Black Positive People : Black Self-Sufficiency at its best


Be kinder than necessary!
May 15, 2010
I dnt believe in race so i try not refer to race at all regardless

my "people" are the human race collectively...were all connected in some fashion.

I consider myself part of the human race...not just a "african american" race is a social idea that needs to die
Ok, as I further think on it, I can see your point on race vs. although you don't claim a race (which is an ongoing battle), you are conscious of your cultural identity. Gotcha!


Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2009
Wow...really? Now the odd part of this way of thinking is that to the 'human race' you are a specific race (we know what that is), and many in that 'melting pot' do not embrace you. And doesn't this mentality also eliminate your roots, that lie within are who you are because of who you come from....there is so much about you that is tied to your ancestors, it's all in your DNA.
again the idea of "race" is a social term not a biological one. yes we are an extension of our environment. But would our ancestors say they are "black" No. they wouldnt know what black is?....its an idea that simply needs to go away.


Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2009
Ok, as I further think on it, I can see your point on race vs. although you don't claim a race (which is an ongoing battle), you are conscious of your cultural identity. Gotcha!
Yeah. Im well aware my ancestors are african. but i dnt claim being "black" im just another one of God's children :)


Well-Known Member
Dec 13, 2010
Texas...for now.
MiKe, post: 695620"]again the idea of "race" is a social term not a biological one. yes we are an extension of our environment. But would our ancestors say they are "black" No. they wouldnt know what black is?....its an idea that simply needs to go away.

'Race' exists,’s considered insignif because no 'race' is 'genetically distinct'.
>>rolls eyes<<
So, while 'race' exists? It actually doesn’t...basically.
And...2+2 = 5.
Personally, I don't see the big d*mn deal with 'racial' differences. But, no...we're 'more alike than we are different because all humans share a common ancestor'.
As do birds, dogs, felines, fish, etc...I’m sure.
Coulda sworn Galileo killed the whole 'humans are the center of the universe' thing....



Human 'diversity' has long been acknowledged and studied. 'Race' applies to classifications based on the structural/physical characteristics of a species. 'Race' is a 'biological CONCEPT' and, therefore, a biological term.
Most people apply this term incorrectly...pretty often. <- THAT'S the problem.

...and, yes. 'Race' is a bio term. We've all read that stupid 'Race Myth' book...which is where this 'race is social construct' crap came from.
I mean, it is...but, let's not lose our minds, here.
I'm no afrocentric or conscious type. But, the point of the book - the point of such a stance - is clarity. The goal is to provide MUCH NEEDED perspective. To help folks understand that things as they are? Weren't always.
People generally lose rights, 'by degrees'.
...and, 'by degrees', black people were downgraded from 'people' to 'chattel'.

Virtually pretending human diversity out of existence was never the author's intent...though.


'Race'...the idea. The construct. Yeah... it is.
I'd agree with you. Somewhat. The current notion of 'race' IS a recent one in human history...and I'd like to talk about that at length since some brought it up (and I like to talk about history). TWO examples:

Cleopatra was of mixed parentage or grandparentage...which really surprised me. The Egyptian upper class, from what I've seen, had more black folks in it than you think. Even in later dynasties. I'd never done much research on them, but, I'd always thought that the 'Ptolemaic line'...intermarried...with each other.
So...a black Nubian or black Egyptian (or other black African) grandmother? Interesting.
But, here's the crucial factor: No mention of this in the historical record of whites. Not even a footnote...which could signify the relative unimportance that most 'whites' attached to 'race-mixing' whuch says a lot about their attitude on race, in general.

Greek and Roman historians knew of the peoples of Africa. They noted the differences in the inhabitants of the continent (coal black to brown to yellow to...reddish brown(?...a 'ruddy' complexion) skin color, a tendency towards thick lips, prognat and straight/wooly/frizzy/kinky/coily long or short hair)...because, as we all should know, Africans don't look alike.

...and about 'here' is where we disagree:
People in antiquity were NOT color-blind. Of course, they saw color. OF COURSE, the 'black people' knew that they were 'black'.
It was their most distinguishing feature...
...just as the 'non-black' population people knew themselves to be 'non-black' and the actual 'blacks' to be unlike them(physically). If that ain't the case? Why, pray tell, did the Greeks call some of the Africans, Aeithiopes (ethiopians)?
('aeithopes' means 'Burnt Faced Ones'...)

They did differentiate by religion and nationalism and class and culture. Cultural superiority and ethnocentrism ain't new.
So, when you speak of black people being more 'clannish' and 'insulating' than others, Mike?
Like others, I've no idea what you're talking about.

Similar peoples have always grouped and they're usually self-focused. Them, first...and everyone else? Later. The different groups don't even populate the same regions. Black folks tend to live in the South. Whites...the North and West. Hispancs? Tx, Fl, Ca.
The their areas. The Natives? Ok, the Dakotas, etc...
America isn't a 'melting pot'. It's a 'salad bowl'. People tend to try to retain their cultural ties...before they assimilate.
...and similar people tend to 'cluster'.

Ancient civilizations did observe physical differences, though. They noticed skin color. They just didn't see physical differences as 'we' do. They didn't attach negative, 'racist' connotations and concepts of superiority/inferiority.

These attitudes hadn't developed...yet.

Still, these historians - these WHITE people - had very favorable views of certain African nations, i.e., ancient nubians, and their leaders who were seen as the 'tallest and fairest of men'. (Fair = justice, morality) They thought the nubians the 'most favored by the Gods'. The 'first to honor the gods', which is why (to the greeks) they'd never been invaded by foreign army. They said that the nubians were 'the founders of many Egyptian customs' because 'the Egyptians were Nubian colonists'.

The Greeks called the ancient Nubians 'the earth's firstborn'.
'The burnt-faced ones' because they 'stood closest to sun'...
If any read excerpts from the writings of Diodorus, Petronius, Pliny the Elder, Herodotus, will see a marked difference between their attitudes regarding 'the black race' and that of their descendants, who when they happened upon the monuments, tombs, reliefs and riches were shocked beyond belief that BLACK civilizations were ever so sophisticated.

Everyone needs to REMEMBER (or learn) that slavery and the enslavement of the African was NOT an inevitability.
All Africans arriving to the colonies were not slaves. Most...but, not all. Even then, you had slaves who came from African coastal port cities. They were fluent in European languages. Africans on the coastlines had mingled with Europeans for centuries. So, they came to the colonies. They did the servitude thing...and were released. These black folks had acres, money, legal rights and servants (and slaves) of their own.
It wasn't just one or two...but 'many' who did this.

Timeframe? 1640's or '50's...about.

Of course, everything went to hell later on...
I'm not sure when it began. But, the white lawmakers kicked it off by telling the black colonists to get the hell out!
Basically. Understand that...slavery had become the dominant labor system in many southern/south eastern areas. Slaves had become slaves 'for life' and because they were easily distinguished from the gen population, couldn't run away.
'Slaves' were expensive, but, made for a better long-term investment.

A self-producing labor force.

Those rich sugar, tobacco and cotton planters weren't about to let anything f up their cashflow...which would happen, they feared, if there were 'free' black colonists running around with land, wealth and servants (and rights) indirectly encouraging the 'black slaves' to leave. Additionally, the black slaves came from other regions of Africa. They were unlike the coastal town dwelling Africans in language, appearance, behavior and custom.
Too different for comfort, as far the whites were concerned.
...and soon outnumbered the white colonists in some areas. The whites kept having 'freak-outs', which is why 'slave codes' became so aggressive.

Then the white lawmakers up and decided that the black colonists couldn't sue and win, hold land, serve in office and had to pay higher taxes. They couldn't vote, have guns or have white servants, either.
At the same time, slaves (the black folks, of course) were prohibited from being freed. Slavery was made a lifelong institution (from mother to child...because the 'mother' would always be 'black', at least. *hint*). Slaves couldn't testify against their masters or gather in large groups...and their masters were given the power over the life and death of their slaves. THEN Christians were told to rest easy, because the earthly court said ' hell with baptisms!'...and decided that none would burn in hell (forever...and ever, Amen) for enslaving 'African' Christians....

Timeframe? Late 1690's and early 1700's.

How could this be? Well - the 'new' idea of race was still being worked out...and it was the Arabs (not the Europeans) who initiated the bulk of it.
Slavery was abolished in most of Europe. It was still practied in the middle east, though, and - at the time (15th and 16th century) - RELIGION was the prime factor that decided who would be enslaved...because Christians and Muslims didn't desire to enslave their own.
The Arabs looked to the sub-saharan African and, with time, Europeans began to associate 'black skin' with 'slave'...and, it's somewhat muddy but most scholars that I see seem to agree that this period marked the development of certain 'attitudes' about the people of Africa among the Europeans.
Makes sense. Ethnocentrism IS a doorway to racism and discrimination...after all.

...and the Europeans of the Americas imported black slaves. They'd developed serious labor needs (and cash crops that needed tilling) which enslaved indians couldn't solve. Whites refused to emigrate to be servants and natives were either running away, refusing to do 'womens work' or, usually, just dying off.
(There was an indian slave trade, too...FYI...that persisted well into the 1700 and 1800's)

But...those are my thoughts on the topic.

I've always been blown away by how drastically race relations just...deteriorated in the colonies. Within a span of 60 years.


Active Member
Oct 12, 2004
Thanks for sharing this and though i have to agree with the sister on the whole im god/allah bs that i don't agree with either, but im all for self sufficiency for our people and strive to practice and apply it in my daily life
Destee Chat

Latest profile posts

Destee wrote on Joyce's profile.
Thanks for the Blessing! Love You! :kiss:
Making sure I do more than I did yesterday. Progress is the Concept.
Ms Drea wrote on yahsistah's profile.
Welcome Back Sister!!
Love and Blessings!!
Hey Sister Destee just logged in to say Love you and miss you much! Hope you are well.
Destee wrote on candeesweet's profile.
Hi Sweetie Pie Honey Bunch!!!! :love: ... it's good to see you! I hope you and yours are all well and staying safe. I Love You! :kiss: