In light of AFRI's (Afrimerican) question over Identity and, specifically, the attitudes that say since many of us haven't been to Africa, don't know our African "tribal" ancestry/lineage or African languages, etc. we really have no reason to "claim" Africa... I'm just trying to figure out when and where historically or currently have Black people, AFRICAN-AMERICAN people, collectively or individually, given up our [God-given] "right" to be AFRICAN -- whatever that maybe, however slight, diluted, confused, symbolic or psychological (only)... that may be?

What reasons are there for African-Americans, generally, today to denounce their AFRICAN cultural heritage? What part of being an American (and being American as a product of CIRCUMSTANCE - e.g. slavery) and even not knowing much about Africa (her various people, their various folk-ways, etc.)... what part of being American supercedes a people's quest for even the most superficial or symbolic memory or acknowledgement of their AFRICAN Heritage?

What makes such an acknowledgement (again, even the most superficial and uninformed types of acknowledgements) problematic to the extent where our AMERICAN heritage and nationality is one some want to exhalt as, essentially, the sum total of our being?

quote:
"If one is not African born, to claim being something one is not [i.e. AFRICAN... and something one] has very little direct experiential knowledge of is foolhardy." - Afrimerican
Exactly why is that an issue? Why is it necessary to have any amount of "direct knowledge" about Africa in order for someone, anyone of us to claim that we are an AFRICAN, if only an AFRICAN-American people?

It seems silly to me to begrudge the fact. Obviously, there is no consideration as to why there is "little direct knowledge" about Africa. Also, there is no consideration as to why a person, a Black person, an AFRICAN-American person would want to identify, remember, acknowledge or otherwise associate him/herself with "Africa."

It's as if the American Ordeal that was Slavery, which essentially boils down to being forced to be "American", (and actually being forced to be a second-class American) is/was an acceptable situation and, how we became "American" (and more directly, how we became something other than AFRICAN) is to be dismissed as unimportant -- our identity, then, is tied to "what we are" no matter how we came to be what we are.

It's as if those of that opinion would disparage a person who survived a life threatening auto accident that paralyzed them, in mind and body, from ever trying to regain either the psychic or muscle memory they once had that propelled them to think and walk on their own. In essence, those feign "matter of fact" comments, would seem to say, "To hell with rehab. There is no sense in trying to regain your [full] memory or your freedom to walk amongst the other people of the world at full strength." No sense, it seems, in making a full recovery, showing no visible signs of the historical accident that once changed your life. No sense in trying to get your life back, just accept what circumstance and chance has made you - "AMERICAN". In fact, embrace it ["American"] with a jealous zeal, never to speak the [full] name AFRICAN again.

Excuse my rambling... but, seriously...
When Did Black People Give Up The Right To Be "AFRICAN"?
Original Post
A good topic.
First is being "Amerikan" a detriment to being "African"? Well this depends on how one perceives their African identity. In "America", it is considered acceptable to deny some aspects of our former life, for life in "Amerika". Recently a Muslim in N.Y. challenged the N.Y.C. fire dept. rules to cut his beard. The N.Y. Court of appeals said he must cut his beard, regardless of his religion, for fire safety reasons.

And here is the issue to part of your post.

How far can one practice their "Afrcan" ways? Well this depends on the "American" law. I think we both agree, there will be limits, as the law dictates.


To be "American" means to forfeit some/most of ones previous ways for the "American way. Ideally, "America" knows best. Afterall, why be here?

Historically African peoples were and still are "coerced" to be "American" VS. "African". I suppose if one really wanted to be a all out "African" they can move to Africa.

The gist is this, yes historically Africans were/are by force ( early America) to be a "Amerikan". Today Africans can be "American-African. Oxymoron?

Suppose a grassroots efforts takes shape, and the masses of African peoples begin to practice "African ways". These ways are/will be considered UN-lawful" by the "system". The movement is quickly "silenced".

I do not refer to self as "American". As I am "Christian". I obey the laws as directed in scripture. Yet I hold scripture above the "American way" and law. I do not salute nor pledge a "allegiance" to Amerika. But I stopped doing that before I accepted Jesus as the truth.

It is "Americanism" here. If anyone try's anything different, I assure you, a "knock" on ones door by Homeland Security will soon follow .

My allegiance is to the Father, Yahweh. Who loves me through HIMSELF in Jesus, the Messiah.
quote:
When Did Black People Give Up The Right To Be "AFRICAN"?

------------------------------


That's the thing, at least what 'afrimerican' does not get, our ancestors never did; instead it was beaten and mutilated out of them on slave plantations, and thenafter, socially conditioned and brainwashed out of them on slave plantations in America.

This 'afrimerican' is merely just another Black person in America of African Descent (African American) that wants to disassociate himself and his anscestry with Africa or being African, which I might add is the reason for a lot of African Americans contiually insisting on being merely called 'Black.'

African American merely means that you are an American of African descent. Right or wrong, 'African' is considered a race and not merely a nationality or geographic location or culture, just as much as Negro/Negroid once was, therefore, the 'African' in African American signifies racial identity and anscestrial nationality, while 'American' signifies only nationality without any reference or consideration of race or anscestrial lineage.


_______________________________________________
:



American Heritage Dictionary:


Af·ri·can ( f r -k n) KEY

ADJECTIVE:
Of or relating to Africa or its peoples, languages, or cultures.
NOUN:
1. A native or inhabitant of Africa.
2. A person of African descent.


African American also Af·ri·can-A·mer·i·can ( f r -k n- -m r -k n) KEY

NOUN:
A Black American of African ancestry. See Usage Note at black.



ETYMOLOGY:
Middle English blak, from Old English blæc; see bhel- 1 in Indo-European roots

OTHER FORMS:
black ish (Adjective), black ly (Adverb), black ness (Noun)
Usage Note:
The Oxford English Dictionary contains evidence of the use of black with reference to African peoples as early as 1400, and certainly the word has been in wide use in racial and ethnic contexts ever since. However, it was not until the late 1960s that black (or Black) gained its present status as a self-chosen ethnonym with strong connotations of racial pride, replacing the then-current Negro among Blacks and non-Blacks alike with remarkable speed. Equally significant is the degree to which Negro became discredited in the process, reflecting the profound changes taking place in the Black community during the tumultuous years of the civil rights and Black Power movements. The recent success of African American offers an interesting contrast in this regard. Though by no means a modern coinage, African American achieved sudden prominence at the end of the 1980s when several Black leaders, including Jesse Jackson, championed it as an alternative ethnonym for Americans of African descent. The appeal of this term is obvious, alluding as it does not to skin color but to an ethnicity constructed of geography, history, and culture, and it won rapid acceptance in the media alongside similar forms such as Asian American, Hispanic American, and Italian American. But unlike what happened a generation earlier, African American has shown little sign of displacing or discrediting black, which remains both popular and positive. The difference may well lie in the fact that the campaign for African American came at a time of relative social and political stability, when Americans in general and Black Americans in particular were less caught up in issues involving radical change than they were in the 1960s.·Black is sometimes capitalized in its racial sense, especially in the African-American press, though the lowercase form is still widely used by authors of all races. The capitalization of Black does raise ancillary problems for the treatment of the term white. Orthographic evenhandedness would seem to require the use of uppercase White, but this form might be taken to imply that whites constitute a single ethnic group, an issue that is certainly debatable. Uppercase White is also sometimes associated with the writings of white supremacist groups, a sufficient reason of itself for many to dismiss it. On the other hand, the use of lowercase white in the same context as uppercase Black will obviously raise questions as to how and why the writer has distinguished between the two groups. There is no entirely happy solution to this problem. In all likelihood, uncertainty as to the mode of styling of white has dissuaded many publications from adopting the capitalized form Black.

________________________________________________

By every definition of the words, we were always African and then African American; we were never 'negroes' or merely 'Blacks' (considering that Africa is not the only place that people with dark or brown or black skin/melanin come from), not to mention the fact that no person on the African continent ever told anyone that they were negroes, or merely Blacks, for that matter; those were designations given us by foreign intruders, invaders, kidnappers and slavers.

To not consider ourselves African Americans, since we are BOTH is rediculous and to claim or hold onto names and designations forced on our anscestors through torture is, not only insulting, but, is the equivalent to Kunta Kinte readily accepting the name "Toby" -

In fact, why don't all these people that don't want to be called African American also let strange white people come into there homes and name or re-name their children, you know, TELL them what their children should be called and what they should call or name their children? Since, they are obviously satified with people of another race naming their race or ethnic identy for them, why stop at that?
Lot's of questions. All deserve an answer.

I'm just trying to figure out when and where historically or currently have Black people, AFRICAN-AMERICAN people, collectively or individually, given up our [God-given] "right" to be AFRICAN -- whatever that maybe, however slight, diluted, confused, symbolic or psychological (only)... that may be?---Nmaginate

No where.

The right to our African ancestry is, and always has been, and always will be there.


What reasons are there for African-Americans, generally, today to denounce their AFRICAN cultural heritage?---Nmaginate

The only valid reason is personal choice. But personal choice is always there. It is a personal imperative. It's only validity is, and has to be, personal.

What part of being an American (and being American as a product of CIRCUMSTANCE - e.g. slavery) and even not knowing much about Africa (her various people, their various folk-ways, etc.)... what part of being American supercedes a people's quest for even the most superficial or symbolic memory or acknowledgement of their AFRICAN Heritage?---Nmaginate

None. Absolutely none.

What makes such an acknowledgement (again, even the most superficial and uninformed types of acknowledgements) problematic to the extent where our AMERICAN heritage and nationality is one some want to exhalt as, essentially, the sum total of our being?


quote:
"If one is not African born, to claim being something one is not [i.e. AFRICAN... and something one] has very little direct experiential knowledge of is foolhardy." - Afrimerican

Exactly why is that an issue? Why is it necessary to have any amount of "direct knowledge" about Africa in order for someone, anyone of us to claim that we are an AFRICAN, if only an AFRICAN-American people?

I see the simply answer, in this instance, as one of misinformation.

This seems to be based only on the interpretation of what constitutes the term as defined.

The 'issue' is based in a flawed premise. or the application of that premise, or both.

I think the good news here is that a person of apparent (unknown) African ancestry has taken up the serious consideration of identity in the first generation of his/her life.

I am encouraged.

Being wrong is fixable.


PEACE

Jim Chester
quote:
Since, they are obviously satified with people of another race naming their race or ethnic identy for them, why stop at that?
Sunnubian, that's exactly what AFRImerican (the poster and promoter of the term) is claiming: That AFRICAN-AMERICAN is a name "given" to Black people (by Whites, Pres. Lincoln, in particular) and Afrimerican is one that's original and/or authentic, to say the least.
quote:
Originally posted by Nmaginate:
quote:
Since, they are obviously satified with people of another race naming their race or ethnic identy for them, why stop at that?
Sunnubian, that's exactly what AFRImerican (the poster and promoter of the term) is claiming: That AFRICAN-AMERICAN is a name "given" to Black people (by Whites, Pres. Lincoln, in particular) and Afrimerican is one that's original and/or authentic, to say the least.


-----------------------------------------

Well, 'afrimerican' is mistaken. Whites did not tell us that we are or should call ourselves African American; it was African Americans that CHOSE this designation/identity for ourselves. I would like for him to offer some proof that white people told us we were or should call ourselves African Americans.

"Afrimerican" has no argument; his suggestion that we be called/considered afrimericans is pointless, especially on his basis of our not having any direct ties with Africans or Africa, which is also pointless.
A person's so-called race is determined by their historical lineage regardless of that person present ties with such lineage. Example: A white couple adopts an African American baby, raises the child to adulthood in a predominately white environment with no contact with it's natural parents and little contact with other black people; does that change the child's race, natural lineage, anscestrial lineage, DNA?--all of the things that a person's so-called race is based upon. Of course not, yet he suggests that as a group, in our case, not having any direct ties changes who we actually are.

Even if he removes whether or not we have present day ties with a or a group of particular continental Africans from the equation, then his self-concocted term, 'afrimerican' would only be redundance.

Fortunately, since there are people in this country that think like afrimerican, natural lineage, anscestrial lineage, and DNA cannot be changed, and anscestrial lineage, anscestrial national origin and/or its nationality, and DNA, is all that saying that you are African American says.
quote:
SUNNUBIAN:

A person's so-called race is determined by their historical lineage regardless of that person present ties with such lineage.
    Example: A white couple adopts an African American baby, raises the child to adulthood in a predominately white environment with no contact with it's natural parents and little contact with other black people.
Does that change the child's race, natural lineage, anscestrial lineage, DNA?--all of the things that a person's so-called race is based upon. Of course not!
Good example... Excellent demonstration.


Thanks!
Something that has struck me about this thread, this declaration of identity, beyond its construction in the anonymity of the poster.

As one who is strongly in the camp of 'identity first', it strikes me as highly curious that one can declare identity while choosing to be anonymous.

It does not HAVE to be, but it seems important for it to be known just who is saying that by name and location.

And I recognize the perils of the Internet.

But identity is a public thing.

Description is not important.

Identity is.

PEACE

Jim Chester
Black men and women in America and in the Diaspora have never given up our African identity, nor should we ever give that up. One of the things that must be looked at is the European white man and woman, who never gave up their European identity; it is imbedded in the laws, culture and governance of America. It is as much a part of America structurally as racism is. This is why White folk from other nations can come to America and in no time be integrated into the larger society; it is built for their kind. The same is expected of others if not everyone, "Assimilate or Die", should be America's motto.

For a people identity to change; that which they are becoming must be clearly defined and also able to define those who will be called said thing. America, American does not describe the African beyond us living on a piece of land called America. We are Diasporal Africans while our family in Africa are Continental Africans. We have been shaped and nurtured under different customs, different cultures, different laws, on different pieces of land and in some cases we have different faiths; yet we are all still Africans.
Last edited {1}
Black men and women in America and in the Diaspora have never given up our African identity, nor should we ever give that up. One of the things that must be looked at is the European white man and woman, who never gave up their European identity; it is imbedded in the laws, culture and governance of America. It is as much a part of America structurally as racism is. This is why White folk from other nations can come to America and in no time be integrated into the larger society; it is built for their kind. The same is expected of others if not everyone, "Assimilate or Die", should be America's motto.

For a people identity to change; that which they are becoming must be clearly defined and also able to define those who will be called said thing. America, American does not describe the African beyond us living on a piece of land called America. We are Diasporal Africans while our family in Africa are Continental Africans. We have been shaped and nurtured under different customs, different cultures, different laws, on different pieces of land and in some cases we have different faiths; yet we are all still Africans.---Faheem

I agree with all of what you said.

Many months ago, K41 injected the observation that 'white' is the default for 'American'. That covers an awful lot of ground.

What you are saying translates for me to the fact the 'color construction' of Ameirca is of malicious intent in that it is there to maintain 'white' as the standard for the ethnography of the society.

We are 'black' in our society because we were defined as such by European-Americans. We don't seem to pay attention to the fact that of all the 'color assignments made to the ethnic groups in our society, the only assignments that are still maintained is 'black' and 'white'.

Isn't that curious?

Sooner or later we will realize that the society validation 'white' America is in keeping us bound in the color-construction of 'black'.

When elect to step out of that constriction, Eurpean-Americans are immediately faced with societal trauma.

They must answer the question, for themselves, 'What do we call ourselves now?'

As it stands now, we are their only comparative value in our society.

The moment we assert our ethnicity, as a people, as African Americans who are also American. the soup is on.


PEACE

Jim Chester
I was amused to find this and not see me response made at the time this dialog was taking place in the now listing of this topic (May 25, 2007).
I know my response then is the same as now.
What is African about Negroid people BORN in the United States generations removed from Africa?
What are the common everyday African traits that Africa Africans, and the American born persons claiming to be African have/share.

I can tell you, as I have before, most people, Afrimericans, don't even know the definition of Africa. ( I relayed it to this site two years ago. so some might know.)

I notice most of my writings have been edited out of this site, and that's Okay.

I have come to learn that many websites, and especially those that promote identifying Afrimericans as Africans are sponsored by government, and corporate entities, and usually are operated cheifly by Black Africans from Africa who are paid to engage in this identity nomenclature delusion because it suits the mutual interest of said protagonist.

One, corporate and government entities use the international appeal of Afrimericans top provide a false impression that all is well and equal for "Blacks" worldwide, and for the African African, if they go along with the charade, which they do knowingly, they know they will get the financial benefits previously earmarked for Afrimericans.

Afrimericans are denied, or limited in access while African African recipient are counted as being Afrimerican, and vice versa to where the real number of who is receiving benefits per American born, are falsely inflated.

Lastly, most of you who are thirty or under got the rererewritten history, those who are older, and recipients of a degreed education got bamboozled with the celebrity stature of certain scholars, and certain educational indoctrinations that the factual truth will be lost on you even if it fell on you like a ton of bricks.

I have come to understand Afrimericans are still grossly ignorant on this topic, and I have to practice a humble understanding of said ignorance(sometimes I do/sometimes I don't...I'm only Human).

But what is not in doubt, and I have letters and e-mails of proof, is, White folks know what I have said, and claim in regard to Afrimericans, and the Afrimerican word and definition is true. And sadly, I accept the fact that until Whites on a larger scale say it's valid, the average Afrimerican as described earlier will continue to dispute it.
It's a simple question. Having shared "traits" is irrelevant.


When Did Black People Give Up The Right To Be "AFRICAN"?


And that goes from the first day RACIALIZED Slavery was instituted and Africans were supplied... to the present day.


When Did [Those] People Give Up The Right To Be "AFRICAN"?
fro "social identity" is man-designed. Heritage is designed by the LAWS of nature. In that, wherever one goes....whatever one think, it will not CHANGE the genetics of who one is, regardless of the conjecture, opinion or circumstance. "You are who you are" despite what you say, feel or want to believe. fro
I guess my question is primarily SOCIAL IDENTITY focused, the genetics are incidential though, at the same time, the very impetus for the SOCIAL IDENTITY.


I'm asking (asked) the question in a SOCIAL and CULTURAL context. I have no problem with a "[Black] man-designed" IDENTITY. That's exactly what I'm talking about because, in truth, the genetics are complicated and aren't always consistent, in this African American case, with a person's SOCIAL/CULTURAL reality, historically or at present.

I have no interest in the One Drop Rule. I do know, however, that the play on genetics like the One Drop Rule have forged a SOCIAL/CULTURAL reality where "Blacks" who may be more European than African still lived or where a part of the SOCIAL/CULTURAL "Black" family.
fro 'K....speaking in a socioculture context... socioculture i.e. culture involves learned behavior including knowledge, beliefs, art, morals, law, customs and tradition, that is characteristic of the social environment in which individuals grow up.'The sociocultural expectations of people around these individuals continually influence their behavior and ensure conformity to established precedents [history-not heritage]. Some of the socializing techniques by which sociocultural expectations influence behavior are group pressure, tradition, rituals, and routines and symbols. Genetically speaking...[IMO] yes it is complicated cuz the degree of DNA makes you what? So if you really want to look at it in this sense...excluding the [racist] one-drop rule on the Black side, you also have to exclude all evolutionary components that makes us all human beings. Cuz it is a fact even the European and Asian-humans in general- evolved from Africa and migrated outward. So in my view, it is those [racist] cultures who are in deep denial as to where they really derived. In other words, WE ARE ALL AFRICANS--LIKE IT OR NOT! fro
quote:
Genetically speaking...[IMO] yes it is complicated cuz the degree of DNA makes you what? So if you really want to look at it in this sense...excluding the [racist] one-drop rule on the Black side, you also have to exclude all evolutionary components that makes us all human beings. Cuz it is a fact even the European and Asian-humans in general- evolved from Africa and migrated outward. So in my view, it is those [racist] cultures who are in deep denial as to where they really derived. In other words, WE ARE ALL AFRICANS--LIKE IT OR NOT!


And what does that have to do with the topic-question which, again, is not about the genetics you keep trying to talk about?


It's a simple socio-cultural, socio-historical identity question:
When Did Black People Give Up The Right To Be "AFRICAN"?

The question has nothing to do with who evolved or migrated from/out of the "African" continent or where all human beings come from.
quote:
When Did Black People Give Up The Right To Be "AFRICAN"?


We never did.

Oh...and FYI. The term 'African-Amerikkkan' was first used by Jesse Jackson in a speech, and caught on after that. IMO he is an agent(but that's a whole 'nother discussion) We as a people went through the Black Power movement and identified ourselves as Black. The logical progression, once we got over the self-hatred and therfore aversion to identifying as 'Black' would be to then identify with the culture, and landmass we originate from, Africa. IMO, this progression was derailed, and continues to come under attack for political reasons.

quote:
Originally posted by Iam:
A good topic.
First is being "Amerikan" a detriment to being "African"? Well this depends on how one perceives their African identity.


Actually, it can equally depends on how one percieves their 'Amerikkkan' citizenship, or Amerikkka in general.

quote:
In "America", it is considered acceptable to deny some aspects of our former life, for life in "Amerika". Recently a Muslim in N.Y. challenged the N.Y.C. fire dept. rules to cut his beard. The N.Y. Court of appeals said he must cut his beard, regardless of his religion, for fire safety reasons.


We aren't discussing religion. The 'Muslim' came here by choice, but not only that, he/she isn't asked to stop being...I'm assuming Arab, but he/she may be Malaysian, Eastern European, whatever(ethnic/racial identity tied to LAND this person of the Islamic faith is). So you are comparing apples and oranges.(religion/racial identity)

quote:
And here is the issue to part of your post.

How far can one practice their "Afrcan" ways? Well this depends on the "American" law. I think we both agree, there will be limits, as the law dictates.


What are you talking about?(examples please) I practice African liberation politics, traditional African spirituality(Ifa), I eat, breathe, and excreate Africa...No law prevents me from fulfilling any 'ways', even the slaughtering of animals...BTW, what 'African' ways are illegal? I've never heard of any...

quote:
To be "American" means to forfeit some/most of ones previous ways for the "American way. Ideally, "America" knows best. Afterall, why be here?


Once again...What are you talking about? What 'ways' do continental Africans that move here forfeit? The only thing I see some people having to adjust is to the 'rat race', hyper individualism, and over consumption. If you didn't know, Africa has cities,. Most of the Africans that come here from the continent come from urban areas. Also, I hope you were being funny with the 'Amerikkka knows best' line. Many are here because we were born here. Many are here because the political/economic/social oppression and exploitation of African people is a GLOBAL circumstance...so why must one move? The political/economic/social disparities based on race and class are inescapable for African people, no matter where we live. So what's wrong with folks fighting them where they are? We live in a global community now, it isn't madatory to repatriate(not that I have any problem with repatriation).

quote:
Historically African peoples were and still are "coerced" to be "American" VS. "African". I suppose if one really wanted to be a all out "African" they can move to Africa.


The coersion you are referring to was a state of TERROR inflicted on stolen African people to hate their AFRICANESS and therefore themsleves, not to make them be more 'Amerikkkan'. I was an African long before I touched African soil. I felt no ethnic/racial change occur when I landed in Africa(although I was very happy to be home)... How does moving to Africa make one African? Moving away from Africa, doesn't make one no longer an African.

quote:
The gist is this, yes historically Africans were/are by force (early America) to be a "Amerikan". Today Africans can be "American-African. Oxymoron?


What one calls one self is a choice, but identity doesn't change just because one moves around the globe. In 'early Amrerikkka' we Africans weren't even considered human, let alone 'Amerikkkan/Amerikkkan citizens'. I am an African in Amerikkka...or an African with Amerikkkan citizenship.

quote:
Suppose a grassroots efforts takes shape, and the masses of African peoples begin to practice "African ways". These ways are/will be considered UN-lawful" by the "system". The movement is quickly "silenced".


What 'ways' are you referring to?

quote:
I do not refer to self as "American". As I am "Christian". I obey the laws as directed in scripture. Yet I hold scripture above the "American way" and law. I do not salute nor pledge a "allegiance" to Amerika. But I stopped doing that before I accepted Jesus as the truth.


Let me quote Peter Tosh...

Don't care where you come from
As long as you're a black man
You're an African

No mind your nationality
You have got the identity of an African

'Cause if you come from Clarendon
And if you come from Portland
And if you come from Westmoreland
You're an African

'Cause if you come Trinidad
And if you come from Nassau
And if you come from Cuba
You're an African

No mind your complexion
There is no rejection
You're an African
'Cause if your 'plexion
High, high, high
If your complexion low, low, low
And if your 'plexion in between
You're an African

No mind denomination
That is only segregation
You're an African

'Cause if you go to the Catholic
And if you go to the Methodist
And if you go to the Church of Christ
You're an African


No mind your nationality
You have got the identity of an African

'Cause if you come from Brixton
And if you come from Weesday
And if you come from Wingstead
And if you come from France
...Brooklyn
...Queens
...Manhattan
...Canada
...Miami
...Switzerland
...Germany
...Russia
...Taiwan


quote:
It is "Americanism" here. If anyone try's anything different, I assure you, a "knock" on ones door by Homeland Security will soon follow .


Yes, let's just all have a coke and a smile and forget about reality...particularly the reality of our people's global struggle. Be a good consumer...but seriousely, 'Amerikkkanism' doesn't change ones IDENTITY. If you come out against the capitalist elite in an organized fashion that is the Amerikkkanism that might land you in Guantanimo, but that would happend reguardless of race/ethnicity.

quote:
My allegiance is to the Father, Yahweh. Who loves me through HIMSELF in Jesus, the Messiah.


And your father made you who you are...an African. Your INTERESTS lie with the INTEREST of African people...unless you are working for the enemy.
quote:
Posted May 25, 2007 12:19 PM

And what does that have to do with the topic-question which, again, is not about the genetics you keep trying to talk about?



fro I answered the question in MY WAY[in FULL CIRCLE i.e socio-cultural and genetics]...through my form of explanation-the way I SEE IT. Not the way, you want to hear it. so...from now on brotha I will continue to reframe from participating in any of YOUR...forums! fro
Last edited {1}
No, you completely avoided the question.

I was nice about it and explained what I was asking/talking about. Plus there was plenty of context for you to reference in the original post.



quote:
quote:
"If one is not African born, to claim being something one is not [i.e. AFRICAN... and something one] has very little direct experiential knowledge of is foolhardy." - Afrimerican


Exactly why is that an issue? Why is it necessary to have any amount of "direct knowledge" about Africa in order for someone, anyone of us to claim that we are an AFRICAN, if only an AFRICAN-American people?


That context does not invite or lend to a discussion or statements about...

European and Asian-humans in general- evolved from Africa
Last edited {1}
fro Razz..don't ask the question, if you're not open to diverse answers....(everyone has a different spin on the same question..it's normal)...which means: we ALL don't think alike...thankgod! fro
quote:
everyone has a different spin on the same question..it's normal

Please... STOP THE BS.

You didn't put a "spin" on the question. You put a "spin" on the word AFRICAN and spun away from the topic, never answering the question you claimed you did. If you did answer the question, then there would be something you said that told us:

When Did Black People Give Up The Right To Be "AFRICAN"?


Was that before or after European/Asian humans migrated out of Africa?



As far as "diversity" responses (you gave no "answer(s)", you only gave a response, again, with tunnel vision on the word AFRICAN only and OUT OF CONTEXT):

Iam's response is not one that I agree with, yet the response was made IN CONTEXT.

Quite naturally, I don't agree with AFRIMERICAN's ideas but they were IN CONTEXT...
Hell, they were the impetus for the question in the first place.



So, sorry Koco... You're going to have to find a better rationale than that bogus "MY WAY", "diversity" stuff. Just be honest with yourself and admit how your comments were OUT OF CONTEXT. And, yes, every thread's topic has a set CONTEXT.
fro brotha you don't get to critique my thoughts and put them in your context...as I said before I'll STOP responding to your.... forum...btw: I've always been nice to you and respectful and OPEN to your point of view...however, it is YOU who have BEEN arrogant and unfriendly..thus totally unyielding to anything different from your perspective. I know that people can take a conversation and bring many things to it and from it (on point or not)...as I mentioned earlier it's normal. yet this reminds me of a story of a young boy who created the wheel and tried to share the idea with his friends...they looked as if he was crazy and said "what the hell are you gonna do with this?... all it does is move around." They saw what they wanted to see....as do you. So you continue doing "you"....and I'll continue doing "me." fro
quote:
it is YOU who have BEEN arrogant and unfriendly..thus totally unyielding to anything different from your perspective


TRY AGAIN!!!


quote:
Iam's response is not one that I agree with, yet the response was made IN CONTEXT.

Quite naturally, I don't agree with AFRIMERICAN's ideas but they were IN CONTEXT...
Hell, they were the impetus for the question in the first place.
fro First of all.....sleep Second of all...it's not all about you controlling folks thoughts....you just can't stand someone thinking outside your "box" however small it is. 'K you just want to argue. I don't. But let me say this...brotha you are sooooooo mean. I use to think you were a soul brotha...now I know you're just a "brother" with "cf" on his shoulders. [i.e. a control freak!] Keep it. I don't need it. Razz........ fro
quote:
you just can't stand someone thinking outside your "box" however small it is.



TRY AGAIN!!!



quote:
Iam's response is not one that I agree with, yet the response was made IN CONTEXT.

Quite naturally, I don't agree with AFRIMERICAN's ideas but they were IN CONTEXT...
Hell, they were the impetus for the question in the first place.

I don't have an answer for this question in particular, but I do have questions of my own.

Why do we, or at least some of us, always manage to find a way or a reason to deny our continent of origin? There are a multitude of Caucasians who claim their Irish, Scottish, English, or whatever other country of origin, although they have never been there nor do they know much about the culture. They just acknowledge where their forebearers came from.

If some African descended brother or sister in this country doesn't understand that our history did not start and end with slavery, that's their cross to bear. However, how is anyone damaged by recognizing that we originated on that Continent? To imply (or allow it to be inferred) that an absence of firsthand knowledge or study about the many countries on the Continent precludes one from proudly proclaiming African heritage is just absurd.
quote:
TRY AGAIN!!!



fro No! YOU TRY AGAIN...AND AGAIN... AND AGAIN. AND SOON YOU WILL DISCOVER...YOU DO. NOT. D.E.F.I.N.E. M.E.! OR CONTROL HOW I ANALYZE...EXPLAIN....DEPICT. Who are you anyway? Just "words" on a message board. Razz But if that ever happens where I have to look to you for any discussion worth having...I'll shoot myself first. fro
quote:
There are a multitude of Caucasians who claim their Irish, Scottish, English, or whatever other country of origin, although they have never been there nor do they know much about the culture. They just acknowledge where their forebearers came from.

Thank you for your observations.
When Did Black People Give Up The Right To Be "AFRICAN"?

Nmaginate I'm not 100% certain I understand what you mean by "right to be African." In any case I will offer you my thoughts about your "right to be African." Who are the true ancestors of African Americans? And "when Did Black People Give Up The Right To Be "AFRICAN"? These questions take us directly back 350 years to Africa's doorstep.

The African justification for slavery, and who in Africa became a slave and why

Viewed from the paradigm of white slavery in the Roman and Greek Empires-where slaves were torn to pieces by Lions or used as entertainment in death matches, - African domestic slavery was tame. Robert Edgar Conrad in his excellent study " Children of God's Fire A Documentary History of Black Slavery in Brazil (chapter 1 page 17), explains why Africans enslaved Africans in the first place; "When a Kingdom makes war against another Kingdom and is victorious, possessing the right to kill their conquered enemies, this right is transformed into that of slavery, and thus captives can be bartered." In other words, Kingdoms in Africa possessed the choice of killing their enemies or enslaving them. In Africa, slavery was far more humane than Roman or Greek death by lions.

Daniel P. Mannix, - Black Cargoes, - (chapter 2 page 40) describes some of the ways one become a slave in Africa; "they were criminals sold by the native chiefs as punishment, or they were individuals sold by themselves or families in times of famine; or they were persons kidnapped either by Europeans slavers or, more often by native gangs; or they had been slaves in Africa and were sold by their masters; or else they were prisoners of war." It should also be mentioned that the vast number of domestic African slavery fell upon villages of so-called heathen tribes scattered throughout Africa. Mannix suggest that African American lineage is rooted here in one or several of his above noted circumstances. Even so, the inference is that civilized Christian or Islamic Kingdoms viewed victims of famine, criminals, prisoners of war and heathens as people at the bottom of the African social order and thus candidates for slavery.

It is therefore reasonable to conclude that it is highly unlikely that most African Americans are the decedents of African Royalty. There is no historical evidence that African Kings and Queens sold off their own families. Contrarily, African Americans today have a much higher probability of having descended from heathen tribes by way of any of the above circumstances Mannix denoted. Criminals, victims of famine and domestic slaves likely occupied low social status within most African Kingdoms. This may explain why for centuries Africa has ignored the horrendous plight of those sold into slavery abroad. There is no evidence that I know of where Africa has ever requested the return of slaves taken abroad. Is it possible that the low social status of slaves within African society is the reason? Yet ironically, blacks slaves were so valued to the white man in America that after the Revolutionary War, the United States demanded that the British return all the slaves that fought on the British side or pay reparations.

Low social status within Africa could also explain why in countries were blacks are at the lowest social order they have overwhelmingly and consistently advocated for freedom and social equality rather than passage back to Africa. This point beckons historical examples that may be germane to your question "When Did Black People Give Up The Right To Be "AFRICAN"?

At its extreme, "Right To Be AFRICAN" could be taken in similar context as "right to be Jewish." A right to be Jewish has come to mean a right to have a Jewish homeland. Viewed from that prism, there are three noteworthy instances in the history of modern blacks that crystallize my point on blacks advocating for freedom or equality rather than deportation or migration back to Africa. The back to Africa idea was problematic for many blacks, still in a manner of speaking the back to Africa notion also addresses your question.

During the Haitian Revolution know one was more problematic than the mulattoes. These Negroes supported the slave system and enjoyed many social advantages denied the slaves. But mulattoes nonetheless were also victims of racism and inequality. During the Revolution they aligned themselves with wealthy whites against Toussaint rebels in the hope that Napoleon would grant the mulattoes equal social status with the whites. It was only when France (Napoleon) denied the mulattoes and all blacks equal status that they finally join Toussaint's revolution. The descendants of Africa, these mulattoes had no interest in returning to Africa, instead they were willing to die fighting there own black brethren to obtain social equality in Haiti. Is it reasonable to conclude that these mulattoes gave up their right to be Africans opting instead for Haitian social equality?

"In the aftermath of the Haitian Revolution and the Gabriel slave conspiracy in Virginia, even whites who were genuinely abolitionist saw the colonization of freed slaves as the "safe and sane approach" to the problems of slavery and racial prejudice (B. Davis pg, 256, 2006). In 1816 American philanthropists decided that whether slavery persisted or died out, the main problem lay in getting rid of the freed Negroes, of which there were then two hundred thousand in the United States. Accordingly, the American Colonization Society was proposed this year and founded January 1, 1817, (Du Bois 1990). With rare exceptions slaves eagerly accepted offers of emancipation regardless of the conditions imposed upon them. But paramount in importance is that by the 18th century, these slaves were better than 200 years removed from Africa, - and more importantly they accepted migration back to Africa not because they longed for the motherland that discarded them in the first place, but rather to escape the harshness of American chattel slavery.

"In his annual message to the legislature of January, 1852, Governor Hunt of New York proposed that money be appropriated to the American Colonization Society. This drew...a vigorous protest from the New York State Convention of Colored Citizens in...Albany's City Hall on January 20, 1852," (Aptheker & Dubois, pg 329). History is replete with letters, minutes of Negro town meetings and articles from Negro publications that reflect the level of emotion experienced among American blacks of the time. Many Negroes did in fact leave while others however, remained in America. On August 14, 1862, Lincoln became the first president to invite a "Committee of African Americans" to the White House, urging them to recruit black volunteers for a government financed colonization project in Central America (Davis, pg 256-318-19). The historical legacy of the American Colonization Society bestowed upon the Negro race the social imposition of choosing to migrate back to Africa or endure the concomitant effects of racism in America for many generations to come. It is today painfully clear that most African Americans opted for the latter rather than the former. Does anyone believe that the slaves who remained on American soil and endured centuries of racism rather than migrate back to Africa give up or renounce their right be African?

And finally, Marcus (Mozian Manasseth) Garvey was the "black nationalist," orator and organizer who formed the first black mass movement organization-Garvey's United Negro Improvement Association, (Smith 1994). "Garvey's "back to Africa" movement visualized the renunciation of American citizenship and permanent separation of the two (black and white) races. But Garvey encountered the same problem as Toussaint; Garvey did not believe that mulattoes were true Africans. In so saying, it was the mulattoes who helped to get rid of him, one noted mulatto DuBois play a role. Since Garvey's demise no black has risen advocating migration back to Africa.

Black history from Africa to America suggest that indeed some blacks did circumvent or as you have stated Give Up The Right To Be "AFRICAN?" In the final analysis, history tells us who the true descendants of African Americans were and why even till this day they are so disregarded in Africa. But I cannot help but wonder why after 1865, millions upon millions of African Americans chose to migrate to the northern cities of America where they faced severe racism and even death, rather than migrate to Liberia whereas your question presumes, - they would have a right to be African? I wonder why there has never been in the history of African Americans a mass migration to Liberia or one similar to that of Israel after Israel's founding in 1948? Could you ever imagine that Zionist, after decades of ballyhooing about a Jewish homeland, then when they get Israel the Jews won't settle there? I really don't understand why African Americans ballyhoo so much about an Africa that discarded us in the first place, - and then irrespective of racism, poverty and inequality remain solidly put on American soil. The answer to these questions may be that this is yet another aspect or derivative of the psychology of slavery. Perhaps scholarly work ought to be done on the pathological social psychology of African Americans.
quote:
Low social status within Africa could also explain why in countries were blacks are at the lowest social order they have overwhelmingly and consistently advocated for freedom and social equality rather than passage back to Africa.

This is complicated by your Garvey remarks, instances during the Middle Passage, etc.


quote:
Since Garvey's demise no black has risen advocating migration back to Africa.

This is simply not true. And the question, again, is a SOCIAL/CULTURAL one with plenty of context which didn't mention anything about repatriating and was clearly focused on IDENTITY.

I find it quite odd how, besides "discarding" other Black Nationalists/Pan Africanist including WEB DuBois who "migrated" where???... how you did no examination of native Garveyites. It's as if you believe Garvey had no following. Beyond that, please explain why Garvey was undermined if "Back To Africa" via Liberia, etc. was viewed by abolitionist Whites as "safe and sane."

Please present your references where abolitionist-like Whites gave Garvey "Back To Africa" efforts their seal of approval.


quote:
Garvey did not believe that mulattoes were true Africans.

What Garvey thought in those terms is irrelevant.


quote:
I wonder why there has never been in the history of African Americans a mass migration to Liberia or one similar to that of Israel after Israel's founding in 1948?

One reason: Because Liberia can never be confused with Israel. When you can find some historical references that show how Germans were instrumental in setting up Israel for Jews then you can make Apple-to-Apple comparisons/inquiries vs. this Apple-&-Oranges one.

And exactly what part of (Liberia and) the America COLONIZATION Society and its racism don't you understand. Simply put, the state of Israel isn't the product of a German/Nazi COLONIZATION Society. Beyond that, there are tremendous differences between the Jewish/Zionist situation and the African American one.

And, yeah... Why are you using the term "African American" so liberally since you seem to have a problem with (understanding) the question?


quote:
I really don't understand why African Americans ballyhoo so much about an Africa that discarded us in the first place...

First, you would have to establish how many were "discarded" vs. forced into slavery - by Africans or Europeans, themselves - by the circumstance of the Slave Trade. It's as if you're trying to promote a historically problematic idea that African societies had a class of lower-class slaves in full supply when the Slave Trade began.

Also, your "discarded" idea is part of your own subjective view and, of course, when that's the way YOU see when, obviously, others don't... then quite naturally you won't understand the thinking of people who don't accept your underlying assumptions and very your argument as sorely lacking.
This is in response to Kraaals post...

Firstly, there was not a 'readymade' class of Africans to be enslaved' pre-slave trade. The majority of any society has a majority of 'low social status' and a minority elite. There were massive efforts by Europeans to destabalize Africa's pre-colonial economy/trades to the point where the slave trade, or rather 'slave raids', created by proxy wars, was the main economy, replacing all others. Yes, there were elite collaborators, as there were and continue to be in any form of a people's exploitation... This has nothing to do with one's ethnic identity. An Example being Jalal Talabani, the interum president of Iraq. He is a trader puppet leader, but is still an Iraqi(Kurdish). What he does to his people does not negate what he is ethnically, the people he is subjugating won't decry their Kurdish or Iraqi heritage either solely because of his actions. That being said, many of the 'collaborators' were also not quite 'willing'. Many faced a rather daunting choice, 'You go get other Africans, or we will enslave you'...

Furthermore, if the negation of one's ethnic/racial identity is sufficiently based on mal-treatment, then it is more than logical for Africans in Amerikkka to negate our 'Amerikkkaness'(not an ethnicity) because of extreme mal-treatment.

Also, the comment you made about 'heathen' Africans being the majority of those enslaved, somehow because of their religious status is a-historical. The majority of enslaved Africans were practicers of the traditional spiritual systems because the majority of Africans in West/Central Africa at that time were traditional spiritualists, incuding the elite. X-tianity hadn't taken a foothold because it couldn't/didn't until Europeans reached the interior and officially colonized Africa(which happened largely in the latter stages of the slave trade and after it's demize). So there just weren't many X-tians in West/Central Africa PERIOD. X-tianity was the handmaiden of colonialism after-all. Also, Islam, outside of the Sene-Gambia, existed largely in pockets, and was not the majority religion. Being Muslim did not prevent those that were snatched from the Sene-Gambia either. The French hapilly enslaved Muslims from these areas for export as human chattle to places like (Hispanola)Haiti, French Guiana, Martinique, St. Lucia, Tobago, and Lousiana.

Marcus Garvey did not say 'Mulattos' weren't African. He openly attacked Du Bois in such a way because the Boule'(an org. started in direct opposition of, and to distract Africans from joining the UNIA-ACL and other grass roots nationalist movements) Zionist co-founded, and integrationalist NAACP was in direct ideological oppisition to the interests of Nationalist Pan-Africanism. Also, we must remember Garveys roots, he was Jamaican and travelled all through the Caribbean and South Amerikkka, where he was sure to have witnessed that often the collaborators with colonialism/imperialism, and often the new oppressors(once the white plantation class was kicked out, or evacutated) were the mulatto class. Haiti is a good modern day example of this. And the rest of the Caribbean has a distinct 'lightness'(albeit not absolute like Haiti) to their wealthy class. So that explains his 'zeal' when attacking Du Bois status as an African.

The Liberia question was nicely adressed by Nmaginate. I can't think of one Pan Africanist in their right ideological mind(anti imperialist/colonialist, African-centered) that would want to repatriate to Liberia in the recent past, considering it's foundational history(not to mention it's instability/civil wars). The Africans who repatriated to Africa(with the help of Amerikkka as Nmaginate pointed out) and founded Liberia were a confused bunch. They were Euro-imperialist/colonialist minded in their thinking, and thought it their duty to X-tianize and civilize the 'natives'. They also set themsleves up as a ruling elite that has political and economic control of the country to this day. Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, the current president of Liberia is evidence of this legacy...here name ain't too African is it?

There are many African countries who have officially apologized for the elite collaboators that have asisted in the enslavement process. Many African countries have welcomed and are welcoming Africans with open arms. Ghana even has given diasporan Africans a free land option for repatriation. There have been healing and reconnection ceremonies that have taken place at many of the 'slave forts', and the last Pan African congress officially announced that diasporan Africans will be considred the 6th region of a future United States of Africa, and will recieve the full benefits of citicenship, ID and all...

Any disaporan African who honestly expects any African country's pleas for us to come home, or efforts in assisting in such, to be publicized by the corporate onwed media is nuts. I also question the mental stability(and the size of the ego/arrogance) of any diaporan African who honestly expects such activity/efforts to be on the top of 'the list of prioroties' for African countries that are largely run by corrupts western puppet governments, and are currently under a siege of neo-colonialsm.
Last edited {1}
It is interesting how many of my post are selectively excluded if it offers proof of the fallacies pontificated herein.

I have never deigned, or dared to say a person should call themself this, that, or the other.
All I do is provide information that details a more complete examination of the mult variant factors beyond the emotion, and ignorance driven by one being something based on skin tone, and life long miseducation.

Heritage is one component, citizenship is another, and then there is ones social aesthetic born from environment, and i will say if you are not Africa born, and never lived there, then to claiming of being African is idiocy.

To put it another way. WEB Duboius claimed to be Jamaican per the land of his birth and upbringing , but when he made a commitment to find and align himself with Africa, he went there, took up residence, so did Marcus Garvey, so did stokely Carmichael, etc...

Lastly, I have been studying various CIA, DIA, FBI, and other U.S. Agencies that use Black people in their propoganda to stir the pot of confusion, and to sow the seeds of discord that keep the race in emotional bondage in attempting to navigate the lies, which also distracts from examining the claims thoroughly.

This site is full of such propogandist.

The claims I make are factual thus the U.S Government, U.K Universities, U.S. Universites, and dictionaries will soon be listing "Afrimerican".

For those who seek truth, don't let the those who seek your ignorance keep you in bondage to it.
It's a simple socio-cultural, socio-historical identity question:
When Did Black People Give Up The Right To Be "AFRICAN"?---Nmaginate

For me, this is the crux of the matter, as well.

And I agree with Oshun Auset that we never did.

Although...there was a time....in our tortured experience.

The record is clear, however, that Africa has always been prominent is language of who we are...as used by Africans in America, both free and not free.

I have always wrestled with the 'heritage v. history' interpretation raised earlier.

How we are defined remains authority, and our responsibility.

It is a socio-culture activity.

It has always been our exercised right and responsibility.

Sometimes we have done it well, and sometimes not so well.

I insist on continuing to work at it...aggresively.


PEACE

Jim Chester
quote:
Originally posted by Afrimerican:

It is interesting how many of my post are selectively excluded if it offers proof of the fallacies pontificated herein.


No matter how good it may feel for you to feel sorry for yourself and no matter how great the urge is to cower in fear of contending with what has been "pointificated herein", "fallacies" are the last thing you should invoke when talking about other people's views.


quote:
Posted December 24, 2005 03:28 AM by AFRIMERICAN:

As to why I used AFRI, well I know what African means, and I know I am far, far, far, far removed from that aesthetic, but I still have part of it, if not consciously, then genetically, (genetic memory), and I choose those letters to represent I am part African and I choose the remaining letters to represent I am part American, and to together, these letters make a new word, that represents a new paradigm in Afrimericans existence and position, and self/ethnic Identity.



Well, forget mere fallacy... That's a bold-faced, gap-toothed CONTRADICTION.

Like I said, instead of feeling sorry for yourself, show some fortitude and deal with the points of yours that have been contended with. Instead of whining about the posts of yours that you believe were/are "selectively excluded"... step up and post them, include them here and show why those posts/points shouldn't be left out.

But, no, you can't/won't do that because you and I both know that line of yours was complete bs meant to do nothing more than give you a reason to feel sorry for yourself and hope that others would too.

Nevertheless, here it is again:


quote:
Obviously, there is no consideration as to why there is "little direct knowledge" about Africa. Also, there is no consideration as to why a person, a Black person, an AFRICAN-American person would want to identify, remember, acknowledge or otherwise associate him/herself with "Africa."

It's as if the American Ordeal that was Slavery, which essentially boils down to being forced to be "American", (and actually being forced to be a second-class American) is/was an acceptable situation and, how we became "American" (and more directly, how we became something other than AFRICAN) is to be dismissed as unimportant -- our identity, then, is tied to "what we are" no matter how we came to be what we are.


So your "examination" is clearly lacking. But wait, in 2005 it was okay with you or okay for you to be someone who is, as you put it, "far, far, far, far removed" from the AFRICAN "aesthetic" but... BUT... some how you conceived that, if nothing else, there was a "GENETIC MEMORY" (if not a conscious, though removed or distant, memory) of AFRICA.

Go ahead and argue with yourself. My points here were hardly different from what you said then.


.
quote:
Originally posted by Afrimerican:
I have never deigned, or dared to say a person should call themself this, that, or the other...

Heritage is one component, citizenship is another, and then there is ones social aesthetic born from environment, and i will say if you are not Africa born, and never lived there, then to claiming of being African is idiocy...


Uhhhmmm... GLARING contradiction in your own post! Also, ethnic identity and citizenship are two very different things.

quote:
To put it another way. WEB Duboius claimed to be Jamaican per the land of his birth and upbringing , but when he made a commitment to find and align himself with Africa, he went there, took up residence,


Thanks for demonstrating your complete lack of historical information...FYI...

W.E.B. Du Bois was born in Great Barrington at the south-western edge of Massachusetts. Alfred Du Bois(his father) had been born in Haiti. MARCUS GARVEY was Jamaican born, not Du Bois. Du Bois took up residence in Ghana because he became a Pan Africanist(and got his Amerikkkan citizenship and passport revoked when he declared he was a socialist, after a trip to China). His political ideology had evolved long before this, and he had referred to himself as an African long before his repatriation.

quote:
so did Marcus Garvey


Marcus Garvey NEVER SET FOOT ON AFRICAN SOIL! His political ideology was functionally that of a Pan Africanist(he was one of the founding fathers)...hence the name of his organization was UNIA-ACL(United Negro Improvement Association- AFRICAN communitees League). Are you saying MARCUS GARVEY is an idiot?

quote:
so did stokely Carmichael, etc...


Please be polite enough to refer to people by their preferred name, particularly those who have transcended...Anything less is like calling Muhammad Ali, Cassius Clay. It's disrespectful. Kwame Ture(formerly Stokely Carmichael) also evolved into a Pan Africanist politically after SNCC and the BBP. He referred to himself as an African long before he set foot on African soil.

quote:
Lastly, I have been studying various CIA, DIA, FBI, and other U.S. Agencies that use Black people in their propoganda to stir the pot of confusion, and to sow the seeds of discord that keep the race in emotional bondage in attempting to navigate the lies, which also distracts from examining the claims thoroughly.


Are you studying the FBI, DIA, and CIA so you can apply for a position? If you haven't, then I suggest you get on the payroll, because you shouldn't do the enemies bidding for free. Also I suggest you study some diasporan African history. From your serious historical errors, it seems you need a 'review course'.

quote:
This site is full of such propogandist.


Propoganda is a value nuetral term...It all depends on the ideology you are propogating, whether it works for or against the interests of the people determines whether it is positive or negative. You are spreading propoganda about the term Afrimerican, so you are also a propogandist. I am spreading propoganda about Pan Africanism, therfore I am also a propogandist. Everyone is spreading propoganda about their personal ideology on identity. We are all propogandists.
Last edited {1}
quote:
Are you studying the FBI, DIA, and CIA so you can apply for a position? If you haven't, then I suggest you get on the payroll, because you shouldn't do the enemies bidding for free.


I feel like I have to pay you for that propaganda vs. propaganda beatdown you just laid on AFRI "The Self-CONTRADICTOR."
quote:
Originally posted by Nmaginate:
quote:
Are you studying the FBI, DIA, and CIA so you can apply for a position? If you haven't, then I suggest you get on the payroll, because you shouldn't do the enemies bidding for free.


I feel like I have to pay you for that propaganda vs. propaganda beatdown you just laid on AFRI "The Self-CONTRADICTOR."


Nahhh, work for the interests of the people is free! 4

Add Reply

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