- Jan 3, 2002
- 1,591
- 172
John Paul Cupp <johnpaulcupp@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Brother,
I share your definate dislike of the social role of Whites and Jews, and at least within the context of places were Whites and Jews are or were settler colonialists, think you are basically correct to simply condemn their social role altogether rather than trying to seperate working class racists and colonialists from bourgiesie racists and colonialists, but I have say while Black Africans do have some historical grievences with Arabs, that this is far too simplistic.
Whites essentially are an illusionary national identity. People only see themselves as Whites in places were they have become part of a "multi-cultural" society based on colonialism and segragation. White Europeans in the nations to which they belong were something like 99% of the population is 'white' dont see themselves as Whites like they do in the west or in settler regimes like Zimbabwe and Azania. People who see themselves as Romanian, Serbian or Bulgarian are people who come from places with little or no history of crimes against oppressed people and often historically have placed themselves in the "Third World" camp, who simply want theunity and independence of their people. By contrast,people who see themselves as "White" generally, consciously or unconciously, see themselves as part of an illusionary identity that is a product of and enseperable from White Supremacy and settler colonialism.
Jews are peculiar in that I think they are more than simply a religious group, and even though the vast majority of Aschkenazi Jews are from the Russian Vulga originally, and are usually "White" in complection base their racism on the illusionary chooseness of the Jews, which would also include in their eyes Persian or Arab Jews or Ethiopian Jews. My personal opinion is that the Jews themselves are not the sweet little darlings that western leftists think they are, but that most people in the west who attack the Jews are White and are hypocritcal for not also attacking the sins of their own fathers.
However, Arabism is something historically positive, even if at times the Arabs too have their skeletons in the closet.
Isn't the Arab nation fighting today for unification against a brutal Zio-imperialist onslaught that is the very same conspiracy which killed, couped and embargoed the revolutionary Pan African regimes and peoples? What about the support Saddam Hussein and Gamal Abd al-Nasser gave to Pan Africanism? What about the friendship of Nkrumah and others with Arab nationalist heros against colonialism? What about the contributions of Islam to Africa, and not simply reactionary products that came about because of the feudal regimes of specific eras? What about the Arabs and Muslims who extended support to Marcus Garvey? What about all those hero martrys in Algeria that drove French colonialism out of a key part of Africa? What about the Libyan martyr Salih al-Muktar?
Are we suppose to pretend that none of these great ties of commonality between Blacks and Arabs exist, that the blood of Arabs and Africans in such places as Sudan and Somalia and Tunisia are not so interwoven that we cannot even say they are Arabs or Africans but rather BOTH.
Are we today going to side with imperialism and the Zionist conspiracy against Africa in Somalia since the people fighting neo-colonialism and its proxies are Islamists?
Both Christianity and Islam have had terrible sins committed wrongly in their name, not just Africa but everywere, yet also the Cross and the Ummah have also been the banner which guided the precious blood of freedom fighters. Both Garveyism and Arabism have sacrificed for the liberation of the African continent and its unification.
To treat the Arabs as the world treats White Supremacy and the Jewish Zionists is absurd and reactionary.
Dear Brother,
I share your definate dislike of the social role of Whites and Jews, and at least within the context of places were Whites and Jews are or were settler colonialists, think you are basically correct to simply condemn their social role altogether rather than trying to seperate working class racists and colonialists from bourgiesie racists and colonialists, but I have say while Black Africans do have some historical grievences with Arabs, that this is far too simplistic.
Whites essentially are an illusionary national identity. People only see themselves as Whites in places were they have become part of a "multi-cultural" society based on colonialism and segragation. White Europeans in the nations to which they belong were something like 99% of the population is 'white' dont see themselves as Whites like they do in the west or in settler regimes like Zimbabwe and Azania. People who see themselves as Romanian, Serbian or Bulgarian are people who come from places with little or no history of crimes against oppressed people and often historically have placed themselves in the "Third World" camp, who simply want theunity and independence of their people. By contrast,people who see themselves as "White" generally, consciously or unconciously, see themselves as part of an illusionary identity that is a product of and enseperable from White Supremacy and settler colonialism.
Jews are peculiar in that I think they are more than simply a religious group, and even though the vast majority of Aschkenazi Jews are from the Russian Vulga originally, and are usually "White" in complection base their racism on the illusionary chooseness of the Jews, which would also include in their eyes Persian or Arab Jews or Ethiopian Jews. My personal opinion is that the Jews themselves are not the sweet little darlings that western leftists think they are, but that most people in the west who attack the Jews are White and are hypocritcal for not also attacking the sins of their own fathers.
However, Arabism is something historically positive, even if at times the Arabs too have their skeletons in the closet.
Isn't the Arab nation fighting today for unification against a brutal Zio-imperialist onslaught that is the very same conspiracy which killed, couped and embargoed the revolutionary Pan African regimes and peoples? What about the support Saddam Hussein and Gamal Abd al-Nasser gave to Pan Africanism? What about the friendship of Nkrumah and others with Arab nationalist heros against colonialism? What about the contributions of Islam to Africa, and not simply reactionary products that came about because of the feudal regimes of specific eras? What about the Arabs and Muslims who extended support to Marcus Garvey? What about all those hero martrys in Algeria that drove French colonialism out of a key part of Africa? What about the Libyan martyr Salih al-Muktar?
Are we suppose to pretend that none of these great ties of commonality between Blacks and Arabs exist, that the blood of Arabs and Africans in such places as Sudan and Somalia and Tunisia are not so interwoven that we cannot even say they are Arabs or Africans but rather BOTH.
Are we today going to side with imperialism and the Zionist conspiracy against Africa in Somalia since the people fighting neo-colonialism and its proxies are Islamists?
Both Christianity and Islam have had terrible sins committed wrongly in their name, not just Africa but everywere, yet also the Cross and the Ummah have also been the banner which guided the precious blood of freedom fighters. Both Garveyism and Arabism have sacrificed for the liberation of the African continent and its unification.
To treat the Arabs as the world treats White Supremacy and the Jewish Zionists is absurd and reactionary.
