Black People : Why are Whites insisting that they are African?

[Ankhur]

acc to the article posted I understand this:

When people left Africa they left as Africans not as White people. The process of 1000 of years changed those original people. Hence no White person was created by the African sun, or the African land.

I dont agree on "chasing them out of Africa" after all we live in Europe and the world is what it is : diverse. And you might think i am going soft but think realistically. How you going to do that? What about the people in North Africa? Because before we jump and use the "invader" status we will find that does not apply to the majority of Arabized people in North Africa. Many groups have mixed 8000 years ago, so how do we kick them out?

As long as we have the power, the wealth I really dont care where they live, let them stay and sow the seed and harvest the crop

Personally and in lieu of Malcolm's description of the Bandung conference,
I categorize my ancestry as African, but my race as Black in solidarity with Black races not originating inAfrica, because in the historic context the Ancient world before the fall of the Roman Empire pretty much , was not racially deterministic, ad when Herodutus, Pythagoras, and Euclid went to Kemet there more then likely White folks living there as immigrants from Geece, Macedonia, Spain, and Albania for 2 or more generations.
Just like today immigrants go where the money is and the technology, and practically all Whites there kept the Kemetic faith, in lieu of it being in the nations of their birth in Europe for millenia

 

[Omowale Jabali]

All of a sudden Whites (especially those in SA) are saying they are Africans

Partly our fault because we let people pull the blinds over our eyes day and night. As oppose to be rushing to claim Blackness or blackness we should be calling ourselves by our proper name AFRICAN or AFRIKAN.

Also we do not realize Whites do not do anything unless it profits their race. So let us be smart and not think like children and understand why we became black and then how we all became African. Here is an example.

"Africa for the Africans at home and Abroad" - Garvey.

Now you and I know Garvey dam didn't mean any White people. But these statement has Whites in SA jumping up and Sayin "Yes YES YES". Some of us are so stupid we buy into this rainbow to our detriment.

a good article on who is an African
http://www.africanholocaust.net/news_ah/africanrace.html

Concerning the situation in South Africa, i suggest you find the PBS miniseries entitled ENDGAME.

It gives a good account ot the compromises the ANC made with white "liberals" not only in South Africa, but England, and the net result was a compromise reached to negotiate a settlement whereby white would not be driven off the lands they had settled.

Concerning the identity issue, this seems to be a never ending struggle. Some Black folks will say straight out "I ain't no African" if you greet them with "Hey African!". Some who identity with African do not refer to themselves as Black. It seems or thingking, for the most part, is a binary 'either-or' mentality.

As far as "Africa for the Africans" well lets face it. The Garvey movement failed. Garvey himself never set foot on the continent. Today, that objective is basically an out-dated rallying cry for a handful of black nationalist-pan africanist ideologues out of touch with the masses who, like it or not, ain't going nowhere unless forcably removed.

The dynamics of economic class and race politics has shifted from the time of Garvey due to the liberation movements which freed themselves from colonization, the adjustments made by the imperialist who became neo-colonial states, and the emergence of these new nation-states are driven by a phenomenon which has rapidly accelerated with recent technological innovation.

In one word, Globalization:

Globalization (or globalisation) describes a process by which regional economies, societies, and cultures have become integrated through a globe-spanning network of communication and trade. The term is sometimes used to refer specifically to economic globalization: the integration of national economies into the international economy through trade, foreign direct investment, capital flows, migration, and the spread of technology.However, globalization is usually recognized as being driven by a combination of economic, technological, sociocultural, political, and biological factors. The term can also refer to the transnational circulation of ideas, languages, or popular culture through acculturation.

In his book Neocolonialism:The Last State of Imperialism, Dr; Kwame Nkrumah explained a process of "balkanization" in reference to African nation-state formation in the post-colonial era, and it was this balkanization which led to a strategy of African regional development FIRST, with the secondary objective of an all-African union on a continental basis.

However, the imperialist undermining and out-right overthrow and assination of Nkrumah, Lumumba, Ben Bella, Modibo Keita, Eduardo Mondlane and many others created conditions where this regional development became uneven, and this is the legacy today as evident in southern Africa, as a prime example.

As was mentioned, Haiti is more "African" than not only Cape Town but Johannesburgh as well. At least culturally. It is true that the "Arabs", rather say Islamists, entered Kemet, they found more "Whites" than "Blacks" since it had been about 1000 years since the Macedonean invasionwhich brought an end to indigenous African rule in Kemet, which itself had spent the preceeding 1200 years of uneven rule in which Hittites, Lybians, Persians, Hibiru and assyrians invaded, intermarried, and miscegenated, and their progeny which exist in continental Africa today are as "African" as Black folks in the northern countries are "American" and/or "Canadian" and "European".

Furthermore, given the vast Black/African populations in the Caribbean, Brazil, Guyana, Belize and Surinam, folks need to realize that the devastation created with the de-population of Africa due not only to the slavetrade, but also thousands of years of outward migrations, allowed for later inward migrations, creating environmental instability and quite frankly Africa does not posess the ecological capability to accomodate mass-inward-migrations of Africans in the Diaspora returning to the Motherland.

As much anti-Chinese sentiment thats expressed in these threads, where do folks thing that if they were able to repatriate, where would they go in Africa which can accomodate a population larger than their indigneous population, which requires basic human needs such as food, clothing, shelter, employment and health and human services?

With the wealth of "Black America", which has a GDP which would rank about 6th in the WORLD, we are not providing ourselves with these basic essentials, and we are largely consumers buying exports from China.

Africa, for the most part, remains agrarian, with a shrinking agricultural base, small scale industrialization, and an aborted "primitive capital acculumation" phase, all within an increasingly global, information age, technological, HUMAN society.

I find it interesting how these forums raise issues concerning South Africa, criticizing South Africans, criticizing and condeming Mexicans, demonizing the Chinese. What positive action can any of these critics really achieve as "Africans" when Africans themselves are reaching out the the very same folks some of us are demonizing?

http://www.southafrica.info/news/international/mexico-190410.htm

The link below illustrated my point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newly_industrialized_country

According to Goldman Sachs review of emerging economies, by 2050 the largest economies in the world will be as follows: China, USA, India, Brazil, and Mexico.

Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa meet annually with the G8 countries to discuss financial topics and climate change, due to their economic importance in today's global market and environmental impact, in a group known as G8+5.This group is expected to be expanded to G14 by adding Egypt alongside the five forementioned countries. Once the group goes in affect, Egypt, Indonesia could soon be classified as a NIC.

 

[Omowale Jabali]

I agree with the author (was peeping at your book on Amazon).

My problem is I want to learn. But I cannot learn if we just blurt things out without having a firm opinion in such matters. The language of invader and "other" sometimes gets fuzzy, and we need to deal with facts and history.

Rhetoric needs a back-up in hard solutions. If we are to use our brains, as Garvey said we should, then lets talk seriously and make concrete points on areas we believe in.

Malcolm said History will reward our research.

If We are to "purify" Africa, and you have an argument, I want to know how. As I have mentioned the genetic diversity and ethnic classification of North Africa is not Arab or in keeping with the status of "INVADER", The Arabs arrived in the 7th century and when they came they found White people mainly in Kemet, not Africans.

They also found Berbers who have been there as longer than the Zulus have been in South Africa or the Mandinka in West Africa. Or the Oromo in Ethiopia. They arrived there the same time the Baku arrived in the Congo.

So it is over to you.

Can you plese clarify for me what you meant in the part I have in quotes?

I didnt quite get what your point was. (By the way, my avatar is not native american but an Oromo chief) fyi...

 

[ocacia]

But because Africa is for Africans does mean people leave. I would not suggest we should leave the UK either., But the UK is their land. I would not tell and English person it isnt. What is true for us is true for them. If we starting owning everything and making them slaves I think they kick up a fuss.

I do not agree with, just because Garvey "failed" or never set foot in Africa does not mean the mission objectives have changed.

Nothing has changed from 100AD to now to stop the Jew supposedly "returning" to Israel and calling it Home. So as I understand it, the statement would read "Israel for the Jew at home and abroad", is that dead? I think the Palestinians wish it was. So nothing has changed. Africa is our Motherland and it belongs to Africans. I think Malcolm was clear that he was African as a commute from blackness, which moved on from Negro (which is black but in Spanish) as a move on from colored. So the Chinese moved on from yellow and we are moving on from blackness. Black people serves as a political term for ALL people of color, such as the people in Australia etc. But black cannot be a race, because a race has to be tied to a Mother country. i.e. China and Chinese. seems simple to me. colors do not attach to continents. We are primarily African not a color.

The point is many of these groups are recent formations, especially the Zulu. They were no Zulus in 200 B.C actually they were no Bantus in South Africa in 200 B.C. When they got there they found the Khoisan and the Khoi. So the people of We must be careful of this purification ideology. Because then by rights the Bantu people (Bantu Speakers) would have to vacate Southern Africa. If we are asking the Tamshak to vacate Northern Africa.

 

[medusanegrita]

Are the Khazars and Roma our brothers and sisters of a lighter hue?