African American History Culture : Black Americans Were Never Slaves

Discussion in 'African American History Culture' started by dazania, Dec 7, 2016.

  1. dazania

    dazania Member MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2016
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    2
    Gender:
    Female
    Ratings:
    +8
    You can't actually own a person.
    Only in from the mind of a psychopath or criminal could there break forth the notion of "buying", "selling" and "owning" another human being as if they were property.

    It's an absurdity. A farce. It cannot be.

    You might wield the physical power to impose the trappings of such a travesty upon your victim -- but then that simply makes you a criminal -- and they your victim.

    Nothing more, nothing less.

    No, you can't actually own a person. Even if you say that you can. Even if you talk about it as if you can. As if it were normal. As if it were a "thing". Even if you name prices and have auctions and put up signs.

    You still can't actually own a person.

    Likewise, there was no such thing as a "slave trade". You can't actually "trade" human beings either. Let's stop talking about this massive, multi-century criminal undertaking as if it was some type of 'commerce' or 'economic activity'. It was kidnapping. It was human trafficking. It was torture. It was murder.

    It was CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.

    These people weren't 'businessmen'. They were members of a multi-century criminal syndicate that ran unopposed because there was no one there to oppose them. Criminals who were never brought to justice.

    And where were all of these alleged great European "intellectuals" of the time, when they were needed? Those fantastic and eloquent men of honor that I can't seem to find anywhere but in the movies? Why didn't they expound [to these criminals] upon the errors of their ways -- and put a stop to unpardonable sin?

    Did the cat have their tongues for 400 years?

    Likewise, there were no black American "slaves" in America. Let's stop using those ridiculous terms, those absurd euphemisms that the sociopaths who perpetrated these crimes chose to use. They don't deserve that type of accommodation or leniency.

    Let's also stop saying that black Americans were the "descendants of slaves". There was never a nation in Africa called "slave-land", populated by people called "slaves", who were freely available for anyone to abduct and commit atrocities against as they pleased; and whom intended should procreate and give rise to later generations that would be referred to as "the descendants of slaves".

    Or should we then refer to the children of sexual assault victims as "the descendents of rape victims" ? And continue to refer to them as such, generation after generation?

    "The charming town of Kingston was founded in 1934, by the descendants of rape victims".
    Hmmm... When you put it that way, its pretty clear that this wouldn't be healthy for the self-image of those poor Kingstonians at all, would it?

    'Captivity' (because 'captive' is a more fitting term for such a condition than "slave"), is something that happened to black Americans -- It's not who they are.

    In fact, the term "slave" is entirely inappropriate for use in reference to what was done to black people in America. Its a term that allows those who committed those crimes escape conscious responsibility for having done so.

    It's a word that implies a state of being -- rather than a state of having been done unto.
    The term slave, by its connotation in the American cultural consciousness, assigns shame to the victims, rather than assigning responsibility to those those who perpetrated the crimes.

    This is why the words "slave" and "ni**er" roll so easily off of the tongue of a racist. He or she, in speaking such, believes that he's insulting black people -- when in reality he is actually recounting the crimes of his own ancestors. Black Americans, in turn, perceive the malicious intent in the way these epithets are being used toward them, and therefore take offense -- needlessly -- since the shame is not truly their own.

    If a racist were forced to replace either of these epithets with the words "captive", "victim of human trafficking", "rape victim", "assault victim" or "sodomy victim" (many black men were sexually assaulted rectally by their white male captors in a depraved form of sexual abuse called 'buck breaking'), then they would be far less inclined to spew their venom.

    Because if there was a victim of a crime -- then there must surely have been a criminal -- and they would not want to call attention to this fact, for obvious reasons.

    Doctor Azania
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Thank You Thank You x 1
    • List
  2. Fine1952

    Fine1952 Happy Winter Solstice MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    Messages:
    7,578
    Likes Received:
    2,300
    Gender:
    Female
    Ratings:
    +2,991
    for the most part ---there were already Africans in AmeriKKK loooong b4 the slave trade got started.
    "The First Americans Were Africans: Documented Evidence --by Dr. David Imhotep
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • True True x 1
    • List
  3. Clyde C Coger Jr

    Clyde C Coger Jr going above and beyond PREMIUM MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2006
    Messages:
    42,787
    Likes Received:
    10,586
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Speaker/Teacher/Author
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    Home Page:
    Ratings:
    +12,682

    Who Was the First African American?
    100 Amazing Facts About the Negro: We know his name, and that he arrived well before the Mayflower

    ... As a matter of fact, Africans arrived in North America more than a century before both the Mayflower landed at Plymouth Rock and before these Angolans arrived in Virginia. What’s more, we even know the identity of the first documented African to arrive ...

    http://www.theroot.com/articles/his...n_american_100_amazing_facts_about_the_negro/

    Who Was the First African American?

    (The Root) — Amazing Fact About the Negro No. 2: Who was the first African to arrive in America?
    theroot.com


    [​IMG]

    Juan Garrido (left) (Diego Duran, Historia de las Indias de Nueve Espana e Islas de la Tierra Firme, 1581)

    ...
     
    • Thank You Thank You x 1
    • List
  4. Kemetstry

    Kemetstry going above and beyond PREMIUM MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2001
    Messages:
    22,635
    Likes Received:
    5,292
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Chemist
    Location:
    Detroit
    Ratings:
    +6,354
    Initially, it wasn't criminal and people made quite a bit of money off of it. Thus, it was an economic enterprise. In fact, 70% of this country's GDP was directly based on slavery. That's why it's bloodiest war was fought over it




    .
     
  5. RAPTOR

    RAPTOR Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    6,892
    Likes Received:
    3,604
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings:
    +4,106
    Semantics. Call it what one will the affects of it were/is very real.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  6. Sami_RaMaati

    Sami_RaMaati Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2006
    Messages:
    569
    Likes Received:
    169
    Ratings:
    +256
    THANK YOU!!
     
  7. Orisons

    Orisons Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2005
    Messages:
    2,737
    Likes Received:
    447
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Mechanical Designer/Project Manager
    Location:
    London in the United Kingdom
    Ratings:
    +622
    [QUOTE="dazania, post: 974324, member: 57467" You can't actually own a person.
    Only in from the mind of a psychopath or criminal could there break forth the notion of "buying", "selling" and "owning" another human being as if they were property.

    It's an absurdity. A farce. It cannot be.

    You might wield the physical power to impose the trappings of such a travesty upon your victim -- but then that simply makes you a criminal -- and they your victim.

    Nothing more, nothing less.

    No, you can't actually own a person. Even if you say that you can. Even if you talk about it as if you can. As if it were normal. As if it were a "thing". Even if you name prices and have auctions and put up signs.

    You still can't actually own a person.

    Likewise, there was no such thing as a "slave trade". You can't actually "trade" human beings either. Let's stop talking about this massive, multi-century criminal undertaking as if it was some type of 'commerce' or 'economic activity'. It was kidnapping. It was human trafficking. It was torture. It was murder.

    It was CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.

    These people weren't 'businessmen'. They were members of a multi-century criminal syndicate that ran unopposed because there was no one there to oppose them. Criminals who were never brought to justice.

    And where were all of these alleged great European "intellectuals" of the time, when they were needed? Those fantastic and eloquent men of honor that I can't seem to find anywhere but in the movies? Why didn't they expound [to these criminals] upon the errors of their ways -- and put a stop to unpardonable sin?

    Did the cat have their tongues for 400 years?

    Likewise, there were no black American "slaves" in America. Let's stop using those ridiculous terms, those absurd euphemisms that the sociopaths who perpetrated these crimes chose to use. They don't deserve that type of accommodation or leniency.

    Let's also stop saying that black Americans were the "descendants of slaves". There was never a nation in Africa called "slave-land", populated by people called "slaves", who were freely available for anyone to abduct and commit atrocities against as they pleased; and whom intended should procreate and give rise to later generations that would be referred to as "the descendants of slaves".

    Or should we then refer to the children of sexual assault victims as "the descendents of rape victims" ? And continue to refer to them as such, generation after generation?

    "The charming town of Kingston was founded in 1934, by the descendants of rape victims".
    Hmmm... When you put it that way, its pretty clear that this wouldn't be healthy for the self-image of those poor Kingstonians at all, would it?

    'Captivity' (because 'captive' is a more fitting term for such a condition than "slave"), is something that happened to black Americans -- It's not who they are.

    In fact, the term "slave" is entirely inappropriate for use in reference to what was done to black people in America. Its a term that allows those who committed those crimes escape conscious responsibility for having done so.

    It's a word that implies a state of being -- rather than a state of having been done unto.
    The term slave, by its connotation in the American cultural consciousness, assigns shame to the victims, rather than assigning responsibility to those those who perpetrated the crimes.

    This is why the words "slave" and "ni**er" roll so easily off of the tongue of a racist. He or she, in speaking such, believes that he's insulting black people -- when in reality he is actually recounting the crimes of his own ancestors. Black Americans, in turn, perceive the malicious intent in the way these epithets are being used toward them, and therefore take offense -- needlessly -- since the shame is not truly their own.

    If a racist were forced to replace either of these epithets with the words "captive", "victim of human trafficking", "rape victim", "assault victim" or "sodomy victim" (many black men were sexually assaulted rectally by their white male captors in a depraved form of sexual abuse called 'buck breaking'), then they would be far less inclined to spew their venom.

    Because if there was a victim of a crime -- then there must surely have been a criminal -- and they would not want to call attention to this fact, for obvious reasons.

    Doctor Azania /QUOTE] Aren't the Olmec Rulers very obvious contenders for the first African Americans in North America?

    With regard to the Olmec Heads Azania, don’t you find it strange that 17 massively superb sculptures [weighing between 4 to 30 tons] highlighting an African presence in ancient Mexico as bearers to technical culture/literally the Rulers of the earliest pyramid/ceremonial platform building culture in the Americas, is STILL being totally ignored in the 21st century; whereas won’t you concede that had the Olmec Heads been projecting/promoting a White/European presence of such antiquity [literally 400 – 1500 BCE], wouldn’t that fact have been in ALL their history books/constantly rammed down our throats 24/7 by their mass media/ propaganda machine?

    Rationally Azania, why do you think that in the British Musuem’s Mexican Gallery [here in London] the text on their wall with regard to Olmec’s being Mexico’s first technical cultures states “These settlements featured public plazas, impressive earthen platform architecture and COLOSSAL STONE SCULPTURES of OLMEC RULERS”; while not providing a single photo or model of what any of the Olmec Heads look like as part of that or any other exhibit in the British Museum?

    Though I genuinely detest the so constant marginalization, manipulation, lies and blatant theft that is still standard by the status quo with regard to African contributions to civilization/technical culture over the last 5000 years [the reason I attach an Olmec Head to every single one of my Facebook posts]; hasn’t this so all pervasive GRIEF made US stronger/better?

    Additionally isn’t it OUR responsibility to make our TRUE History general knowledge in our communities and countries, thus purging the Eurocentric GARBAGE that is still stunting our spiritual and intellectual development and agility from both our individual and collective knowledge base; as opposed to continuing to expect the current White Supremacist Racist Status Quo to EVER do so [isn’t it very obvious that THEY NEVER WILL/why should/would they]?

    KNOWLEDGE IS POWER, which explains their focus on keeping us away from the TRUTH, doesn’t it?

    Aren’t THEY [the current POWER ELITE/status quo] understandably wary of us/the African collective's intelligentsia waking up and addressing our responsibility to make our TRUE History general knowledge in our communities and countries, thus purging the Eurocentric GARBAGE that is still stunting our spiritual and intellectual development and agility, from both our individual and collective knowledge base in the 21st century; as opposed to continuing to expect the current White Supremacist Racist Status Quo’s formal mis-education system’s schools, colleges and mass media to EVER do so [isn’t it very obvious that THEY NEVER WILL/why should/would they]?

    Azania, isn’t it an easily verifiable fact that programming is the “Human” condition/ completely unavoidable for virtually anyone living within an ethnic/cultural group anywhere on this planet in human history/even more so in the 21st century due to the fact that language itself, religion, culture and the input from the socio-economic status you’re born into, along with schools, colleges and the totally CORRUPT mass media ALL being Programmes, which can all be totally evaded how exactly?

    Now can you relate to my tag’s rationale [below, with regard to people/anyone truly believing/deluding themselves that they can avoid being programmed] as isn’t the ultimate challenge for everyone’s so obviously biased knowledge base [including mine], spiritual and intellectual agility, avoiding the more obviously manipulatively controlling/ EVIL directives embedded in the programming code as standard by the status quo, with regard to perceiving REALITY, especially acquiring enough TRUTH/ FACTUAL information to pragmatically discern what is really RIGHT as opposed to totally WRONG?


    Isn’t ANYONE who genuinely believes they are not programmed
    graphically illustrating that their programming is COMPLETE?
    Flattop.jpg
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2016
    • Like Like x 2
    • Thank You Thank You x 1
    • List
  8. Clyde C Coger Jr

    Clyde C Coger Jr going above and beyond PREMIUM MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2006
    Messages:
    42,787
    Likes Received:
    10,586
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Speaker/Teacher/Author
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    Home Page:
    Ratings:
    +12,682

    Question Orisons, why would you designate the Olmec Rulers as contenders representing the first African Americans in North America?

    ...
     
  9. dazania

    dazania Member MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2016
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    2
    Gender:
    Female
    Ratings:
    +8
    Orison -- At this point i time I do believe that there were black people here in the Americas before Europeans began taking other black people from the African continent. There were black people in both places. I think sometimes people think it had to be one or the other. Black civilizations arose and were seafaring thousands of years before the European figured the world wasn't flat.

    Your post was thought-provoking. I suppose we just have to do our best to de-program ourselves as much as possible. I think that is what I wanted to set forth by that post -- to show how we're using the language of those who oppressed us to describe ourselves, so that we're not clearly seeing what their role was and what our role was/

    One of the points of my post was that the very language that we use is a type of programming -- that's why its important to call a duck a duck. "Calling people descendants of slaves" is a slander, and it subconsciously hits us the wrong way -- because it makes us sound like were born from some type of human being that was INHERENTLY DESIGNATED FOR SERVITUDE.

    By technical definition it should not, but in the *minds* of society it evoke particular images which tend to cause black people to feel somehow ashamed when it is used. It should be replaced with a term that causes shame to the ancestors of those who committed those deeds.

    You guys that I was getting caught up in semantics...let me paint more of a picture -- maybe I wasn't clear enough in what I was trying to get across.

    Suppose a a teacher at school choose to use the term "niggardly" when there are black students in the room? Would they not feel a little uncomfortable? Even though the TECHNICAL definition of the word should not cause offensive? That's why people got offended when some teacher (don't remember who, don't care) a while back used that term in the classroom.

    The cultural context provides a meaning in addition to the technical label. When a black person is called any racial epithet at all, WHY does he need to be offended? Shouldn't the RACIST feel offended and ashamed at his own history? They ACT as if we're supposed to feel ashamed or offended, so we sometimes believe them. The shame is theirs! The whole situation is absurd -- non-verbally conditioning a victim to feel ashamed of the fact that someone ELSE victimized them -- and yes I agree it is a type of verbal programming.

    Everybody, we need to free our minds even further -- and isn't the very language we use a part of doing that?
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Thank You Thank You x 1
    • List
  10. dazania

    dazania Member MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2016
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    2
    Gender:
    Female
    Ratings:
    +8
    Lost Noo Yawka,

    Just one question -- when you say "the law of the land", WHOSE law do you mean? The law of the captor, or of the captive? Law is just rulership, isn't it? And rulership is just the power to set the rules and force others to comply?

    If criminals run an island called "Criminal Island" , and decree that it is legal to steal, rob, and rape? Is it still not a crime?
    We must speak to the law of humanity, not of evil men.
     
Loading...