Tweet
Re: Can religion be imposed/forced?
Fledgist: So you're saying that Charlemagne did not baptise the Saxons en masse in the Elbe? A lot of historians of mediæval Europe are going to want to get in touch with you.
Clarify for me Fledge, what do you mean by "baptise". Yu mean throw them in the water? If this is the case, dem could throw them all they want, if in their minds they didn't go along with the programme, it was an exercise in futility...and agen, they could have gone along with the programme as a 'facecard'...nuttn more, nuttn less,maybe there were nuff nuff nyamins later.
{Fledgist: What can be argued is that they had a stronger sense of who and what they were than did others, and were willing to resist their oppressors.
Not necessarily, many were sucessful in their resistance to the oppressors because of opportunities that presented themselves. I cannot agree that the MAJORITY were not just as willing or LESS willing, or with a weaker sense of identity, as you are trying to infer.
{Fledgist: While miscegenation post-slavery was frequently voluntary, that was not always the case. There are plenty of examples of busha and massa charging, shall we say, a horizontal tax in exchange for employment.}
The fact still remains that hybrids were produced, and these offsprings were now treated as family rather than as slaves, wouldn't you say? Remeber that slavery was now abolished. Keep things in perspective here....for now in Jamaica there is still this practice going on...don't forget.
{Fledgist: Er, how do you know this?}
Because the ole ppl dem tell mi suh..I wasn't there, but suh mi get it a suh mi sell it.
Now how do you know that anuh suh it did guh? You had any foreparents who were parsons?
{Fledgist: Not always by any means.}
I agree not always, but most often than not, unless you care to cite any specific examples...other than the Poco?
britisha's
{Fledgist: Slaves possess free will? Do tell.}
Here we go agen, Are we going to beat "freewill" to death again? Why being so obstinate...di ppl dem did haff a mind a dem own, even HIF di circumstances prevented them from acting out their thoughts, like murdering the slavemasters as you recommended in an earlier thread...they were physically prevented from doing soo, not that them didn't think it, eat it, talk it and plan it every minute of their existence...they were physically deterred by guns etc...but mi sure dem murder them ina dem mind a trillion times only...they had the freewill to think ...got it?
britisha
Now many of us who decided to accept christianity are being mocked and jeered as being daft and unable to analyse the real deal, and just follow the whiteman's religion as opposed to the indigenous religions....not to mention those who have ardently objectively studied other religions. I find this ridiculous!!
{Fledgist: You're being defensive, and for good reason.}
*I* am being defensive, not yet man, juss wait....it is coming. I am merely describing an observation, and why should I be defensive, maybe you find it hard to accept the ridiculousness of such an idea.
Fledgist: You're flying in the face of an awful lot of Christian and Muslim history. Perhaps you could explain why the historians are, from your perspective, all wrong?
Response:
I am not referring to Muslim history, that is to come later. If you weren't so gungho to criticise my statements you would have seen where I stated quite clearly in my opening line...[/b] As most of you have stated, religious acceptance is based on beliefs. i have been reading here constantly that religion is imposed on our African ancestors who were slaves.[/b]
Now show where I said anything about Muslims. Historians, huh? Which ones? That is our problem, we swallow what smaddi helse says, IF it suits our line of thinking, I wouldn't even say reasoning. Well add this to the archives from britisha that THIS is my analysis and my take...In the same breath, can sooo many millions of ppl who are educated and have a mind of their own be soo SMART as NOT to fall for everything some of these historians say?
This is the year 2002, many accept voodoo, Judaism, Hinduism, and all saawts of "isms and schisms" and some accept christianity, yuh and many oddas choose to accept nuttn, dass your bag...so the concept of a religion being now imposed on these descendants [us]...is ridiculous far ppl seh dem a all saawt a followers today...oooh mi figet Rastafariansm.
Forced indoctrination to an extent on the slaves where them had to sit and lissn to allsawts of sermons, maybe, forced "to sit and lissn," but forced "belief?"...memba dis word in the scenario...naaah hnn hnnn..simply, jus simp;ly, nothing intellectual and sophisticated, simply put, they have a mind of their own that ALMIGHTY GOD endowed them with.
and btw Fledgist, some of these historians are the children of ex-slavemasters.....mind how you quote them...and walk good in the light not in the dark.
Thanks for your response.
Fledgist: So you're saying that Charlemagne did not baptise the Saxons en masse in the Elbe? A lot of historians of mediæval Europe are going to want to get in touch with you.
Clarify for me Fledge, what do you mean by "baptise". Yu mean throw them in the water? If this is the case, dem could throw them all they want, if in their minds they didn't go along with the programme, it was an exercise in futility...and agen, they could have gone along with the programme as a 'facecard'...nuttn more, nuttn less,maybe there were nuff nuff nyamins later.
{Fledgist: What can be argued is that they had a stronger sense of who and what they were than did others, and were willing to resist their oppressors.
Not necessarily, many were sucessful in their resistance to the oppressors because of opportunities that presented themselves. I cannot agree that the MAJORITY were not just as willing or LESS willing, or with a weaker sense of identity, as you are trying to infer.
{Fledgist: While miscegenation post-slavery was frequently voluntary, that was not always the case. There are plenty of examples of busha and massa charging, shall we say, a horizontal tax in exchange for employment.}
The fact still remains that hybrids were produced, and these offsprings were now treated as family rather than as slaves, wouldn't you say? Remeber that slavery was now abolished. Keep things in perspective here....for now in Jamaica there is still this practice going on...don't forget.
originally posted by britisha:
Many of these ppl even knew their non-black foreparents. My mother's grandfather was white and he was a Wesleyan minister, her father was also a minister [Wesleyan...now Methodist]. Obviously here, the grandfather taught the religion to his child who taught it to his daugher, in a loving, UNFORCED, non-threatening manner.
Many of these ppl even knew their non-black foreparents. My mother's grandfather was white and he was a Wesleyan minister, her father was also a minister [Wesleyan...now Methodist]. Obviously here, the grandfather taught the religion to his child who taught it to his daugher, in a loving, UNFORCED, non-threatening manner.
Because the ole ppl dem tell mi suh..I wasn't there, but suh mi get it a suh mi sell it.
Now how do you know that anuh suh it did guh? You had any foreparents who were parsons?
britisha:
If one notices in contrast, those slaves and their descendants who did not interbreed are the ones who held on to their religion(s), again for example the Maroons in Jamaica and other parts of the Caribbean and the Haitians [yes, some Haitians did not interbreed, however few].
If one notices in contrast, those slaves and their descendants who did not interbreed are the ones who held on to their religion(s), again for example the Maroons in Jamaica and other parts of the Caribbean and the Haitians [yes, some Haitians did not interbreed, however few].
I agree not always, but most often than not, unless you care to cite any specific examples...other than the Poco?
britisha's
The point I am driving at is this, it is obvious that most of the ppl who now uphold christianity as their religion are all of mixed races. Now, I am not making excuses for white slaveowners who could have used whatever tactic including force, to forbid slaves to worship as they choose, but I am again saying that whatever tactic they used, the slave could have gone along with the program, holding on to some beliefs in his mind...as evidenced by the fact that we still have Pocomania in Jamaica, which some follow and some don't...based on their freewill.
Here we go agen, Are we going to beat "freewill" to death again? Why being so obstinate...di ppl dem did haff a mind a dem own, even HIF di circumstances prevented them from acting out their thoughts, like murdering the slavemasters as you recommended in an earlier thread...they were physically prevented from doing soo, not that them didn't think it, eat it, talk it and plan it every minute of their existence...they were physically deterred by guns etc...but mi sure dem murder them ina dem mind a trillion times only...they had the freewill to think ...got it?
britisha
Now many of us who decided to accept christianity are being mocked and jeered as being daft and unable to analyse the real deal, and just follow the whiteman's religion as opposed to the indigenous religions....not to mention those who have ardently objectively studied other religions. I find this ridiculous!!
*I* am being defensive, not yet man, juss wait....it is coming. I am merely describing an observation, and why should I be defensive, maybe you find it hard to accept the ridiculousness of such an idea.
britisha:
My point is, IMHO a religion, a system of beliefs, canNOT be imposed it has to be shown/taught subject to acceptance or rejection...for the simple reason that it incorporates the use of free will[how many times am I going to say this?...as many times as needs be, for this is the crux, the main thrust of my argument.]
My point is, IMHO a religion, a system of beliefs, canNOT be imposed it has to be shown/taught subject to acceptance or rejection...for the simple reason that it incorporates the use of free will[how many times am I going to say this?...as many times as needs be, for this is the crux, the main thrust of my argument.]
Response:
I am not referring to Muslim history, that is to come later. If you weren't so gungho to criticise my statements you would have seen where I stated quite clearly in my opening line...[/b] As most of you have stated, religious acceptance is based on beliefs. i have been reading here constantly that religion is imposed on our African ancestors who were slaves.[/b]
Now show where I said anything about Muslims. Historians, huh? Which ones? That is our problem, we swallow what smaddi helse says, IF it suits our line of thinking, I wouldn't even say reasoning. Well add this to the archives from britisha that THIS is my analysis and my take...In the same breath, can sooo many millions of ppl who are educated and have a mind of their own be soo SMART as NOT to fall for everything some of these historians say?
This is the year 2002, many accept voodoo, Judaism, Hinduism, and all saawts of "isms and schisms" and some accept christianity, yuh and many oddas choose to accept nuttn, dass your bag...so the concept of a religion being now imposed on these descendants [us]...is ridiculous far ppl seh dem a all saawt a followers today...oooh mi figet Rastafariansm.
Forced indoctrination to an extent on the slaves where them had to sit and lissn to allsawts of sermons, maybe, forced "to sit and lissn," but forced "belief?"...memba dis word in the scenario...naaah hnn hnnn..simply, jus simp;ly, nothing intellectual and sophisticated, simply put, they have a mind of their own that ALMIGHTY GOD endowed them with.
and btw Fledgist, some of these historians are the children of ex-slavemasters.....mind how you quote them...and walk good in the light not in the dark.
Thanks for your response.
Comment