Skip to main content

I agree with Insome,

It is amazing how other ethnic groups in this country can be 2,3 or more generations removed from their anscestors place of origing (i.e. irish italians germans) yet still identify with these places of origin. They don't apologize for it, nor should they.

However with black folks, by other black folks -get all kinds of drama. Not by folks of other ethnic groups mind you, but by other black folks....

How many euroamericans know for sure (or at all) what european tribe or clan they come from? The many clans' of pre-france, pre-britan, pre-germany, pre-ireland, pre-switzerland, etc? Ask them if it matters to such depth? These folks mixed back and forth through the ages also. Race/ethinicity isn't always definded with regard to skin color or hair texture, etc.

Two different european clans consider themselves to be of a different race from each other even though both groups are white. This person made up of mostly Goth yet have some Germainian in the mix. I wonder if the "one drop" rule applies for them? Would we question this persons "Gothnicity"?

For example,
There are generally six Celtic peoples recognized in the world today. They divide into two groups, the Brythonic (or British) Celts, and the Gaelic Celts. The Brythonic Celts are the Welsh, Cornish and Bretons; the Gaels are the Irish, Scots and Manx (inhabitants of the Isle of Man). Some people recognize a seventh Celtic nation in the region of Galicia in Spain (their Celtic language died out a thousand years ago, and so the Celtic links are more tenous).

Can't forget the Jutes, Angles and Saxons. The Atrebates. The Ambiani. The Morini. The Vandals.

Would any of the black folks on this board who take issue with other black folks in this country identifying with their afrikan origin, bring that anti-ethnic rhetoric to white folks generations removed from europe, not knowing what ancient european clan/tribe they came from but yet identifying with their place of anscestrial origin?

Who thinks white folks trip about origin the way black folks trip? Say "I" then sustantiate with regard to the information I've shared...

Bytheway, has anyone ever taken issue with Mr. Spok reppin the Vulcans with traces of human DNA running through his veins? Out of curiousity....
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor:
Would any of the black folks on this board who take issue with other black folks in this country identifying with their afrikan origin, bring that anti-ethnic rhetoric to white folks generations removed from europe, not knowing what ancient european clan/tribe they came from but yet identifying with their place of anscestrial origin?

Who thinks white folks trip about origin the way black folks trip? Say "I" then sustantiate with regard to the information I've shared...


Good point... White/European folks haven't been made to hate themselves...hence the different 'reactions'.
quote:
Originally posted by James Wesley Chester:
Lol, I can't stop being me Mr. Chester!---Oshun Auset

I depend on it.

I quoted your information in my lecture last Friday, May 31.


PEACE

Jim Chester


I'm honored...but it really isn't 'my information'... just information I've collected from a myriad of sources and then regurgitated. Nothin' new under the sun.4
Last edited {1}
quote:
White/European folks haven't been made to hate themselves...hence the different 'reactions'.

Beyond that, there is hardly anything close or anything in existence like the system of psychological and material rewards for Black people to "hate" on their race. From the House Negro, to Passing, to the Cottage Industry that is the Black CONservative book market there always have been and continues to be very tangible rewards for distancing one's self from the Black/AFRICAN core.
"Firstly, there was not a 'readymade' class of Africans to be enslaved' pre-slave trade."

Oshun , the facts suggest the contrary, - between 907 and 1500 all three of Africa's great West Empires maintained slaves: the Empire of Mali, Songhai and the Empire of Ghana later known as the Ashanti Empire. In fact, Cheikh Anta Diop in his Pre-Colonial Africa writes that from the period of 990 "domestic slavery at this time was rife in African society: one could sell his fellow man to another citizen or foreigner. Diop goes on to say some individuals in the city (Empire of Ghana) owned as many as a thousand slaves." All three Empires held vassals and tribes of slaves. This social condition of African domestic slavery existed long before the arrival of the European and continued up to and through the period of the Atlantic slave trade. And so, YES by the time of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade there was indeed a 'readymade' class of Africans to be enslaved.'

You are also wrong about the religion of those West African Empires, according to Diop they were Islamic. Diop contends, "Islam was, and remains in large part, a living religion in Black Africa..."

And by the way, Cheikh Anta Diop is still regarded as world-renowned. He is the black Senegalese scholar who also wrote Civilization or Barbarism. Your erroneous statements appear to be in consequence of a lack of a literature review of Pre-Colonial Africa. With all due respect, it appears you haven't read this black scholar, if you had, you wouldn't be making erroneous statements like the ones you made above. I strongly suggest that you read this African scholar's works and then discuss pre-colonial Africa.
quote:
Originally posted by kraaal:
"Firstly, there was not a 'readymade' class of Africans to be enslaved' pre-slave trade."

Oshun , the facts suggest the contrary, - between 907 and 1500 all three of Africa's great West Empires maintained slaves: the Empire of Mali, Songhai and the Empire of Ghana later known as the Ashanti Empire. In fact, Cheikh Anta Diop in his Pre-Colonial Africa writes that from the period of 990 "domestic slavery at this time was rife in African society: one could sell his fellow man to another citizen or foreigner. Diop goes on to say some individuals in the city (Empire of Ghana) owned as many as a thousand slaves." All three Empires held vassals and tribes of slaves. This social condition of African domestic slavery existed long before the arrival of the European and continued up to and through the period of the Atlantic slave trade. And so, YES by the time of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade there was indeed a 'readymade' class of Africans to be enslaved.'


'Ready made' would infer that people were expendable without the entire social structure collapsing. That the African elite were just waiting at the shores with droves of people to sell off on the cheap, with no adverse consequences to their wealth or to the socio-eonomic structure of the region at large. You have already pointed out in YOUR post how African slavery(more like servitude) was markedly different from chattle slavery and a societal norm. That being said, BY YOU I might add...THERE WERE NOT 100,000,000 people of a CLASS THAT WERE READY BE SOLD TO THE EUROPEAN INVADERS BY ANYONE ELSE. The stability of the entire trade/economy's of West/West-Central Africa would have collapsed with the removal of that labour force...as you pointed out, it was largely dependent upon this 'class'.(and that's precicely what happened...collapse). If there was this huge readymade class to be forcibly emigrated, please explain why Europeans had to conduct slave raids and destabalize the pre-existing economies to make the slave economy the dominant one? Why didn't they just pay for 'us' and call it a day? Your anti-African identity issues really have you re-interpretting history in an illogical fasion.

quote:
You are also wrong about the religion of those West African Empires, according to Diop they were Islamic. Diop contends, "Islam was, and remains in large part, a living religion in Black Africa..."


Diop does not contradict what I said. You are putting words into his, and my mouth. Look at a map please.
The Trans-Atlantic slave trade occured between the Sene-Gambia and Angola. I never said that Islam was non existant or even minimal. I ONLY said it wasn't the MAJORITY religion in the West/West-Central African countries where the Atlantic slave trade took place. Reading is fundamental.

Black Africa includes all of Sub-Saharan Africa, but not only the countries/areas involved in Trans-Atlantic slavery. East and East/Central Africa are MAJORITY Muslim. So is North-Western-Sub-Sharan Africa. In the area that the slave trade took place, there were pockets of Islam, outside of the Sene-Gambia, the place where it was the MOJORITY religion. Also, you said that Muslims weren't taken as readily as 'heathens' and that wasn't true in the area that was the only MAJORITY Muslim area effected by Trans-Atlantic slavery...the Sene-Gambia(and I gave an example of the French)...

What is now, Angola, Congo, Gabon, Cameroon, Nigeria, Benin, Togo, Burkini Faso, Ghana, Cote D'Ivoire, Liberia, Guinea, and Liberia, WERE NOT MAJORITY Muslim.

Senegal, Gambia, Guinea Bissau(all considered the Sene-Gambia at the time).... Niger, Mali, and Mauritania, Chad, and the Western Sahara(considered the Western Sudan and didn't participate in the trans-atlantic slave trade) are MAJORITY MUSLIM. This is the Black West Africa that Diop was referring to.

YOU just didn't know what/where I was referring to...or you pretended to not know.

quote:
And by the way, Cheikh Anta Diop is still regarded as world-renowned. He is the black Senegalese scholar who also wrote Civilization or Barbarism. Your erroneous statements appear to be in consequence of a lack of a literature review of Pre-Colonial Africa. With all due respect, it appears you haven't read this black scholar, if you had, you wouldn't be making erroneous statements like the ones you made above. I strongly suggest that you read this African scholar's works and then discuss pre-colonial Africa.


I read Diop about 11 years ago. I would also suggest...The African Origin of Civilization: Myth or Reality, Pre-colonial Black Africa, The Cultural Unity of Black Africa: The Domains of Patriarchy and of Matriarchy in Classical Antiquity, and The Peopling of Ancient Egypt & the Deciphering of the Meroitic Script I guess you didn't like my little critique of your anti-African anti-historical post. And I guess you took offense to what I said to Afrimerican about needing a review of diapsoran history ... Figures, since you both share in the 'distance yourself from Africa' ideology. You'll have to come WAY BETTER than this with me on African history... It's one of my passions.

I remember a while back you made some other anti-African statements, and I told you to kraal back into your hole...this request still stands.

http://africanamerica.org/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/1551033683...071063714#6071063714

http://africanamerica.org/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/79160213/m...991063114#2991063114
Last edited {1}
Kraal's "Muslim slaves" argument leads to his own undoing.

Several books detail how Muslims taken as slaves to the Americas were, indeed, of not "lower class", if education and skill is any indication of class.


http://www.meforum.org/article/53



_____________________________________


As for the "We Were NOT Kings (and Queens)" claim:





quote:
Book Description

In 1807, an Irish ship's surgeon recognized a slave at a Mississippi produce market as the son of an African king who had saved his life many years earlier. "The Prince," as he had become known to local Natchez, Mississippi, residents, had been captured by warring tribesmen when he was 26 years old, sold to slavetraders, and shipped to America. An educated, aristocratic slave, Abd Rahman Ibrahima was made overseer of the large cotton and tobacco plantation of his master, who refused to sell him to the doctor for any price. After 25 years of petitioning, Dr. Cox finally gained tttIbrahima his freedom, through the intercession of U.S. Secretary of State Henry Clay. Sixty-six-year-old Ibrahima sailed for Africa the following year, with his wife, two sons, and several grandchildren, and died there of fever just five months after his arrival. Prince Among Slaves is the first full account of Ibrahima's life, pieced together from first-person accounts and historical documents. It is not only a remarkable story, but the story of a remarkable man, who endured the humiliation of slavery without ever losing his dignity or his hope for freedom.

http://www.amazon.com/Prince-Slaves-Oxford-Paperback-Reference/dp/0195042239

Oshun, because kraal is not of the antiquated Pan-Africanist revolutionary ilk, you say that kraal is "anti-Africa," that my "anti-African identity issues really have me re-interpretting history in an illogical fasion," that I should "crawl back in the hole I came out of." Unlike you Oshun who believes in the myth that for 300 hundred years whitey stole 100 million blacks from Africa while the Kings and Queens just stood by, - I see and interpret Africa from the written historical documented facts. According to Africa's own scholars et al, I know that Africa herself is as much at fault for the horrible experience of 350 years of American racism and hate that black folk in America have suffered. Because of these facts you say kraal is "anti-African. Well Oshun, so say you, - but I don't think so! I will say what I have said about Africa again, - she is doomed! Africa's doom rests in the lesson of the economics of slavery. WEB Du Bois in his classic Black Folk Then and Now tells readers "The modern slave trade began with the Mohammedan conquest in Africa, when heathen Negroes were seized to supply the harems, and as soldiers and servants. They were bought from the masters and seized in war, until the growing wealth and luxury of the conquerors demanded larger numbers... As Negro kingdoms and tribes rose to power they found the slave trade lucrative and natural, since the raids in which slaves were captured were ordinary intertribal wars. It was not until the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries that the demand for slaves made slaves the object, and not the incident of African wars." In other words Oshun as I have already said, the plight of the African domestic slave changed when the New World demanded cheap and abundant labor. The African domestic slave was thus rendered expendable. Is there any other interpretation, if so please post it!

This change meant that the social process of de-Africanization had henceforth begun. De-Africanization occurs not as a result of African domestic slavery whereas the African slave remained in Africa thus maintaining all African customs and languages. Contrarily, the African slave who was removed from the continent altogether never to return, e.g., (African Americans) or returning centuries later (as was the case with the 1822 freedmen and slaves to Liberia) but completely westernized with western languages and cultures is the de-Africanized African. By 1822 American Negroes were better than 200 years removed from African language and culture. In fact, Liberians fit well into this westernized African prototype. Found in David Lamb's The Africans, he writes that in 1822 45,000 former American slaves returned to West Africa. In 1847 Liberia became Africa's first republic. According to Lamb, they named their capitol city Monrovia (after a white man US President James Monroe). They set up an American style government with a stripped red, white and blue flag with a single star. Then, they turned sixty indigenous tribes into an underprivileged majority, referring to them until 1950 as "aborigines." And what did the real Africans think about these black American freedmen and slaves returning to Africa? Lamb writes that "for a long time Africans poked fun at Liberia, disparaging it for adopting attitudes and importing values not in keeping with African traditions."

As I've already stated, it should be clearly understood that African domestic slavery drastically changed after the fifteenth century. The demand for cheap labor abroad was the primary cause for the change in how African slaves would henceforth be regarded. Diop in his Pre-Colonial Africa (page 152-153) describes African domestic slavery as "the great chink in African social organization...but that African slaves who were not deported in general enjoyed living conditions incomparably superior to those of white slaves in Europe." But when the need for cheap labor arouse in the West and was in demand, the plight of the African slave changed. Diop himself recognizes this change when he writes; "After its contact with Africa, sixteenth-century Europe progressively lost the custom of internal slavery and, taking advantage of its superiority in arms, substituted Black slavery. After the contact with Europe, the lot of Africa's slaves suddenly got worse, since it then became possible for them to be sold to persons who would export them, with the whole chain of well-known evils entailed in these forced crossings."

Found in the book Africa Since 1800, Third Edition by Roland Oliver and Anthony Atmore, - these writers inform readers of the "typical payment in the eighteenth century for an African slave man or girl:

One roll of tobacco, one string pipe coral,
One gun, three cutlasses (a curving sword), one brass blunderbuss (a short wide barrel musket),
Twenty-four linen handkerchiefs, five patches [of cloth],
Three jugs rum, twelve pints mugs, one laced hat."

Contrastingly, David Brion Davis Inhuman Bondage published in 2006 explains in economic terms why a half million whites died to preserve the institution of slavery in America. "The slaves value came to an estimated $3.5 billion in 1860 dollars, that would be about 68.4 billion in 2003 dollars. But a more revealing figure is the fact that the nation's gross national product in 1860 was only about 20 percent above the slaves value, which means that as a share of today's gross national product, the slaves value would come to an estimated $9.75 trillion." Thus, by the time of the Atlantic slave trade for the African Kings the value of the domestic African slave is worth guns, cloth and rum. But for the white man in America billions of dollars! This economic juxtaposition of Africa and the rest of the world persist to this day.

For almost all the worlds' natural resources Black Africa is the richest continent. But just like its trade in slaves, Africa receives the least economic rewards. Africa has all the worlds cocoa nuts needed to make chocolate, but receives the least economic rewards because raw cocoa nuts are not of the same economic end value as the production of Swiss or Nestles chocolate. Africa has all the worlds diamonds, gold, iron and other natural materials, but black Africa is not an owner or manufacturer of any of the end products produced by these raw materials. Black Africa has all the worlds dung dropped by its great wildlife preserves, but black Africa does not own, produce or manufacturer fertilizer sold on the world market. Even in Liberia, a supposed haven created specifically for African Americans where they have all the worlds' rubber, the Afro-American Liberian does not own the manufacturing apparatus, - Firestone Corporation does and therefore receives the greatest economic rewards. Until such time as African Americans or Africans on the continent own and control the production of natural resources, and with those resources produce end products that the entire world demands, - then economically speaking they are doomed and confined to slogans and ideologies like "Pan-Africanism" that essentially provide hope but ultimately maintain the statue quo.

At a time when the movement of blacks in the United States was restricted by chattel bondage, what is paramount in importance regarding the return to Africa is that those 45,000 Negroes who migrated to Liberia was coerced migration. Secondly, they migrated back to Africa not with the idea of regaining their "Africanness," rather, to escape the daily horror of slavery and racism. The evidence is undisputable in the history of Liberia. Yet, according to C. Eric Lincoln and Lawrence H. Mamiya in their book The Black Church In the African American Experience , they assert that, "Over the course of a century from 1870 to 1970 more than 7 million black people had become part of the largest internal migration America has experienced." This raises the question of why after 1865 with the addition of the 13th and 14th Amendments whereas blacks had finally gained the freedom of movement, did they not migrate back to Africa? Perhaps you Oshun may care to address this question.

The point Oshun, is that even when the American slave returned to Africa, as my noted reference on Liberia shows, African Americans still weren't regarded as African or seen as African by the Africans themselves. What do you think would happen today if millions of Pan-Africanist American blacks like you decided to migrate to Angola, Botswana or the Congo? You may be welcomed, but just like our Liberian predecessors you're still not an African! And the main reason why you're not an African rest squarely in the African slave trade that removed you and I from the continent and thus African language and culture forever.

And so, because I reiterate the documented written facts of Africa yesterday and today, facts found not only in African literature, but in the literature of the United States and Europe as well, - for this kraal is anti-Africa? If I must be slave anyway, rather than be shipped across the Atlantic Ocean to the whitest most racist country on plant earth, I would have preferred to remain in Africa. That I didn't remain Africa is but for the greed and indifference of my African forefathers.
quote:
I know that Africa herself is as much at fault for the horrible experience of 350 years of American racism and hate that black folk in America have suffered


That's just pure bullsh*t even if we take a non-nuanced and ahistorical view of African complicity.


No legitimate court in the world would ever take that view. To even let that bs come out of your mouth - that Africa is "as much at fault" - cancels any credibility you think you and your selected-selective sources have.

To compare the person who merely "sold" so-called slaves to those who not only SOLD slaves but brutalized them and, indeed, enslaved them in ways notably different from African slavery (which, of course, all Africans taken to the Americas for slavery were not enslaved in Africa - see Prince Among Slaves lol) and made that slavery intergenerational with no chance of social mobility and we won't even mention the crime against humanity that is the cultural annihilation that was part and parcel of Europeans enslaving Africans (hmmmm... any scholarly data on how Africans enslaved Africans and, besides separating families, fully intended on separating their captives from their culture/practices, like the Europeans did??).


What is antiquated is the many a varied levels of bs from people who have some weird axe to grind with Africa/Africans over the slavery ordeal. Again, when you make the most RIDICULOUS comparisons... Well...

I guess you would cast your lot with the type of idiots who would say the driver who took the kidnapper-rapist-murdered-torturer-abductionist to point A is "as much at fault" for the kidnap-rape-murder-torture-abduction as the kidnapper-rapist-murdered-torturer-abductionist who orchestrated a plan from Point A to Point B then to Point C.

Makes a lot of sense. Roll Eyes

That's why in a court of law both the driver and the kidnapper-rapist-murdered-torturer-abductionist will get the same sentences. Yep!! Roll Eyes


Yeah, the African act of complicity is, indeed, comparable to 350 years of American racism and hate that black folk in America have suffered at the hands of Europeans. It's as if Africans themselves used the whips, performed the lynchings, etc. Yeah... I see your point, Kraal. sck
This discussion lifts African America, and therefore all Americans of unknown African ancestry.

And all other members of The African Diaspora (meaning those 'out of Africa against their will').

I wish I had a way to archive the entire thread without sitting in front of computer all day.

Maybe I can copy the URL as a link.

Amazing what reason can produce.

Thanks you guys for sharing your reading and research.

And...your passion.

PEACE

Jim Chester
"I see your point, Kraal."

I'm afraid not Nmaginate. You surprise me; of all the post you have written that I have read I never thought you were a denier of factual documented evidence. You are similar to black Christians who deny to their deaths that the very faith they praise is the same faith that condoned their enslavement. Nmaginate, what I write is not something I just dreamed up, it is the result of many readings over many years. That is why I am surprised by your response. You would rather attack Kraaal personally then to contest me on my references. You seem to be saying that no matter what references or materials I cite, no matter the scholar, African or African American, - like that Christian you refuse to address the documented references; you say they are "selected" and so you attack the massager.

Your behavior leads me to believe that the reason for your personal attacks on kraal is more than likely due to your lack of extensive reading of the subject matter, in this case domestic African slavery. It would be nice if you could say, "okay Kraaal I too have read those materials but I interpret it this way," or you might say "if you read this or that book these authors present a counter view based on this or that thesis." Your lack of referenced materials other than the one book you posted leads me to a different opinion of the level of expertise you actually have on the subject.

In any case, the point I've tried to make is actually a simple one, - that Africa played an active and significant role in the trans-Atlantic slave trade and therefore bears some responsibility for the racialized black experience in America as well as the creation of the so-called "African American." I am not contesting you on whether European or American slavery was far worst then that of African domestic slavery, in fact I agree with your stated conclusion. I am however, holding Africa responsible only for their role in the sale of their own people for the purpose of perpetual slavery abroad.

Nmaginate, I have attempted to dialogue with you on a subject that is clearly dear to both of us. The nature of my dialogue is from the perspective of academia. Whether or not you are credentialed is not relevant, I nonetheless assume that you are same as me. Name-calling and personal assaults produce nothing! What follows is my epistemology; like most educated people it is here rather than kraal that you should challenge me and if you so desire even attack my interpretation of the facts.

Pre-Colonial Africa, - Cheikh Anta Diop

Problems in American Civilization Slavery in American Society Third Edition Edited with an introduction by Lawrence B. Goodheart/Richard D. Brown/Stephen G. Rabe - D.C. Heath and Company 1993

The Peculiar Institution, Slavery in the Ante-Bellum South, - Vintage Books 1956

Black Folk Ten and Now – W.E.B. DuBois, Kraus-Thomson Organization, Millwood, N.Y. 1990

Who is Black? One Nation's Definition - F. James Davis, The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1993 A Documentary History of the Negro People in the United States

From Colonial Times to the Founding of the NAACP in 1910-Edited by Herbert Aptheker, Prefaced by Dr. W.E.B. DuBois-The Citadel Press: New York 1969.

The Black Church in the African American Experience, - C. Eric Lincoln and Lawrence H. Mamiya, Duke University Press, Durham and London 1990.

Reconstruction, - edited by Staughton Lynd, - Harper & Row, Publishers, New York, Evanston, and London 1967.

Modern Africa A Social & Political History – Basil Davidson

The Black Church in the African American Experience, - C. Eric Lincoln & Lawrence H. Mamiya

Africa, The People And Politics of An Emerging Continent, - Sanford J. Ungar

Black Folk Then and Now, - W.E.B. Du Bois

Reconstruction edited by, - Staughton Lynd

Claude Wauthier, - The Literature & Thought of Modern Africa A Survey

Civilization Or Barbarism An Authentic Anthropology, - Cheikh Anta Diop

Black American Literature, Edited by, - Ruth Miller

Children of God's Fire A Documentary History of Black Slavery in Brazil, - Robert Edgar Conrad.

The Promise of The New South-Life After Reconstruction, - Edward L. Ayers.

A Documentary History of The Negro People in The United States, - Edited by Herbert Aptheker Preface by Dr. W.E.B. Du Bois

The Africans, - David Lamb

Religions of Africa, - E. Thomas Lawson

Problems In American Civilization Slavery in American Society Third Edition, - Lawrence B. Goodheart

A History of the Atlantic Slave Trade Black Cargoes, - Daniel P. Mannix

Africa Since 1800 Third Edition, - Roland Oliver

It is only after reading all of these authors that I conclude about Africa and slavery in the manner that I do. Nmaginate you used the word "idiot," you say what I have written is pure bullsh!t. All those above references according to you is bullsh!t. Okay, now its your turn to show what cards you hold. I would give most anything to see how you formulated your opinions.
quote:
That is why I am surprised by your response. You would rather attack Kraaal personally then to contest me on my references.

Stop the bs!!!

I have not "attacked" you personally. I have "attacked" your reasoning and your interpretation of things you believe your sources say. So, unless you're quoting directly from the sources you've listed or otherwise alluded to, spare me the bullsh*t.


quote:
Name-calling and personal assaults produce nothing!

I've called you no names so stop looking for a crutch or an angle to play victim-assaulted-abused with.

Sorry but a bibliography doesn't make an argument for you. I've directly "attacked" your argument about the social class of Africans who were taken as slaves. You, instead of "attacking" the source I provided which differs from your claim... Well, you just ignored it. You, ironically, want to attack me personally by trying to suggest that I'm not as informed as you are.

Okay! Test your theory out and "attack my source" and cut the bs!

See, all that diversionary stuff will get you EXPOSED! But, my knowledgeable brother, all you have to do is TEST YOUR THEORY OUT:

quote:
I know that Africa herself is as much at fault for the horrible experience of 350 years of American racism and hate that black folk in America have suffered

First, quote with complete context where your sources make the same claim you did in that quote. Don't stutter. Don't stumble or pause. PRODUCE the info., Chapter and Verse, where any of the sources you cited have made the argument YOU did.

Tell me where say something that approximates YOUR CLAIM:
Africa herself is as much at fault for the horrible experience of 350 years of American racism and hate that black folk in America have suffered

Like I said:
That's just pure bullsh*t even if we take a non-nuanced and ahistorical view of African complicity.

Now tell me what kind of information your sources present that I'm not knowledgeable of when I note that there was AFRICAN COMPLICITY.


Seriously, I want to see exactly what you NON-POINT is. Know that having knowledge and being able to apply it and when it applies is two different things. So you can cite a sources for the next hundred years. That would be most entertaining - you citing sources and not quoting a word from them that makes YOUR ARGUMENTS. Facts are one thing but making the type of argument you've made is another. Please don't insult my intelligence with your bs. Address the things I've said to counter your claims or STFU!


You know me... I sound like the same Nmaginate that blast Christians when they say ridiculous bs. Which reminds me...

quote:
You are similar to black Christians who deny to their deaths that the very faith they praise is the same faith that condoned their enslavement.

Tell me what I have denied, KRAAL. I mean the storyline is cute but it's lacking in accuracy - the thing you need to execute it.

*ahem*

Like I said:
That's just pure bullsh*t even if we take a non-nuanced and ahistorical view of African complicity.

Now tell me what kind of information your sources present that I'm not knowledgeable of when I note that there was AFRICAN COMPLICITY. sck
quote:
Originally posted by Nmaginate:

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


To my knowledge...NEVER. If anything, AAs have had to fight for our right to connect with Africa. We were cut from the motherland by the White Man and the West Africans who betrayed us by selling us to slavery. We didn't ask to come to America, we were dragged here against our own will. We have fought to search for our identity and many of us were even killed for demanding to know our history back during the slave days. Through all of this, we NEVER denounced Africa, we have fought for her.
quote:
Originally posted by kraaal:
Oshun, because kraal is not of the antiquated Pan-Africanist revolutionary ilk, you say that kraal is "anti-Africa," that my "anti-African identity issues really have me re-interpretting history in an illogical fasion," that I should "crawl back in the hole I came out of." Unlike you Oshun who believes in the myth that for 300 hundred years whitey stole 100 million blacks from Africa while the Kings and Queens just stood by, - I see and interpret Africa from the written historical documented facts.

Now, as Nmaginate pointed out, you are just a plain old LIER! Why are you putting words into my mouth? Because you have no other factual argument to my critiques of you post? When did I say, like Nmaginate that there was not African complicity...I broke down the CLASS aspect of the people who were complicate in my first post. YOU just want to put words into people's mouths that don't share in your disdain for continental Africans. You want to act like you don't have basic comprehension skills when reading another's post!

quote:
According to Africa's own scholars et al, I know that Africa herself is as much at fault for the horrible experience of 350 years of American racism and hate that black folk in America have suffered.


Hmmm, I wonder where I get the idea YOU have an Anti-African bias? Nmaginate covered this BS for me...

quote:
Because of these facts you say kraal is "anti-African. Well Oshun, so say you, - but I don't think so! I will say what I have said about Africa again, - she is doomed!


Wow, Africa is doomed huh? No anti-African feel from that one! Your defence against not being anti-
African ain't so good...

quote:
Africa's doom rests in the lesson of the economics of slavery. WEB Du Bois in his classic Black Folk Then and Now tells readers "The modern slave trade began with the Mohammedan conquest in Africa, when heathen Negroes were seized to supply the harems, and as soldiers and servants. They were bought from the masters and seized in war, until the growing wealth and luxury of the conquerors demanded larger numbers... As Negro kingdoms and tribes rose to power they found the slave trade lucrative and natural, since the raids in which slaves were captured were ordinary intertribal wars. It was not until the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries that the demand for slaves made slaves the object, and not the incident of African wars." In other words Oshun as I have already said, the plight of the African domestic slave changed when the New World demanded cheap and abundant labor. The African domestic slave was thus rendered expendable. Is there any other interpretation, if so please post it!


Uhhhm, we have already covered this...there goes your anit-Africaness again. What the hell does this 'contradict' or 'prove' accept in your own anti-African mind?

I would aslo suggest you read PAN AFRICANIST WEB Du Bois book "The World and Africa". If you have, then your anti-African attitude is shining though, because you sure are skipping what he said about who is at fault for the exploitation and oppression of African people GLOBALLY...Also, why would you quote a Pan Africanist? He obviousely would not share your ideology.

quote:
This change meant that the social process of de-Africanization had henceforth begun. De-Africanization occurs not as a result of African domestic slavery whereas the African slave remained in Africa thus maintaining all African customs and languages.


FYI Africa has been colonized. When I was in Africa, I met PLENTY of Africans that were more westernized than me!

quote:
Contrarily, the African slave who was removed from the continent altogether never to return, e.g., (African Americans) or returning centuries later (as was the case with the 1822 freedmen and slaves to Liberia) but completely westernized with western languages and cultures is the de-Africanized African. By 1822 American Negroes were better than 200 years removed from African language and culture. In fact, Liberians fit well into this westernized African prototype. Found in David Lamb's The Africans, he writes that in 1822 45,000 former American slaves returned to West Africa. In 1847 Liberia became Africa's first republic. According to Lamb, they named their capitol city Monrovia (after a white man US President James Monroe). They set up an American style government with a stripped red, white and blue flag with a single star. Then, they turned sixty indigenous tribes into an underprivileged majority, referring to them until 1950 as "aborigines." And what did the real Africans think about these black American freedmen and slaves returning to Africa? Lamb writes that "for a long time Africans poked fun at Liberia, disparaging it for adopting attitudes and importing values not in keeping with African traditions."


Why are you posting on something that I brought up about Liberia? You were the one who asked why people haven't repatriated to Liberia since the first colonization. Remember, you said this stupid shit...

quote:
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?


And I responded with this...

quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
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?


Why are you being a parrot about information that you actually asked about? Did you just look up Liberian history and felt the need to post to show you read it or something?

quote:
For almost all the worlds' natural resources Black Africa is the richest continent. But just like its trade in slaves, Africa receives the least economic rewards. Africa has all the worlds cocoa nuts needed to make chocolate, but receives the least economic rewards because raw cocoa nuts are not of the same economic end value as the production of Swiss or Nestles chocolate. Africa has all the worlds diamonds, gold, iron and other natural materials, but black Africa is not an owner or manufacturer of any of the end products produced by these raw materials. Black Africa has all the worlds dung dropped by its great wildlife preserves, but black Africa does not own, produce or manufacturer fertilizer sold on the world market. Even in Liberia, a supposed haven created specifically for African Americans where they have all the worlds' rubber, the Afro-American Liberian does not own the manufacturing apparatus, - Firestone Corporation does and therefore receives the greatest economic rewards. Until such time as African Americans or Africans on the continent own and control the production of natural resources, and with those resources produce end products that the entire world demands, - then economically speaking they are doomed and confined to slogans and ideologies like "Pan-Africanism" that essentially provide hope but ultimately maintain the statue quo.


Ok, now you have gotten personal. You need to back up the BS that you say about Pan-Africanism... Pan Africanism isn't an f-ing 'slogan'! Pan Africanism is about liberation, via organization, ideological training, and eventually by the gun if necessary. Kwame Nkrumah is a SLOGAN?! Garvey is about a SLOGAN?! Kwame Ture ect. are SLOAGNEERS?! Malcolm X was talking about SLOGANS?! The people in the diapsora and on the continent that are working for their people are NOT SLOGANEERS. You my friend don't know jack ish about Pan Africanism, and the loss of blood behind it, and are not able to speak on what you do not know. Period.

quote:
At a time when the movement of blacks in the United States was restricted by chattel bondage, what is paramount in importance regarding the return to Africa is that those 45,000 Negroes who migrated to Liberia was coerced migration. Secondly, they migrated back to Africa not with the idea of regaining their "Africanness," rather, to escape the daily horror of slavery and racism. The evidence is undisputable in the history of Liberia. Yet, according to C. Eric Lincoln and Lawrence H. Mamiya in their book The Black Church In the African American Experience , they assert that, "Over the course of a century from 1870 to 1970 more than 7 million black people had become part of the largest internal migration America has experienced." This raises the question of why after 1865 with the addition of the 13th and 14th Amendments whereas blacks had finally gained the freedom of movement, did they not migrate back to Africa? Perhaps you Oshun may care to address this question.


Because at this point in history not only have Africans in Amerikka been made to hate themselves, but it would be the choice of moving from one hell to another. Africa is under the yoke of neo-colonialism and imperialism, which I mentioned before(something you pretend not to know, or ignore that I said). Why don't you stop BS-ing, repeating yourself, and asking questions that you already know the answers to... because they were already GIVEN.

quote:
The point Oshun, is that even when the American slave returned to Africa, as my noted reference on Liberia shows, African Americans still weren't regarded as African or seen as African by the Africans themselves. What do you think would happen today if millions of Pan-Africanist American blacks like you decided to migrate to Angola, Botswana or the Congo? You may be welcomed, but just like our Liberian predecessors you're still not an African! And the main reason why you're not an African rest squarely in the African slave trade that removed you and I from the continent and thus African language and culture forever.


First off, when I went to Africa I did not go back with that stupid westernized colonial mindset(nor with the financial backing of white wesytern elite), so not only was I welcomed, but 'accepted'. Until you go(which I don't think you will, nor do I suggest you do with your anti-African mindset), as Nmaginate says STFU! Experience trumps biased projection everytime.

quote:
And so, because I reiterate the documented written facts of Africa yesterday and today, facts found not only in African literature, but in the literature of the United States and Europe as well, - for this kraal is anti-Africa? If I must be slave anyway, rather than be shipped across the Atlantic Ocean to the whitest most racist country on plant earth, I would have preferred to remain in Africa. That I didn't remain Africa is but for the greed and indifference of my African forefathers.


It's the re-interpretation of history and your BS comments like this that make you 'anti-African'... Since you and I well established the class aspect of slavery then exactly what forefathers of yours sent/sold you here? There was ELITE COMPLICITY. The masses of African people are and were not ROYALTY, in AFRICA today, or those taken from Africa then...so how did your 'forefathers' do a damn thing? BTW, Australian white folks don't think their direct 'forefathers' sent them to the penal colony, they are intelligent enough to know that it was a certain class if Britts who did that to them. Nor do they deny their Brittish roots. Only self hating Africans think in that manner. Thanks for further prooving my point about your 'stance'.

Also, the reason I posted "Kraal back in your whole" with the LINKS of where I said it was because you were giving the whole 'don't associate with Africa because it is all of the continental African's fault for the slavetrade' analogy you are giving here. I SPECIFICALLY mentoined in both those threads that their was ELITE COMPLICITY... and just like here, because I still LOGICALLY choose not to be anti-African for the actions of a few ELITE AFRICANS(which are largely the corrupt class in Africa today, selling out the masses of continental Africans by working with the West), you claim that someone isn't dealing with history. Give me a break! You must have forgoten I'm a socialist. I don't go for that King/Queen fuedalism ish... The masses of every people of EVERY ETHNIC GROUP get betrayed by the elite who exploit them...But NOBODY esle is running around trying to cut ties with their ethnic identity because of the actions of a few within it besides self hating Africans.

There were Ashkenaz Jews that were complicate in the Holocaust inside the concetration camps(and there were some who actually financed the Nazis...the Rothchilds) you don't see any of them denouncing their heritage/identity because of the actions of a few elitist pigs.
Last edited {1}
""First, quote with complete context where your sources make the same claim you did in that quote. Don't stutter. Don't stumble or pause. PRODUCE the info., Chapter and Verse, where any of the sources you cited have made the argument YOU did.


...And it still won't matter if I did Nmaginate ; you would simply dismiss it as one man's opinion – waste of time!

Those books and resources I presented you are books I've actually read in totality that shape my interpretation of history and/or the facts. You have dismissed those resources and relegated them to a mere bibliography.

Now I will challenge you to present your epistemology, show me how you know or why you believe as you do. Please present your materials that have shaped your thinking and interpretation of the facts. I ask that you teach brother kraal with a presentation of your resources that clearly, undisputedly and undeniably show why Kraals interpretation is skewed, bias, erroneous or as you have continually argued, is PLAIN OLE BULLSH!T. I challenge you Nmaginate to bring your intellectual capacity to the table and counter all that I have posted with your superior information, intelligence, insight and correct interpretation!!!

Please accept this challenge as serious. You have dismissed all that I have said, all references that I have included and any and all interpretations of those references. So now there is no need for you to run or hide, simply bring your superior knowledge and interpretation to the table and teach this wayward brother the correct information. Since kraal's resources, references, bibliography, readings and interpretation is BS, - present without excuses, delay or alibi your information that you stand by. Here is your opportunity to Teach kraal why what he is saying is BULLSH!T

Please do not duck me or try to punk or bitch me, - since as far as you are concerned, what I am saying and my interpretation of my readings is BS, - Please, please, please step up to the plate NOW and "give me what you got," bring to the table what you have and lets debate the facts.
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
BTW, Australian white folks don't think their direct 'forefathers' sent them to the penal colony, they are intelligent to KNOW that it was a certain class of Britts who did that to them. Nor do they deny their Brittish roots.

Oh damn!
...That is goood stuff!

quote:
I still LOGICALLY choose not to be anti-African for the actions of a few ELITE AFRICANS(which are largely the corrupt class in Africa today, selling out the masses of continental Africans by working with the West)

Unfortunately, there are black folks who will throw the baby out with the bathwater with regard to Afrika. Instead of finding reasons to distance ones black self from their place of origin via enslaved anscestors, why not find a reason to connect?

Like N8 asked, "When Did Black People Give Up The Right To Be "AFRICAN""? I'll even expound on it by asking, why did (or do) black people [some at least] give up their right to be AFRIKAN?
Last edited {1}
Before I respond to another round of IRRELEVANCE from Kraal...

quote:
We were cut from the motherland by the White Man and the West Africans who betrayed us by selling us to slavery. We didn't ask to come to America, we were dragged here against our own will.


I felt it was not only necessary but fitting to acknowledge how yet another person can see the crux of the issue here without being confused or trying to confuse things by acting like AFRICAN COMPLICITY somehow invalidates African American claims to Africa and to being AFRICAN.


Now for Kraal's silly sh*t.



quote:
Those books and resources I presented you are books I've actually read in totality that shape my interpretation of history and/or the facts.

First, there is no challenge you can issue until you clear up the bs you've spread throughout this thread since you started posting on it. All you're trying to do is AVOID the stank mess your INTERPRETATIONS... your INTERPRETATIONS have got you in.

It is not that hard:

Quote with complete context where your sources make the same claim you did in that quote. Don't stutter. Don't stumble or pause. PRODUCE the info., Chapter and Verse, where any of the sources you cited have made the argument YOU did.

Oh but it's clear that, instead of trying to pawn YOUR INTERPRETATIONS off as "documented" FACTS....

quote:
You surprise me [Nmaginate]; of all the post you have written that I have read I never thought you were a denier of factual documented evidence.

You've changed your mind and readily acknowledged that the so-called "factual documented evidence" you claimed I "denied" were, indeed, products of your INTERPRETATION. In this case, your f*cked up interpretation that you're trying to justify.

Now, my self-publicized, well-read brother... You will have to come correct.


WHAT DID I DENY, KRAAL?



Answer that or STFU!! That's Point A. Your bogus challenge can be Point B if you can finish what you started. You started trying to say I DENIED something.


WHAT DID I DENY, KRAAL?



Show just how IRRELEVANT your invocation of your "epistemology" is by answering the question.


quote:
"First, quote with complete context where your sources make the same claim you did in that quote. Don't stutter. Don't stumble or pause. PRODUCE the info."

...And it still won't matter if I did Nmaginate ; you would simply dismiss it


WRONG!

It's little cowardly bs like that that I dismiss. The sources I have presented that relate to one of the POINTS OF CONTENTION (get to reading about things like that, Kraal) you failed to STEP UP TO THE CHALLENGE and debate whether they were calculated in YOUR INTERPRETATIVE analysis or if they complicate your claims.

Until you can address what's already on the board and show how you can deal with counterpoints... you can stop trying to project your own "it still won't matter" attitude onto me. As noted, that's the bs you just practiced. And, sorry... I'm not your TEACHER no matter how I school you. I've taken the opportunity to expose you and all your book learnin'.

YOU CAN READ:
Having knowledge and [knowing how and when] to apply... is two different things.


Address what's already on the board...

  • Kraal's "Muslim slaves" argument leads to his own undoing. (See source #1 & #2)
  • WHAT DID I DENY, KRAAL?


  • Tell me what... I'm not knowledgeable of when I note that there was AFRICAN COMPLICITY


    Advance the claims you made and the conversation/debate on those points.

  • It is highly unlikely that most African Americans are the decedents of African Royal.

    (The notion of most AA's being decendants of royalty is a statistical impossibility anyway. Oh but maybe your "epistemology" shows an inordinate number of royalty in Africa than there ever has been in any human society on the face of the earth. Maybe the African royal class consisted of 50% or more of the people in their respective country/tribes/populations and African-Americans mistakenly believe they were taken from the royal 50%+ vs. the non-royal class(es) in African feeder societies.) Roll Eyes

  • Nmaginate... I never thought you were a denier of MY INTERPRETATIONS factual documented evidence.

  • Your behavior leads me to believe that the reason for your personal attacks... is more than likely due to your lack of extensive reading of the subject matter.


    If you just can't bring yourself to doing that then...

    sck NEXT!!!!!!!


    NO. WAIT. This is the BULLSH*T you said:

    quote:
    the point I've tried to make is actually a simple one, - that Africa played an active and significant role in the trans-Atlantic slave trade and therefore bears some responsibility for the racialized black experience in America as well as the creation of the so-called "African American." I am not contesting you on whether European or American slavery was far worst then that of African domestic slavery, in fact I agree with your stated conclusion. I am however, holding Africa responsible only for their role in the sale of their own people for the purpose of perpetual slavery abroad.


    But that's not what you said. You said:

    Africa herself is as much at fault for the horrible experience of 350 years of American racism and hate that black folk in America have suffered


    Look at you, Mr. Epistemology, trying to WEASEL out of the donkey sh*t you moved your feet and stepped in.

    And MY STATED CONCLUSION is that your comment quoted in my June 10, 2007 09:46 AM post was "PURE BULLSH*T."

    With obvious and abundant sarcasm, I CONCLUDED:
    Yeah, the African act of complicity is, indeed, comparable to 350 years of American racism and hate that black folk in America have suffered at the hands of Europeans. It's as if Africans themselves used the whips, performed the lynchings, etc.



    *ahem*

    Please don't DUCK or act like I've PUNK'D you or B*TCH slapped you silly... ADVANCE YOUR CLAIMS and the conversation on the points that were already on the board.


    Note: Claiming that "Africa herself is as much at fault for the horrible experience of 350 years of American racism..." then flipping that to "I am only holding Africa(ns) responsible for their role" is a sign of INTELLECTUAL WEAKNESS and, actually, rank INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY.

    Moreover, this was on the board for you to flex your "epistemology" on:

    To compare the person who merely "sold" so-called slaves to those who not only SOLD slaves but brutalized them and, indeed, enslaved them in ways notably different from African slavery... and made that slavery intergenerational with no chance of social mobility... [IS RIDICULOUS]
    [But] I guess you would cast your lot with the type of idiots who would say the driver who took the kidnapper-rapist-murdered-torturer-abductionist to point A is "as much at fault" for the kidnap-rape-murder-torture-abduction as the kidnapper-rapist-murdered-torturer-abductionist who orchestrated a plan from Point A to Point B then to Point C.
  • Last edited {1}
    Ok Oshun , you made some good points and stated some legitimate criticisms of my post. One in particular has to do with my generalization of slavery to all of Africa. Actually, all of my posts concerning African slavery are specific to "West Africa" only and I should have made that point clear.

    "Note: Claiming that "Africa herself is as much at fault for the horrible experience of 350 years of American racism..." then flipping that to "I am only holding Africa(ns) responsible for their role" is a sign of INTELLECTUAL WEAKNESS and, actually, rank INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY."

    OK Nmaginate I will concede that the two statements appear to differ and may indeed be confusing, - but again, my only point is that I hold "West Africa" equally as responsible as the white man for the trans Atlantic slave trade and all that followed in the so-called African American experience in the United States. Secondly, I will write a clarification, oops, I mean more BullS!ht that hopefully will clarify my points and distinguish my personal anger regarding our African past from what Ohun has described as my anti-African stance. I will outline specifically the African role in the slave trade that to this day still angers me, - particularly when I watch African scholars on C-Span complain to Europeans about the remnants of colonialism while ignoring the remnants of three centuries of West African slavery. For me, the remnants of African as well as American slavery are still a vicious sting in my belly as it is for many other African Americans.

    Unfortunately, I am one of those African Americans who will likely die angry about white racism and West African complicity in the slave trade. Nevertheless, I will make my final attempt and present you with some fresh Bulls!t to include specific BS quotes and page numbers from what you described as a BS bibliography, - all for you to summarily DISMISS as I already know you will. So stand by Nmaginate, more of kraal's BS is on the way.

    Add Reply

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