Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Me and the family use to. However because I work two jobs,FT &Pt, I don't have the time to celebrate it. I let my girls do the candle lighting and I come home with a look on my face that says good for them. I want them to understand the meaning of Kwanzaa and what it means to us.

In my long winded way,yes we celebrate Kwanzaa along with Christmas. I just let my Girls know that we make it an ethnic holiday. We minimalize Santa claus as being too Eurocentric.

Knowledge is Power
Ignorance is Oppression
blaqfist,

I applaud your decision to re-direct the celebrations of your family Smile But, just as an FYI kinda thing, you may want to consider that, actually, there is more reason to celebrate Jan. 1st for the occasion of New Years, than for that of the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation!!! Eek

You see, the EP did not free all the slaves in this country nor did it even abolish slavery and make it illegal in this country! The EP gave freedom only to those slaves of the Confederate states ... those Southern states that were opposing becoming a part of the Union (which was the other half of what the war was really about!) Slaves currently being "owned" in the northern states or those that were not rebelling at the time were still legally enslaved! Eek

Though the Emacipation Proclamation took effect January 1, 1863, the abolishment of slavery in the United States did not become the law of the land until the 13th Amendment was passed by Congress on January 31, 1965 and actually ratified by all States on December 6, 1965 ... almost 3 years later!

Here's a link to The 13th Amendment which you might find helpful! Since I don't know of too many people that will celebrate Dec. 6 with you (except maybe me! Smile) you may want to keep Jan. 1st as a calandar changer holiday-wise! Big Grin

BLACK by NATURE, PROUD by CHOICE.
Free your mind, and the rest will follow.
When Christmas had all those Nativity scenes years ago, along with Santa, when I was small, it was quite beautiful with the snow, Christmas carols and all. Since that all has been removed and has become so commercialized, nah; not to much to celebrate anymore. Everything has become so monetary based. Money, money, money. As we can see, it's the root of all evil. Too much death and destruction now, as it was when I was small. My innocence then shielded me; the shields have heretofore been removed. I'll just celebrate the fact that so far, no doom has befelled my family as of yet. That and only that brings me joy. No more Paganism celebrations for Norland.
I celebrate Kwanzaa in different ways, so far I have not celebrated in my house, but I have gone to many public or private celebrations during that week. This is to answer your question directly.

In actuality I celebrate the principles of of the Ugso Saba (sp) which is the basis for Kwanzaa everyday.

For me the actual Holiday of Kwanzaa it a chance for warm fellowship with conscious brothers and sisters.

I plan on bring my daughter to Brooklyn one day soon to meet up with Dr. M. Kerenga (sp) (founder of Kwanzaa).

>

... its time for Prosperity


> > >



An African American Board Game Of Wealth & Success.

quote:
Originally posted by blaqfist:
I am in the process of weaning my kids off of Euro-Holidays entirely.

I want to celebrate Juneteenth, Kwanzaa, and Jan. 1st (not as New Years, but because it was the day the Emancipation Proclamation was singed).


Kwanzaa is a valued addition to our African American heritage. While I do not practice the observance at home,I participate in at least one celebration during the holiday period. This will be my 10th year. One year I conducted an observance in State prison. Kwanzaa is a major piece of the reconstruction we must do ourselves.

As you know, I and my family have taken a further step and defined and declared our ancestral nationality as African American. We practice it as such as an example to our children and grandchildren.

Identity is our personal responsibility.

I am of the belief that the Emancipation Proclamation was a European-American military strategy of the Civil War with no legal application in The Confederacy, and specifying exemption of all other jurisdictions. And that is not including the fact none its intent was to benefit African Americans. Any benefit to African Americans was "fallout." That is Eurocentric.

I see Junteenth (June 19th) is a clebration of African American awareness.I know it is a celebration of gaining knowledge. The message was delivered two years after the Emancipation Proclamation. That would be 1865, 2 years and 6 months later. That more nearly coincides with the enactment of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution abolishing involuntary servitude (slavery for "us folks). I seems likely the "message" got through when slavery became illegal with consequences.

I am taking the liberty of offering this only because you stated the intent of eliminating "Eurocentric holidays." I would not teach my personal children to revere this day, or document. You may want to investigate.

PEACE

Jim Chester

You are who you say you are. Your children are who you say you are.

[This message was edited by James Wesley Chester on October 20, 2003 at 05:16 AM.]


[This message was edited by James Wesley Chester on October 20, 2003 at 05:19 AM.]
I have tried for about 15 years to celebrate the holiday, but it has been very hard to get the rest of my family to truly embrace it. Sometimes it has turned out ok, but there have been times when I could not find a black candle anywhere. Also, most of the children in my family do not want to give up celebrating Christmas and do not have the patience to wait for Kwanzaa to get presents (which is whate Christmas really means to kids).
I celebrated at my former residence. The best time to get supplies for Kwanzaa are now during the Halloween/Thanksgiving/Christmas season. You'll be able to buy all of your supplies like a indian corn, candles especially black ones and all sorts of other supplies. Always stock up on the black candles because it may be tough to find them in other years, Sunnubian.
Kwanzaa is one of those holidays that really is meant to be shared by the community at large in my opinion. However, one should celebrate at home with the family and children when possible.

Our people have made the mistake of confusing the methods with the objectives. As long as we agree on objectives, we should never fall out with each other just because we believe in different methods, or tactics, or strategy. We have to keep in mind at all times that we are not fighting for separation. We are fighting for recognition as free humans in this society
Malcolm X, 1965
[/QUOTE]You see, the EP did not free all the slaves in this country nor did it even abolish slavery and make it illegal in this country! The EP gave freedom only to those slaves of the Confederate states ... those Southern states that were opposing becoming a part of the Union (which was the other half of what the war was really about!) Slaves currently being "owned" in the northern states or those that were not rebelling at the time were still legally enslaved![QUOTE] --- EbonyRose

This is not to "take issue", but to help clarify the character of one the "stones" around our necks.

The Emancipation Proclamation didn't "give freedom" to anyone, anywhere. The document had no jurisdiction outside of the United States. The Confederacy was outside the United States. The Confederacy was a separate country with its own Constitution, Congress, President, and all the other trappings of sovereignty, not the least of which was an army, at war.

Beyond that, it intent was direct to only those jurisdictions not under the control of the Union Army, and not applicable to a member of The Union.

So intent was not even to free slaves. Certainlly not their own.

I don't know that there were any States "opposing" becoming a part of the Union." Kansas and Nebraska were the culmination of a power struggle involving the usurpation of the vote of African Americans. [Kansas-Nebraska Act] This fight led to the Civil War.

On close examination, it is clear freeing slaves was not the intent either of Lincoln, or the document.

At best, the proclamation offer relief from the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, as well as the Constitution (Article IV, Section2: A Peson charged in any State with Treason, Felony , or other Crime, who sjall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having jusisdiction of the Crime.

The Section goes on to say: [No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Sercixw oe Labour may be due.]

At best, the Emancipation Proclamation offered only safe haven. But then, only if you could get out on your own.

PEACE

Jim Chester

You are who you say you are. Your children are who you say you are.
Thats a very odd interpretation of historical events Jim.

"its intent was direct to only those jurisdictions not under the control of the Union Army, and not applicable to a member of The Union."

First off, the constitution does not permit congress to create laws for anyone but members of the United States or those under its jurisdiction by nature of being within its borders. Thats why its the "US" Constitution. So,
in addition to that mistake, you must remember that the UNION never accepted the succession of the South, hence the Union never recognized that the south was not part of the Union, and sent the Union Army south to PROVE it with force. So the EP applied to the United States, which thanks to the Union Army, included the south as well as north.

You'd better re-read that one Jim, and see if you got confused somewhere.


Suffice it to say that EP being proclaimed law in 1863 was a show of determination of the Norths efforts to defeat the south and abolish slavery. It was passed in the middle of a war.

Of course, in the middle of a war, 1863, there wasn't going to be much routine law enforcement going on, the law could have no effective enforcement until victory came in 1865 and the states violating this law were subdued. That should be obvious.

So all your gyrations, while interesting, are hopelessly off the mark. By the way, there was no EP needed in the North at the time, although it did apply nationally. There wasn't a single northern state who hadn't outlawed slavery by 1863 already. In fact, 3 northern states had never had any slavery since the constitutional convention, 1782 or so.
QUOTE]Originally posted by sergeant:
Thats a very odd interpretation of historical events Jim.

_"its intent was direct to only those jurisdictions not under the control of the Union Army, and not applicable to a member of The Union."_

First off, the constitution does not permit congress to create laws for anyone but members of the United States or those under its jurisdiction by nature of being within its borders. Thats why its the "US" Constitution.
____________________________________________________________________________

I agree.
____________________________________________________________________________

So,
in addition to that mistake,
____________________________________________________________________________

That's not a mistake. That's a fact. The Emancipation Proclamation was specific to those areas not under the control of the Union Army. It also specifically excluded those States which were a member of The Union, specifically, Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri.
____________________________________________________________________________

you must remember that the UNION never accepted the succession of the South,
____________________________________________________________________________

Well, that's what war is all about, Sergant. The Confederacy said it was an independent nation, raised an army to enforce, and fought like hell to defend it, whether The Union liked it or not, whether The United States agreed or not.
____________________________________________________________________________

hence the Union never recognized that the south was not part of the Union, and sent the Union Army south to PROVE it with force.
____________________________________________________________________________\

Sergant, all the Southern States were, and are, sovereign. In the ˜eyes" of the world, and the "eyes" of the United States. They insisted upon that recognition as a part of the resolution of the Revolutionary War, in The Treaty of Paris of 1783. The Union is/was an assembly/associate of sovereign entities. They can do whatever they dam well please. Thank you very much. The United States has authority only as long as the member States accept the exercise of that authority.
____________________________________________________________________________

So the EP applied to the United States, which thanks to the Union Army, included the south as well as north.
____________________________________________________________________________
Do I really need to say, "WRONG." again???
____________________________________________________________________________

You'd better re-read that one Jim, and see if you got confused somewhere.
____________________________________________________________________________

Your advice sounds well-intended. You should take it.
____________________________________________________________________________

Suffice it to say that EP being proclaimed law in 1863
_____________________________________________________________________________
What law? Please provide the citation. This will be news to everyone, including Abraham Lincoln. I surely missed that one. Please.
____________________________________________________________________________

was a show of determination of the Norths efforts to defeat the south and abolish slavery. It was passed in the middle of a war.

Of course, in the middle of a war, 1863, there wasn't going to be much routine law enforcement going on, the law could have no effective enforcement until victory came in 1865 and the states violating this law were subdued. That should be obvious.
____________________________________________________________________________

Only to the wishful. I agree The North was determined, but in January 1863, The North was desperate and prayerful. Antietam was the first glimmer of hope, and aided by escaped slaves, at that. The end of the war didn't bring did not bring enforcement of a law. It brought passage of an amendment to the Constitution, the 13th.
____________________________________________________________________________

So all your gyrations, while interesting, are hopelessly off the mark. By the way, there was no EP needed in the North at the time, although it did apply nationally. There wasn't a single northern state who hadn't outlawed slavery by 1863 already. In fact, 3 northern states had never had any slavery since the constitutional convention, 1782 or so.[/QUOTE]
____________________________________________________________________________

Brothuh, you need a dime. To call somebody. Like a librarian. I gave you a list of the States practicing slavery which were members of The Union. Your account of history was would be rejected by the KKK. Your rationale isn't even sophomoric. You can't be lying. You just don't know.

PEACE

Jim Chester

You are who you say you are. Your children are who you say you are.
"In 1787, the nation's first session of congress passed legislation that included a ban on slavery in territories North of the Ohio River. This legislation was named the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, and was originally written under the Articles of Confederation. Through the year 1819, all of the states who were granted statehood adhered to the guidelines of the ordinance..."

http://home.earthlink.net/~civilrightsreport/comp1920.htm

So the theory that the EP only freed slaves in the south is off base a little bit... Slavery was allready against the law in the Northern 11 states, per the Northwest Ordinance of 1787..

See private that is called research...

[This message was edited by blaqfist on October 20, 2003 at 02:07 PM.]
quote:
Originally posted by blaqfist:
I have never heard that angle of the argument EbonyRose.. But something just came to my mind, namely did'nt the Missouri Compromise outlaw slavery in the North? B4 the start of the ACW?


Your question wasn't to me, but if I may:

The Missouri Compromise was about admitting addition "slave" States to the Union. The concern was constraining the edge in power held by the "slave" States. The Compromise was that for another "slave" to join the Union there must be an addiltion of a "non-slave" State. In the case of Missouri, it was the State of Maine.

PEACE

Jim Chester

You are who you say you are. Your children are who you say you are.
quote:
Originally posted by blaqfist:
"In 1787, the nation's first session of congress passed legislation that included a ban on slavery in territories North of the Ohio River. This legislation was named the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, and was originally written under the Articles of Confederation. Through the year 1819, all of the states who were granted statehood adhered to the guidelines of the ordinance..."

http://home.earthlink.net/~civilrightsreport/comp1920.htm

So the theory that the EP only freed slaves in the south is off base a little bit... Slavery was allready against the law in the Northern 11 states, per the Northwest Ordinance of 1787..

See private that is called research...

An excellent insight into the division of our nation. The eastern extension of that concept was called The Mason-Dison Line. That line conincided with the Pennsylvania-Maryland border, and in conjunction with the law you cited was used to implement Jim Crow in interstate transpoetation. The practice lasted until the Civil Rights Law of 1964. The changeover cities were Washington, D.C., Cinncinati,St. Louis, and Kansas City.

For additional clarity, the Emancipation Proclamation was an issuance for an area over which there was no jurisdiction, namely The South. It exempted member States of The Union, AND those areas, all areas, under the control of The Union Army, whether those locatons were in The North or The South.

PEACE

Jim Chester

[This message was edited by blaqfist on October 20, 2003 at 02:07 PM.]



You are who you say you are. Your children are who you say you are.
blaqfist ...

The way I understand it, (in the short version Smile)

The Missouri Compromise was basically about Missouri (a slave state) trying to come into the Union ... one Congressman tried to say that since it was being newly admitted, it should come in free of slavery - there was much opposition to that! Eek Also, the debate involved the future states that would be established out of the territory acquired as the Louisiana Purchase, and whether or not they would be slave or free states.

The Compromise was that Missouri would be admitted as a slave-state, and Maine, who also wanted Statehood, would come in as a non-slave state. The big deal about that was that at that time, there was an even amount of slave and non-slave States, and this kept a certain balance of power in the Congress ... one side not having more power than the other. Roll Eyes Also, a "line" was drawn through a part of the LA territory, that was established as "slave-free" land

Now, the Northwest Ordinance was another story! Eek Essentially, it was about newly acquired land in the "West" ... West of the original colonies and those states already established. Basically it was referring to what are now the States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota.

That Ordinance declared that the States, once established, would enter the Union as free ... however, any slave that escaped into it could be reclaimed by his or her slavemaster and sent back to serve. Although the new states were given status on the same level as the older ones, it had no bearing on what was already going on in them, and so it was more a matter of slavery never being legally established in those states, and not that it made the act illegal, as the act never existed!

BLACK by NATURE, PROUD by CHOICE.
Free your mind, and the rest will follow.
Additional FYI ...

Within the text of the EP, states and territories that Lincoln considered being "in rebellion against the United States" were:

quote:
Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana (except the parishes of St. Bernard,
Palquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James, Ascension,
Assumption, Terrebone, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans,
including the city of New Orleans), Mississippi, Alabama, Florida,
Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia (except the
forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the
counties of Berkeley, Accomac, Morthhampton, Elizabeth City, York,
Princess Anne, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and
Portsmouth), and which excepted parts are for the present left
precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.


To these states he proclaimed:

quote:
And by virtue of the power and for the purpose aforesaid, I do
order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said
designated States and parts of States are, and henceforward shall
be, free; and that the Executive Government of the United States,
including the military and naval authorities thereof, will
recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons.



Lincoln was no saint. He did it to gain an advantage in the war, and used a State's willingness to be part of the Union (or Government) as an excuse not to abolish slavery in them, so as not to allienate support for himself amongst those states in the north who still had the slavery law (and slaves) on the books!

BLACK by NATURE, PROUD by CHOICE.
Free your mind, and the rest will follow.
quote:
Originally posted by blaqfist:
James I here ya', it just seems bizarre to state that the EP only freed slaves in the South, as though blaqz in the north were still in bondage..

That simply is not true, as per the Northwest Ordinance of 1787.

BlaqFist,

Perhaps you should do some research yourself.
To understand the EP as written you must put it in the proper context of the Politics of the ACW. The South, aka the "REBEL" states, were in "REBELLION" against the "UNION".

Now, look at this excerpt along with the additional info. (in spite of slants) and see what you think looking at it in the historical context of the times and the political manuevering it represented.
quote:
"That on the 1st day of January, A.D. 1863, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free...

Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-In-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for supressing said
rebellion,
do, on this 1st day of January, A.D. 1863, and in accordance with my purpose so to do, publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days from the first day above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof, respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States...

} EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION {[/LIST]
quote:
Lincoln correctly realized that as President, he had no legal grounds to single-handedly terminate the institution of slavery--but that this had to be done by a constitutional amendment. The Emancipation Proclamation was simply a war powers action by he, the commander in chief of the armies, in which he attempted to remove all the slaves from the southern peoples "in rebellion against the United States." Even in this, Lincoln was very anxious about the legality of his actions. He worded the document very carefully, in legal terms, in his attempt to make it legally binding in future courts of law.

He recognized that the Emancipation Proclamation would have to be followed quickly by a constitutional amendment in order to guarantee the abolishment of slavery.

Although the Emancipation Proclamation had no theoretical effect on the legal status of slaves in the border states, or slaves in regions of the country not currently under the control of southern armies, it had, in fact, a great deal of practical impact on the legality of slavery everywhere--North and South. As northern armies marched through the south, which General Sherman and his army soon began doing, thousands of slaves followed in their wake--and were never again under the legal authority of their former masters.
13th Amendment & The Effect of the Emancipation Proclamation


Lincoln and the Death of the Old Republic

______________________________________________________________________
"The problem many African-Americans have with these [BLACK] "CONservatives" is that they appear to air the problems of the black community to the entire nation without offering any Real Solutions."
I am going to have to re-read some of the post by ebony and Nmaginate., but it seems to me that alot is lost here. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 ended slavery everywhere N. of the Ohio river. (New Hamshire, Mass, New York, New Jersey, Deleware, Rhode Island, Conn., Vermont,Pennsylvania..) In some of these areas blacks were voting, holding public office, and amzingly owning other slaves...
This is really good stuff. It keeps the "light on." Thanks EbonyRose, as always.

Another thought on your post:

"The _Compromise_ was that Missouri would be admitted as a slave-state, and Maine, who also wanted Statehood, would come in as a non-slave state. The big deal about that was that at that time, there was an even amount of slave and non-slave States, and this kept a certain balance of power in the Congress ... one side not having more power than the other." --EbonyRose

The number of States with and without slavery were equal in number the distorted assignment of power still prevailed. The States with large numbers of slaves won the day. All slaves in all States were counted. No slaves were citizens. No slaves had the power of the vote. The benefit of citizenship was usurped by all, the southern States to the greatest benefit. Thus the fight.

PEACE

Jim Chester

You are who you say you are. Your children are who you say you are.

Add Reply

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