Discussion in 'Black People Open Forum' started by ShemsiEnTehuti, Jan 16, 2007.
...says Malcolm X. Do you agree with him?...even today?
I once agreed with brother Malcom but had to change my opinion.
Brother D*ck Greogry was on radio speaking to this yesterday. He talked about John Hanson.
He stated that the belief at that time hanson was a "Black" man and that the SEVEN presidents following him were "mulattos" of MOORISH ancestry, preceeding George Washington.
Noble Drew Ali used to teach this also and how not only were Black of MOORISH ancestry citizens, according to the first US Constitution (Articles of Confederation) but they had DUAL citizenship by birthright. US and MOROCCO.
That is why there are pictures of NDA holding two flags.
The key here is understanding how this was related to reaching a settlement in the First Barbary War and subsequent conflicts involving the United States and the Barbary States.
This conflict is the ROOT of the present conflict with "Islamists".
It depends on what the meaning of the word "citizen" is. You define that and I'll answer the question. Otherwise I may answer incorrectly because the word "citizen" means different things to different people.
Let's go with the definition found at dictionary.com...
1. a native or naturalized member of a state or nation who owes allegiance to its government and is entitled to its protection (distinguished from alien).
2. an inhabitant of a city or town, esp. one entitled to its privileges or franchises.
Your link doesn't work.
John Hanson, First President
Let me just say that Im not sure that some of these men can be considered "Black" or of "Moorish ancestry" but some were said to have been of "Melungeon" bloodlines and, as Mr. Greory explained, their symbol was a Moorish one, the cherry tree.
This is why I see a problem with how we define certain indiviaudals and groups of people.
Such as P.B.S. Pinchback.
And in this context, back to the issue of us citizenship.
Since there is a history of "Free People of Color" in states such as Virginia, Missouri, North Carolina, Texas and Louisiana, I think that to deny that these folks posessed citizenship rights would be a historical mistake.
Pinchback and other former members of the Louisiana Native Guard became state legislators in unprecedented numbers post-Civil War and the Black Codes did not deny them citizenship. Many did, however, lose personal property and became economically disenfranchised. However, they did have voting rights and played an active role in Louisiana's state government.
I think the argument is that they were fortunately, and perhaps reluctantly, afforded the same privileges of other citizens, but in most cases it was given grudgingly. In fact, those privileges that Whites possessed could also be taken away without any redress. The non-White peoples who were afforded certain privileges were merely fortunate non-citizens
For the most par I would agree, but not in the case of Louisiana, where there were "Free People of Color" prior to the Civil War, and even going back prior to statehood when Louisiana became part of the "union". This is why I used it as one example because being a former French "colony" its society was more assimilationist than segregationist. I see nothing it Louisiana's state history that suggests Blacks were denied citizenship rights based on color until AFTER the Civil War. And this was because many refused to fight in the union army which discriminated against Black OFFICERS. In fact, Pinchback and other Black officers who reisnged en masse became legislators to ensure that their rights were not taken away by the radical republicans.
Civil Rights Act of 1866 - Wikipedia
"The act declared that all persons born in the United States were citizens, without a regard to race, color, or previous condition-excluding Indians not taked."
I think that it is implicit, but never stated, that when speaking of American freedoms, it is referred only to Whites. Like Malcolm X stated, had already been enough laws on the books to protect the civil and human rights of American citizens. Yet, we see "anti-lynching" laws proposed in the House and Senate that were struck down every time. Yet, if we Diasporic Africans were real citizens, then the law would be unnecessary given it is already illegal to murder someone. The same logic follows with every other law instituted that were already understood as given to the White majority. The fact that it new laws are made to give Diasporic Africans certain privileges in society that everyone else enjoys, means that we are not seen in the same way by the State. If we were real citizens, then there would be no need to make any new laws. There would simply be legal prosecution of those who infringed on our rights. Just how the Constitution states that if people are disenfranchised in their right to vote, then the responsible Congress person is to be expelled. How many times was our vote disenfranchised? Like brother Malcolm said, if this law was upheld as well, then "there wouldn't be a ******* left in Washington".
Separate names with a comma.