mutilation is a perfect example. They do it to remove sexuality from the lives of women whose desires the men don't want to have to deal with. Where did they learn such disregard for others? White people? No, it is a facet of human nature to do what you have to do to make life easier for yourself. Only when challenged do people (of any color) start to see the illogic in mistreating others and even begin to confront it. But selfishness is inborn, it's the primary law of childhood. The very first thing we learn is to make sure our needs are met. That is human nature. We can only hope that as we grow, we learn to meet the needs of others as well.
quote:
Originally posted by djonmaila:
Genital mutilation is a perfect example. They do it to remove sexuality from the lives of women whose desires the men don't want to have to deal with. Where did they learn such disregard for others?
Genital mutilation is a very bad example as this a ceremony people practice within their own culture nobody imposees or forces them to do it. Also where did you get this nonsense that it is praticed because the men can not deal with the woman's sexual desires. If you were a man you would know the exact opposite of your statement is men's nature where women are concerned, nothing frightens a man more than a frigid woman. FYI where female genital mutilation goes on you would find it is something women do to women, mothers especially to their dauhters, men hardly feature in it or promote it.

_____________________________
Is it just talk or are you for solutions? If you are GENUINELY interested in solving black problems? Then join us at http://www.theguidedog.com/BlackNation.html
I have to beg to differ about this not being forced on women and girls. After something that is wrong becomes socially conditioned into the psychi of a human being to believe it is right or that there is nothing wrong with it within the framwork of the individual that does not go along with it will be outcasted, look down on or not accepted as equal to those that do, compelling even those who do not wish for it to happen and having those who do wish for it be be operating out ignorance and lies, then it is forced.

Also, it is also physically forced on females as well as psychologically forced through lies and brainwashing and socially conditioning human beings to accept such an unnatural act as natural or good. If a woman is born and raised in a society were she has no or very little change of marriage and a normal life if she does not undergo this mutilation, then what other choices does she have.

People can be made to believe that a lot of things are only natural or are right or that it is not big deal once they have been socially conditioned to do so; things like racism, sexism, classism, violence, hate, indifference, and female genital mutilation.
Also, human beings have no right to decide to alter the natural physical make-up of women (or men for that matter). I think that in countries that do female genital mutilation need to research their history and see exactly where, why and who started this de-humanizing ritual against women. I would wager that it is something that was concocted by "religous" men who lived among themselves with only other men.

Don't take this as a personal attacK because we may not see eye to eye on this subject, but,
I find it extremely strange that there are men in this world that do not want to see no more between a woman's legs than the only thing found between the crack of a man ass.
sunnubian, you misunderstand my position and that of many people in Africa. We hate this female circumcision with a passion. I DO. I will give anything to see it end. I have seen governments try to intervene and have ended up being frustrated because the mothers of these girls would not cooperate with the authorities. The only cause left is to take the girls from their parents and that is something I do not think would happen.

Please understand I am only commenting to give some of the facts behind what is going on. I am not supporting it. The truth is I think it is barbaric nasty and evil. I only find it sad that most of the time it is the mothers of these girls that allow the evil custom to continue and I feel that if women put up a united front against these women who allow this evil the practice could be brought to an end. Where female circumcision is concerned if the mothers of the girls say NO that would be the end of it overnight.

_____________________________
Is it just talk or are you for solutions? If you are GENUINELY interested in solving black problems? Then join us at http://www.theguidedog.com/BlackNation.html
I agree with your solution to this problem. It is actually the solution to many or all of the problems of oppression of women---sort of people treating you how you allow them to treat you. I do think that in this case it would be even more helpful if men as well as women in these region vigorously oppose this practice.
Women have to stop allowing it to be done to them and to their daughters, men have stop allowing it to be done to their daughters, sister, aunts, cousins, and men have to reconsider what makes a woman a desirable wife.

I have read so much about this, I have seen several documentaries and I have even read a book about it years ago that took about six years to not cringe at the thought of the image portrayed in the book I read. I also happen to know women who have been through this ritual.
It's all akin to slaves on cotton plantations who thought that they were supposed to be slaves, some of whom actually cried when they were sold away from their masters, and some of whom did not want to leave the plantations when they were told that they were free.
quote:
Originally posted by henry38:
quote:
Originally posted by djonmaila:
Genital mutilation is a perfect example. They do it to remove sexuality from the lives of women whose desires the men don't want to have to deal with. Where did they learn such disregard for others?
Genital mutilation is a very bad example as this a ceremony people practice within their own culture nobody imposees or forces them to do it.


That's exactly why female genital mutilation is a good example. We were talking earlier about "evil" and disregard for others in relation to whites, but FGM isn't something anybody learned from Europeans. It's evidence that disregard for the pain and suffering of others is something all people are capable of. And for the record, it is done to remove the sexuality of women from the lives of men.

"Also where did you get this nonsense that it is praticed because the men can not deal with the woman's sexual desires. If you were a man you would know the exact opposite of your statement is men's nature where women are concerned, nothing frightens a man more than a frigid woman. FYI where female genital mutilation goes on you would find it is something women do to women, mothers especially to their dauhters, men hardly feature in it or promote it."

Don't presume that your idea of an ideal woman is everybody else's:

from http://www.who.int/inf-fs/en/fact241.html:

The reasons given by families for having FGM performed include:

  • psychosexual reasons: reduction or elimination of the sensitive tissue of the outer genitalia, particularly the clitoris, in order to attenuate sexual desire in the female, maintain chastity and virginity before marriage and fidelity during marriage, and increase male sexual pleasure;
  • sociological reasons: identification with the cultural heritage, initiation of girls into womanhood, social integration and the maintenance of social cohesion;
  • hygiene and aesthetic reasons: the external female genitalia are considered dirty and unsightly and are to be removed to promote hygiene and provide aesthetic appeal;
  • myths: enhancement of fertility and promotion of child survival;
  • religious reasons: Some Muslim communities, however, practise FGM in the belief that it is demanded by the Islamic faith. The practice, however, predates Islam.


So as you can see, it is not nonsense. There are many people who practice FGM, and they don't all have the same set of reasons for it, but there is a constituency of men in some if not all of these societies for whom the perfect woman has little or no sex drive and who find the sexual passivity of a woman arousing. In societies where a man may have many wives, the historical reason may be to keep their desires from becoming too demanding for their husband, and especially, to remove their desire for other men. (You may note there's a link between some Islamic and other polygamous societies and FGM.) If they didn't feel that way at least in part, the practice would have died out long ago.
Yes, genital mutilation of women is equivalent to gouging their eyes out so that they will never know if a man is ugly or not. I understand that women are refusing to stop this practice themselves, however, once something is done for so long, people will begin to believe it is right or no big deal, kind of like children who live around violence, shooting, drugs, and gangs, they have for so long, they think that that is the way most people live and even if they don't , what's the big deal.
quote:
Originally posted by djonmaila:
Henry, that's a bit much. The domination of so much of the globe by Europeans is a function of power and the simple fact that they got it first. The Bantus did it to the San and Khoi during the Bantu expansion, the Chinese did it so effectively that now there are only the "Chinese" where once there were thousands of ethnic groups and languages. The Mongols did it to most of central Asia. The Moors did it to Southern Europe, the Arabs did it to everyone from Spain to India. There is no virtuous race, and no evil race. Europeans didn't do anything that anybody else wouldn't have done in their place. They are just the latest in a very long line of people who took advantage of what they had to get what they wanted. That's human nature, and so long as we are all human, what you recognize in them you recognize in yourself.

I'm gonna have to disagree in part with what you said. In fact, I will offer my reservations with what is on its face valid and rational but hardly indicative of what you conclude.

Europeans didn't do anything that anybody else wouldn't have done in their place.

That statement in particular is what I beg to differ with. Fact is, you don't and we don't know that that would or ever really was the case. The words DEGREE, SCOPE and SCALE tend to come to mind.

It's like the arguments that
"SLAVERY IS SLAVERY"...

What's more... It's like saying, (excuse my French)
EVERY PERSON THAT'S PROMISCUOUS IS A PROSTITUTE!

Sure plenty may have, at least at one point and time, had a lifestyle like that but then there are others that choose it as a profession... and still others that have sex within the confines of "acceptable" norms, if not exclusively in matrimony.

There's WILT Chamberline and then there's A.C. Green... and those in between. Now who has the "title"?

See the difference?

[This message was edited by Nmaginate on December 19, 2003 at 09:36 AM.]
"That statement in particular is what I beg to differ with. Fact is, you don't and we don't know that that would or ever really was the case. The words DEGREE, SCOPE and SCALE tend to come to mind.

It's like the arguments that
"SLAVERY IS SLAVERY"..."

There's a reason for that that has nothing to do with race. The scope was greater because the situation was different. And this could be a really long explanation, but I'll try to keep it short.

West Africa didn't advance technologically as fast as Europe because of it's food situation: few native domesticable animals and plants mean many people spend more time hunting and gathering than farming and herding. So less available food means fewer people. Fewer people means lower population density, which means simpler community structure (clans and tribes more than city-states and empires), simpler community structure means less work diversification, and that means everybody has to spend part or all of the day hunting or finding food, because one man can't get enough to feed his family and your family, so if you want to eat, you have to hunt. That keeps the society simple.

For the same reason, African slavery, even in the case of more structured kingdoms and city-states, was not as intense as European slavery because the amount of work (and land) it would take to feed a plantation's worth of slaves in Africa would eat up any profit you might make from them. What crops they raised would mostly go to feed them, and you'd be left right where you started. So the slavery that existed was the kind that could be sustained, and that was a comparatively mild form of it since working them hard in the field wouldn't profit anyone much. That had more to do with practicality than morality.

America was different in that there was enough profit to be made to cover the costs of housing and feeding and transporting workers and still make a phenomenal profit. That and the fact that Europe already had dense, stratified populations that were gradually improving inefficient systems and technologies which could be used to maximize the profit from slaving even more, and you see why it happened the way it did. They took slavery to a new level because they hit the jackpot in finding America when they did, and because their society had become complex enough to take the most advantage of it. That has nothing to do with race. Any of their bloodier conquests can be explained in these terms - they simply had more technology than the people they conquered.
quote:
They took slavery to a new level because they hit the jackpot in finding America when they did, and because their society had become complex enough to take the most advantage of it. That has nothing to do with race. Any of their bloodier conquests can be explained in these terms - they simply had more technology than the people they conquered.
Technology aside (I was not contending that point)... I still don't agree with your premise that if it would have been any other "race" besides Europeans that they would have done exactly what Europeans did.

That's some wild assumption to which only wild speculation from some basic concept exaggerated beyond proportions that there has always been wars, slavery, and conquest... The assumption is that any non-European power endowed with the same technology would have done the same as Europeans did.

I don't know how you can sustain that. It's mere guess work on you part and an attempt to rationalize if not normalize Europeans' mindset. There's just as much evidence to the contrary. I believe my examples stand.

"they hit the jackpot in finding America when they did"

"America" was not lost. And "they" did not "FIND" it.

Further, you can save the hopeless disclaimer
"[This] has nothing to do with race."

Sorry, it doesn't cut it with me.
Modes of Slavery have everything to do with both "practicality" and the "morality" of people. There is no EITHER OR. Life is more complex than that.

So, frankly, I don't buy your theory.
quote:
Originally posted by djonmaila:

West Africa didn't advance technologically as fast as Europe because of it's food situation: few native domesticable animals and plants mean many people spend more time hunting and gathering than farming and herding. So less available food means fewer people. Fewer people means lower population density, which means simpler community structure (clans and tribes more than city-states and empires), simpler community structure means less work diversification, and that means everybody has to spend part or all of the day hunting or finding food, because one man can't get enough to feed his family and your family, so if you want to eat, you have to hunt. That keeps the society simple.
The following info. presents a challenge to some of your assumptions.

History The Encyclopedia of World History
III. The Postclassical Period:
[African] Historical Trends, 1000–1500
    Roughly contemporary with the spread of the Bantu speakers, from the middle of the first millennium B.C.E. to the middle of the first millennium of the current era, West Africans along the sahel and savanna developed an urban tradition. This urban tradition seems to have its roots in the fortified villages found along the desert's edge, which may have been the result of episodic periods of conflict in the ordinarily symbiotic relations between desert nomads and settled agriculturalists. Whatever its particular origin, the urban tradition spread along the West African sahel and savanna to Lake Chad, and supported communities as small as several hundred to some as large as several thousand. These urban communities were largely agricultural with significant occupational specialization, including artisanal castes, religious specialists, and, increasingly, military and political leaders.
Historical Trends, 1000–1500
    By the beginning of the 15th century, Mali was in decline and the Niger Bend state of Songhay was ascendant. By the time of Sonni Ali (r. 1464–92), Songhay had transformed itself from a small riverain polity into a great empire. Due to the existence of two important tarikhs originally written at this time, historians know that Songhay's core military divisions consisted of tightly organized cavalry, infantry, and river-based naval units; territory was governed by appointed military leaders; and bureaucracies managed diplomacy and the massive slave plantations that supplied the court and the standing army with food and materials.
I submit that [West] Africans taken as slaves to the Americas were not just mere laborers but represented very skilled labor as well.

I well also submit the principal "technological" advantage that Europeans had over [West] Africans at the time was the gun. Everything else is practically irrelevant.

The Tech Advantage when it comes to war and conquest is who has the biggest "gun". You can speculate about agriculture, hunting & gathering all you want but none of that really matters... I would be interested however in knowing upon what do you base your assumptions about the ability of Africans to "feed" their families at the time.
""they hit the jackpot in finding America when they did"

"America" was not lost. And "they" did not "FIND" it."

You are getting ahead of yourself. I did not and I have never implied that they discovered America, but they most certainly did find it. They are one of many groups to have done so. There is no suggestion in that statement that America was lost, but rather that it was unknown to Europe, so please make an effort not to let your personal politics spill over into my argument. Read it for what it is, not what you want it to be. I'll address the rest of your post when I have time.
quote:
Originally posted by djonmaila:
""they hit the jackpot in finding America when they did"

"America" was not lost. And "they" did not "FIND" it."

You are getting ahead of yourself. I did not and I have never implied that they _discovered_ America, but they most certainly did find it. They are one of many groups to have done so. There is no suggestion in that statement that America was lost, but rather that it was unknown to Europe, so please make an effort not to let your personal politics spill over into my argument. Read it for what it is, not what you want it to be. I'll address the rest of your post when I have time.
Personal politics???
You are making a lot of assumptions here. I guess that's the risk I took when I made that post short. Anyway, it looks like I owe you a more detailed explanation of my position, so here we go.

The explanation I gave about Africa having simpler societies was the reason that Europe was exporting African slaves to America, and not Africans exporting European slaves there. I am not suggesting that Africans were simple of mind, though many people don't understand the difference. My explanation has nothing to do with intellect, but the old argument Africans were slaves because they weren't very smart is so pervasive that I often find myself defending my position to people who seem to assume by reflex that that's what I'm saying. For the record, I am not.


"I submit that [West] Africans taken as slaves to the Americas were not just mere laborers but represented very skilled labor as well."

There were skilled laborers in Africa at the time of the slave trade, but many Africans were living in small villages that could not support large percentages of artisans or craftsmen. Again, each family in a community that farms must work its own land. You see that even today in West Africa outside the cities. Where farmland and crops are scarce, you see nomadic people who survive by herding or hunting and gathering. Either way, you cannot support a large city on what food they can raise, so people spread out and maintain relatively small villages where work specialization is low as a result of the fact that few can devote their whole lives to a craft. Where you did see specialization of labor and skilled craftsmen was in the ancient cities where the population was denser, but most of our ancestors were not city dwellers.

"I well also submit the principal "technological" advantage that Europeans had over [West] Africans at the time was the gun. Everything else is practically irrelevant."

Everything else was not irrelevant. It wasn't the gun that coerced Africans into participating in the slave trade, it was goods. Those goods were the product of a healthy trade with other European, Asian, and African traders that resulted in an endless supply of bartering tools for the slavers. The gun certainly had an impact, but it was far from the only technological difference between the two sets of cultures. For starters, they had already formed large nations, which meant that a much larger collection of people could be controlled to work toward a particular goal than if they had been a clan or a tribe. Because of that, more (though far from all) of them were literate, there was more labor specialization, more men from whom to recruit to defend the nation's interest, better weapons, bigger boats, more advanced tools for farming and construction, etc. They had many advantages over Africans of the countryside.

Also, read this, from http://reference.allrefer.com/country-guide-study/nigeria/nigeria19.html The whole point of going to Africa was to trade and make money.


By 1471 Portuguese ships had reconnoitered the West African coast south as far as the Niger Delta, although they did not know that it was the delta, and in 1481 emissaries from the king of Portugal visited the court of the oba of Benin. For a time, Portugal and Benin maintained close relations. Portuguese soldiers aided Benin in its wars; Portuguese even came to be spoken at the oba's court. Gwatto, the port of Benin, became the depot to handle the peppers, ivory, and increasing numbers of slaves offered by the oba in exchange for coral beads; textile imports from India; European-manufactured articles, including tools and weapons; and manillas (brass and bronze bracelets that were used as currency and also were melted down for objets d'art). Portugal also may have been the first European power to import cowrie shells, which were the currency of the far interior.

"The Tech Advantage when it comes to war and conquest is who has the biggest "gun". You can speculate about agriculture, hunting & gathering all you want but none of that really matters... I would be interested however in knowing upon what do you base your assumptions about the ability of Africans to "feed" their families at the time."

Who said they were starving? I said there wasn't enough of a surplus to create large cities everywhere. I make a similar argument at swagga, here: http://www.swagga.com/cgi-bin/blah/Blah.pl?b=general_board,v=display,m=1054685979,s=30 where briefly I discuss the growth of the Zulu as the result of a change in the environment. Third post down in blue. BTW, these are not assumptions I make, but accepted theories. One good source is Guns Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond. You should read it.

And for the record, the agriculture and hunting and gathering you mention are all precursors to the "big gun", meaning that if you can't support a dense population, you don't get enough work stratification to allow the development of a gun. So the fact that there were guns is another proof of the technology argument. So even had it been conquest by sword or bow and arrow, they still would have won had it been a war because of their other technologies. But like I said, they were trading, not warring. Most of the time they were welcome there by the kings and warlords who were profitting from the slave trade themselves. There are plenty of examples of early conflict, like when de Gama showed up to take the port of Kilwa with an armada, but even without the guns, they still had the advantage.

At any rate, I said before that there are explanations for the scope of the slave trade that have nothing to do with race and everything to do with capitalism and technology. Both of those issues are more readily provable that the position that Europeans are just more evil than others, so until you can show me concretely that money and technology are not factors and prove that Europeans are genetically of a different nature than Africans, I'm going to stick with my theory.

Add Reply

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