Sellout

[franksterr]

I agree. I should have said anyone who preaches race first and maintaining race exclusivity in relationships, and then does otherwise, is a hypocritical sellout.

As for the hating and disliking of white people, I think that's a combination of pain, anger, ignorance and feelings of impotence. Pain and anger at the injustices perpetrated on Africans/African descent people by Europeans. Ignorance about the politics and imperatives of international relations, power and economics out which white supremacy was created.

White supremacy was created out of greed and the hunger for power and dominion, and because the individuals who practiced and benefited from it were 99% white, Africans Naturally placed it on whites in general

Maybe ignorance of the critical roles played by Africans in the institutionalisation of slavery, as well as the many inequities in African societies prior to European incursion in the 15th century. Garvey, Lumumba, X and other advocates of race first, pan-Africanism and Black Power, all failed in their ultimate aim. Now matter how those who hate dislike/hate whites idolise and idealise these significant historical personalities, the dreams of black unity and freedom, and African empire have never been further away. People can rant and cuss and protest, but ultimately feel impotent to change things in any meaningful way. This may be a cause of sustained antipathy because there is nothing positive to replace it with.

Unless you consider Jewish role in the holocaust critical then one can consider African role in the slave trade critical.
Beyond the case of Anthony Johnson vs John Casor blacks played little role in the institutionalization of slavery.....and that case was not the originating precedence.

Since races are socially constructions rather than biological or cultural realities, race preference could be seen as buying into an illusion. I definitely have a Caribbean cultural preference, because of shared histories, identity ambiguities, food, music backgrounds, etc.

As stated before the idea of race is based on physical appearance - phenotype or ethnicity. Yes Preference can be so seen, but it should not be seen or mistaken for racism

I agree, but today, the overwhelming majority of people with similar levels of melanin to me are being persecuted by other people who look like them/me. We only have to look at Nigeria, Central African Republic, Mali, Mozambique and Sudan. All this in the past 2/3 years. Go back a decade or so, then Rwanda and DRC. As I hinted in a previous post, transatlantic slavery would not have been possible on the scale it achieved without the wholesale cooperation of many, many African societies.

The Phenomenon you are describing is called "war by proxy" or the more popularly strategy used in the past was "divide and conquer".
Nearly all of the wars you stated above was fomented by western powers so as to maintain controlling interest and access to usually raw mineral resources
Some may have been independence struggles but then again that is with Western powers - white countries.
The idea that slavery in part or whole would not have been possible with African cooperation is ridiculous.....unless coercion is seen as cooperation.

Interesting to note that Madame C. J. Walker was the first African American female millionaire. She made her monetary wealth through the straightening of African descent women's hair.

True that was because black women wearing natural kinky hair would not be employ as readily as one whose hear was straighten

[Tropicana]

True that was because black women wearing natural kinky hair would not be employ as readily as one whose hear was straighten

Unfortunately this is still true in some sectors. It is very disappointing that when Black males are in the role of casting movie, TV, commercials, music videos, etc. they are JUST as bad when it comes to selecting ligh skinned chicks with long hair or weaves. Some even use more White and Asian chicks

[purejam]

race cut across family, community, religion, cultutral and political lines. skin color does bind dat y dem tryinn fe erase racial line fe strengthen oyinbo supremacee ann lines

soo mii guess yuh neva chatt to yawdee woo liter skin relatives got more privileges cah aff dem skin color

out aff manee wan people iss a joke cah itt doan trulee represent da majaritee blakk interests.

yuh neva chatt bout economic lines were addar race ar more likelee fe support peeps dat look like dem xxcepts blakks woo fail fe see da significance aff skin color

Race cuts across those lines in your opinion, I don't doubt that. It's not the reality I observe.

I see people coming together in vast numbers because of politics, nationality, religion, etc.

That skin colour rules your vision is testimony to the power of white supremacy... in other words, systematic racism that is but one of the ways in which a tiny elite manages to divide, distract and control many masses.

You are reading but you are not comprehending. I'm simply making a point on one's perspective. The whole sell out thing is bogus. To deny one's happiness based on some stupid code of "selloutism" is a retarded thought process. To base it on race or skin color is racist...My point is this, everyone and anyone could be considered a sellout by applying the term to a specific topic that is important to any one person...perception vs reality.

I was making an ironic and light hearted aside. Not sure what you thought I meant.

purejam anwsar da qwestian bout y yuh usinn oyinbo definition fe define blakk cancept aff sellout ann yuh doan see da cantradictsham aff yuh argument?

oww can yuh use oyinbo kultural definition aff sellout ann natt afrikkan based kultural definition wild yuh chatt bout multikultual perspectives?

Why is your definition written in derivative English any more or less Afrikan than mine? Do you have a mandate from the 1.5 billion African/African descent people to place your definition as the Afrikan definition? I mussa miss dat edict or email. There are different perspectives, views, definitions and ideologies. Just because you mek yours usin a certain kinna hinglish nuh mek it more authentik or superiah.

Since you like use oyinbo, why not go to Abuja and lead the pan-Afrikan revival and try and unite the continent?

That's why I worked with, never joined and eventually moved away from pan-Afrikan organisations, too much sanctimonious rhetoric, not to mention sexism, while affecting little, if any, worthwhile change. But that's for another time and place.

[franksterr]

Unfortunately this is still true in some sectors. It is very disappointing that when Black males are in the role of casting movie, TV, commercials, music videos, etc. they are JUST as bad when it comes to selecting ligh skinned chicks with long hair or weaves. Some even use more White and Asian chicks

This is true
Often that maybe because there is already a prescribe practice or process that advertiser and demographers believe will result in the optimum outcome or success.

When it comes to reggae you will not find this as often....please do not confuse reggae with Dance Hall Music or DJ Music.

We often think that the Artist because he or she is the headliner and the money maker they are in charge of what they sing or how they dress or who or what subject matters they address and with whom they work or how theiir work is presented. Here is Dave Chappelle trying to explain what happens to Stars

Minutes 6:00 - 8:00 is key

Success takes you where character cannot sustains you
Where Art and Corporate Interest meet - who you think wins

[purejam]

[QUOTE=franksterr;825547]


White supremacy was created out of greed and the hunger for power and dominion, and because the individuals who practiced and benefited from it were 99% white, Africans Naturally placed it on whites in general

I think we can be more precise than that. White supremacy isn't about black and white. That's the illusory surface, the magic sleight of hand to distract us. As Tropicana and lonewolf argue in the thread on Irish so-called 'slavery' in the Caribbean, many thousands of Irish, as well as other Europeans were forcibly transported and coerced into labouring in Jamaica and elsewhere in the region. The mass inequalities in Western countries whether in Europe, North America or Australasia, isn't just targeted at people of African descent. Those in power, the small cabals who own and run the multinationals, the global energy companies, the finance systems and the military, they do not care about Europeans, they're not interested in skin colour. They cleave power to themselves, their families, their own.

True say, I don't blame or begrudge them. I look out for my family first and foremost. My kinfolk and my most immediate community. That community is comprised of like minded people sharing similar values working towards similar goals.

I see the absolute contempt with which politicians and the owners/rulers of big business treat their so-called 'white' citizens and employees, they only value them as disposable, expendable pawns. We should talk about power in another thread.

Unless you consider Jewish role in the holocaust critical then one can consider African role in the slave trade critical.
Beyond the case of Anthony Johnson vs John Casor blacks played little role in the institutionalization of slavery.....and that case was not the originating precedence.

The idea that slavery in part or whole would not have been possible with African cooperation is ridiculous.....unless coercion is seen as cooperation
[COLOR=#333333][I]

Europeans did not have the technology to move past the coastal areas of most of Africa until the late 19th century. These included, for example

• Medical advances following the Crimean war (1853-56)
• Military technology - most notably the Gatling which was trialled in the US skirmish in the 1860s
• Large, ocean travelling steam ships did not go into production until the mid 1860s
• Maps of the African interior began to be created by the likes of Livingstone in the 1850s

This is why the so called 'scramble', but more like pillage, rape and destruction of Africa did not occur until the 1880s.

All these events took place after slavery was officially abolished. Europeans simply did not have the means to get into the African interior until the late 19th century, so the only way so many Africans could have been attacked, held captive, transported to the coast and into the hands of the European slavers, was with the systematic cooperation of many African societies.

Walter Rodney has an excellent chapter in which he details how the Dutch had an entire regiment made up of Africans armed with rifles who killed, kidnapped and took other Africans to the Europeans. That is one of many examples. Africa was complicit in that trade. Again, this subject is deserving of its own thread and Jamaicans and others in the African diaspora should be calling large swathes of Africa to account and seeking reparations. If only to draw attention to African's deep role in the Maafa.

As stated before the idea of race is based on physical appearance - phenotype or ethnicity. Yes Preference can be so seen, but it should not be seen or mistaken for racism



The Phenomenon you are describing is called "war by proxy" or the more popularly strategy used in the past was "divide and conquer".
Nearly all of the wars you stated above was fomented by western powers so as to maintain controlling interest and access to usually raw mineral resources
Some may have been independence struggles but then again that is with Western powers - white countries.


I hear and understand the point you're making. As the Last Poets put it: 'Blessed are those who struggle, Oppression is worse than the grave, Better to die for a noble cause, Than to live and die a slave'.

I come from a set of ignorant people. Serious. No matter what happens between us, the most ignorant are the one's I trust because they are the ones I trust not to sell out. We're not going to let an outsider cause enmity between us.

But, let's look at these African conflicts. The Biafran war between Hausas and Igbos. These peoples did not regard each other as kin. They did not see each other as belonging to a black family or a collective African empire. They regarded themselves as two separate peoples with different histories, cultures, beliefs and languages. The only reason they were lumped together as Nigerians was because they acquiesced to European incursion, some made deals with Europeans and they failed to recognise and come together to fight a common enemy. Oh yes, let's not forget that in colluding with Europeans, some weakened potential resistance by killing, kidnapping and trading other Africans.

If there had been a concept of Africanness or something akin to unity based on skin colour, then maybe history would have been different. But, there was not. So led by those who wanted power they fought each other. I don't blame Europeans, the white supremacist elite were executing their agenda for global domination. If Africans then and now, carry out the white supremacist agenda, then they must be responsible.

I taught my children not to blame others, but to seek to understand and take responsibility for searching for and finding solutions. So long as we blame others, we may be tempted to excuse ourselves from the responsibility of creating positive change. The key thing is to be clear about who 'we' refers to and who it does not include.

Please excuse my long windedness.

[Tropicana]

Purejam ... wha mek you no ansah mi.

[franksterr]

[QUOTE=purejam;825566][QUOTE=franksterr;825547]

White supremacy was created out of greed and the hunger for power and dominion, and because the individuals who practiced and benefited from it were 99% white, Africans Naturally placed it on whites in general

I think we can be more precise than that. White supremacy isn't about black and white.

On that we agree.....as I stated above it is about greed and power - domination

That's the illusory surface, the magic sleight of hand to distract us. As Tropicana and lonewolf argue in the thread on Irish so-called 'slavery' in the Caribbean, many thousands of Irish, as well as other Europeans were forcibly transported and coerced into labouring in Jamaica and elsewhere in the region. The mass inequalities in Western countries whether in Europe, North America or Australasia, isn't just targeted at people of African descent. Those in power, the small cabals who own and run the multinationals, the global energy companies, the finance systems and the military, they do not care about Europeans, they're not interested in skin colour. They cleave power to themselves, their families, their own.

I agree
What must not be forgotten is that when Africans are enslaved in the West social mobility is near impossible and enslavement is almost always for life on paper and in effect.

True say, I don't blame or begrudge them. I look out for my family first and foremost. My kinfolk and my most immediate community. That community is comprised of like minded people sharing similar values working towards similar goals.

I see the absolute contempt with which politicians and the owners/rulers of big business treat their so-called 'white' citizens and employees, they only value them as disposable, expendable pawns. We should talk about power in another thread.

I do not blame but I do hold them responsible

Europeans did not have the technology to move past the coastal areas of most of Africa until the late 19th century. These included, for example

• Medical advances following the Crimean war (1853-56)
• Military technology - most notably the Gatling which was trialled in the US skirmish in the 1860s
• Large, ocean travelling steam ships did not go into production until the mid 1860s
• Maps of the African interior began to be created by the likes of Livingstone in the 1850s

This is why the so called 'scramble', but more like pillage, rape and destruction of Africa did not occur until the 1880s.

All these events took place after slavery was officially abolished. Europeans simply did not have the means to get into the African interior until the late 19th century, so the only way so many Africans could have been attacked, held captive, transported to the coast and into the hands of the European slavers, was with the systematic cooperation of many African societies.

Walter Rodney has an excellent chapter in which he details how the Dutch had an entire regiment made up of Africans armed with rifles who killed, kidnapped and took other Africans to the Europeans. That is one of many examples. Africa was complicit in that trade. Again, this subject is deserving of its own thread and Jamaicans and others in the African diaspora should be calling large swathes of Africa to account and seeking reparations. If only to draw attention to African's deep role in the Maafa.

Most slaves prior to the 1700 was taken from coastal cities and town -West Africa....... Slave Coast.
You do not need maps when you can conscript local guides under duress if needs be...slaves began to be taken from the interior in the 1700 - Congo
People will risk death for more money and have from time immemorial - medical advances or not.
The slave trade was primarily about slave labor the "scramble" was about mineral wealth and land.

That's where we disagree it was not a system of cooperation but one of coercion.
Walter Rodney is right, my question to you is do you know what a conscript is? or a slave army?

Now have you ever heard of the Africans who fought against slavery in Africa on the continent?
If not why Not?

Your line of argument are of those given or targeted to recent Black, African and West Indians college graduates so as to conflate the true issue regarding African enslavement... by the likes of African American History professor Henry Louis"skip" Gates.
This line of argument serves to divide the African community, it was first posited as a question in the late 1990 as a GCE question in which carribbean students sitting the exams were ask to name the benefits of slavery and Continental Africans students were ask to list the benefits European Colonialization.

I wonder if the Jewish kids were ever ask to name the benefits of the holocaust??

I hear and understand the point you're making. As the Last Poets put it: 'Blessed are those who struggle, Oppression is worse than the grave, Better to die for a noble cause, Than to live and die a slave'.

I come from a set of ignorant people. Serious. No matter what happens between us, the most ignorant are the one's I trust because they are the ones I trust not to sell out. We're not going to let an outsider cause enmity between us.

No....I prefer educated people who can reason and think logically.

But, let's look at these African conflicts. The Biafran war between Hausas and Igbos. These peoples did not regard each other as kin. They did not see each other as belonging to a black family or a collective African empire. They regarded themselves as two separate peoples with different histories, cultures, beliefs and languages. The only reason they were lumped together as Nigerians was because they acquiesced to European incursion, some made deals with Europeans and they failed to recognise and come together to fight a common enemy. Oh yes, let's not forget that in colluding with Europeans, some weakened potential resistance by killing, kidnapping and trading other Africans.

That maybe how the White Western European media portray the Biafran war but we in the Pan African movement know it was a proxy war over Nigerian OIL Resources - Shell BP.
http://nigerdeltapolitics.wordpress.com/2012/01/11/the-earliest-oil-war/

If there had been a concept of Africanness or something akin to unity based on skin colour, then maybe history would have been different. But, there was not. So led by those who wanted power they fought each other. I don't blame Europeans, the white supremacist elite were executing their agenda for global domination. If Africans then and now, carry out the white supremacist agenda, then they must be responsible.

There was!!!! and the question is why are you only hearing about continental African collaborations and not their resistance - could it be they are trying to prevent Blacks in the West from forging alliances with continental Africans today and in the future.
Check out NSSM 46
In order to prevent such a trend and protect U.S. national security interests, it would appear essential to elaborate and carry out effective countermeasures.
1. Possibility of Joint Action By U.S. Black and African Nationalist Movement
http://www.finalcall.com/memorandum-46.htm



In 1626 Nzinga became Queen of the Mbundu when her brother committed suicide in the face of rising Portuguese demands for slave trade concessions. Nzinga, however, refused to allow them to control her nation. In 1627, after forming alliances with former rival states, she led her army against the Portuguese, initiating a thirty year war against them. She exploited European rivalry by forging an alliance with the Dutch who had conquered Luanda in 1641. With their help, Nzinga defeated a Portuguese army in 1647. When the Dutch were in turn defeated by the Portuguese the following year and withdrew from Central Africa, Nzinga continued her struggle against the Portuguese. Now in her 60s she still personally led troops in battle. She also orchestrated guerilla attacks on the Portuguese which would continue long after her death and inspire the ultimately successful 20th Century armed resistance against the Portuguese that resulted in independent Angola in 1975. -
See more at: http://www.blackpast.org/gah/queen-n....giULJZyw.dpuf

I taught my children not to blame others, but to seek to understand and take responsibility for searching for and finding solutions. So long as we blame others, we may be tempted to excuse ourselves from the responsibility of creating positive change. The key thing is to be clear about who 'we' refers to and who it does not include.

Please excuse my long windedness.

Seeking Knowledge and understanding is good, it is not blaming when its true for only the truth can set you free.
Why take responsibility for something you are not guilty off, and should you accept such a guilt that is not yours what will it do to you and yours?
For if you accept as true a lie then you are once again in a new form of bondage.

Maybe ignorance of the critical roles played by Africans in the institutionalisation of slavery, as well as the many inequities in African societies prior to European incursion in the 15th century. Garvey, Lumumba, X and other advocates of race first, pan-Africanism and Black Power, all failed in their ultimate aim. Now matter how those who hate dislike/hate whites idolise and idealise these significant historical personalities, the dreams of black unity and freedom, and African empire have never been further away. People can rant and cuss and protest, but ultimately feel impotent to change things in any meaningful way. This may be a cause of sustained antipathy because there is nothing positive to replace it with.

None of then failed in my experience....Not Garvey, Not Lumumba, not X if anything we failed them but yet we are still carrying the struggle and I remember as the saying goes Rome was not built in a day.


Last but not least I appreciate and love your long windedness for we are hear to share and learn

[purejam]

[QUOTE=franksterr;825583][QUOTE=purejam;825566]

On that we agree.....as I stated above it is about greed and power - domination

I agree
What must not be forgotten is that when Africans are enslaved in the West social mobility is near impossible and enslavement is almost always for life on paper and in effect.

Agreed.

I do not blame but I do hold them responsible


Agreed. People should seek to understand all the causes of their current situations and take responsibility for changing things for the better.

Most slaves prior to the 1700 was taken from coastal cities and town -West Africa....... Slave Coast.
You do not need maps when you can conscript local guides under duress if needs be...slaves began to be taken from the interior in the 1700 - Congo
People will risk death for more money and have from time immemorial - medical advances or not.
The slave trade was primarily about slave labor the "scramble" was about mineral wealth and land.

Are you saying that Europeans could have accessed the mineral wealth and land earlier but chose to wait over 100 years? Europeans did not have the means to enslave 10s of millions of Africans without the systemic cooperation of other Africans.

That's where we disagree it was not a system of cooperation but one of coercion.
Walter Rodney is right, my question to you is do you know what a conscript is? or a slave army?

Yes, and yes. Why?

Now have you ever heard of the Africans who fought against slavery in Africa on the continent?
If not why Not?

Yes, I have. This does not preclude other African communities collaborating with Europeans to perpetuate and institutionalise slavery.

Your line of argument are of those given or targeted to recent Black, African and West Indians college graduates so as to conflate the true issue regarding African enslavement... by the likes of African American History professor Henry Louis"skip" Gates.
This line of argument serves to divide the African community, it was first posited as a question in the late 1990 as a GCE question in which carribbean students sitting the exams were ask to name the benefits of slavery and Continental Africans students were ask to list the benefits European Colonialization.

My line of argument comes out of my own thought. I have not read and have barely listened to Gates. I certainly haven't been influenced by revisionist European, African or African descent academics. Far from it, my university experience discussing this subject ended with a European lecturer ending a seminar early as her tears spilled in response to my comments.

Learning from the past so that positive change can be affected demands a level of cold objectivity rather than simplification that portray history as binary, them/us, black/white, good/evil. That's not my reading. Some Africans and some Europeans collaborated to the detriment of those who were enslaved and the entire African continent, and to the benefit of European economies, elites and emergent middle classes.

I wonder if the Jewish kids were ever ask to name the benefits of the holocaust??

I don't understand the reason for this question as I never even hinted at there being a single benefit of European enslavement and colonisation of my ancestors. That isn't the issue in any of posts.

No....I prefer educated people who can reason and think logically.

The ignorance is in preferring beating, imprisonment or death rather than succumbing to coercion or bribery.

That maybe how the White Western European media portray the Biafran war but we in the Pan African movement know it was a proxy war over Nigerian OIL Resources - Shell BP.
http://nigerdeltapolitics.wordpress.com/2012/01/11/the-earliest-oil-war/

It seems that you (the Pan Afrikan movement) use 'proxy war' as a way of excusing Africans of responsibility for butchering other Africans and laying all the blame with Europeans. This is one of several reasons why I moved away from Pan Afrikanism (we should have a thread discussing PA). In may view, not taken from any book or speaker, Afrika is the mother who abandoned some her children callously selling them to a paedophile and thoroughly abusive European step father,

Death rather than slavery. I'm a parent and I cannot imagine any circumstance under which I would abandon my children to the cruelty of others. You say 'coercion', 'conscription' and 'slave army'. I say excuse, excuse, excuse. There wasn't a concept of Africa amongst the Hausas, Yorubas, Igbos, Fulanis, Ashantis, etc. There was an incredibly loose federation among some of these nations, but overwhelming, they saw themselves as separate. This in itself was not a bad thing, it was what it was.

European academics, rulers, slavers and colonisers called these many varied peoples, black, African, negro and nigger. It was white supremacist ideology that created the concept of blackness and it is white supremacy that spawned Pan Afrikanness, because Pan Afrkanism emerged as a response to white supremacy. Once more, I don't see this as a good or bad thing, rather as a consequence of history from which we have the opportunity to learn.

Delaney, Garvey, John G. Jackson, Woodson, Chancellor Williams, Lumumba, Omowale, Chinweizu, et al. are amongst those who influenced my early political consciousness. So I am not interested in disparaging Pan_Afrikanism. I do, however, see that it is time to move on because history does not stand still and just as I see the Islam preached in the 7th century AD as archaic, so I see Pan Afrikan philosophies in need of postmodernisation.

For a start, taking off the melanin tinted eyewear. One thing this does is stop representing Europeans as supermen and many different peoples living in the African continent as so weak in body and mind that they were physically overpowered and psychologically controlled by Europeans. This is what constantly blaming Europeans whilst making excuses for the different nations in the African continent. Let me stop here and move on.

There was!!!! and the question is why are you only hearing about continental African collaborations and not their resistance - could it be they are trying to prevent Blacks in the West from forging alliances with continental Africans today and in the future.
Check out NSSM 46
In order to prevent such a trend and protect U.S. national security interests, it would appear essential to elaborate and carry out effective countermeasures.
1. Possibility of Joint Action By U.S. Black and African Nationalist Movement
http://www.finalcall.com/memorandum-46.htm



In 1626 Nzinga became Queen of the Mbundu when her brother committed suicide in the face of rising Portuguese demands for slave trade concessions. Nzinga, however, refused to allow them to control her nation. In 1627, after forming alliances with former rival states, she led her army against the Portuguese, initiating a thirty year war against them. She exploited European rivalry by forging an alliance with the Dutch who had conquered Luanda in 1641. With their help, Nzinga defeated a Portuguese army in 1647. When the Dutch were in turn defeated by the Portuguese the following year and withdrew from Central Africa, Nzinga continued her struggle against the Portuguese. Now in her 60s she still personally led troops in battle. She also orchestrated guerilla attacks on the Portuguese which would continue long after her death and inspire the ultimately successful 20th Century armed resistance against the Portuguese that resulted in independent Angola in 1975. -
See more at: http://www.blackpast.org/gah/queen-n....giULJZyw.dpuf


My awareness and admiration of the Mbundu's queen extended to my naming a daughter Nzinga. However, this thread is about selling out, not about Afrikan resistance. I am well aware that many Afrikans resisted Arab and European imperialism, that is not what is at issue in this thread. We can talk about that elsewhere.

Seeking Knowledge and understanding is good, it is not blaming when its true for only the truth can set you free.
Why take responsibility for something you are not guilty off, and should you accept such a guilt that is not yours what will it do to you and yours?
For if you accept as true a lie then you are once again in a new form of bondage.

I used to coach football. Whenever my team lost a match, I focused more on us rather than the victors. Yes, identify what the victors did that helped them achieve their goal, but place greater emphasis on what we did that contributed to our defeat and seek to learn from, and change so that we succeed in the future. Your/Pan Afrikan analysis seems too myopic and inflexible. Sorry to say it, but I see the effects of white supremacy permeating through Pan Afrikanism.

None of then failed in my experience....Not Garvey, Not Lumumba, not X if anything we failed them but yet we are still carrying the struggle and I remember as the saying goes Rome was not built in a day.

'We' did not fail anyone. Each of those leaders had an ideology that they believed was correct. I used to get irate with those who did not share my Pan Afrikanist beliefs and who favoured integration. Now, I understand concepts such as pluralism, diversity and heterogeneity as well as the their opposites monism, unity and homogeneity. The latter describe Pan Afrikanist thought and its emergence in the period of Western modernity. The former are postmodern and can be used to challenge and undermine the metanarratives of modernity. These metanarratives which include the ideology of race and race classification, as well as the modern nation state provided the theoretical and institutional bases for white supremacy, slavery, colonisation, neo-colonisation and contemporary globalisation.

Let's deal with unity. Calls for black and African unity were and remain constant. Yet, the reality is, these calls are bound to fail. They can never materialise. Why First, both black and Africa are European constructs. Second, they were applied by Europeans to the many, pluralised, diverse and heterogeneous nations and peoples in the continent of Alkebu lan. Thirds, they fail to recognise or respect the plurality, diversity and heterogeneity of those to whom they are applied. Fourth, at the time that they were applied, those on whom they were applied did not regard themselves as black or African. Why would they? What free people would allow others to name and define them? Fifth, most of the may diverse peoples living on the continent of Alkebu lan never travelled more than 30-50 miles in the entirety of their lives. This was the same for most peoples in the world at that time who lived on the land and did not have access to horses, donkeys, mules, camels, elephants and the like on which they could travel, so moved from place to place on foot. The majority did not venture far from where they lived. Sixth, following on from the previous point, there wasn't a widespread appreciation of the Alkebu lan continent amongst those who lived there. This means that, seventh, there was not any sense of collective unity. If there had been, Alkebu lan would have resisted the Arab and European incursions.

Let me sum it up this way. The idea of black or African unity is a direct consequence of white supremacy. It is based on Western modernity's notions of monism (all reality can be explained through one way of looking at things), unity and homogeneity (sameness). These characteristics of Western modernity do not conform to the plurality, diversity and heterogeneity of nations, peoples, cultures, belief systems, familial relations, communal networks, economic systems and polities that existed on the Alkebu lan continent prior to European incursion. However, created out of/by white supremacy or more accurately, created out of the union of a mother's treachery and a step father's inhumaneness, Pan Afrikanism has taken the traits of the latter whilst looking uncritically and longingly at the former.

Last but not least I appreciate and love your long windedness for we are hear to share and learn

I'm indebted to you for sharing your thoughtful and insightful words because they give me pause for thought and enable me to mine my own thoughts and understanding to further my analyses. Thank you for contributing to my learning. Everything I write in response to your posts is written with respect, none so more than in this post wherein I take issue with your perspective.

Hotep


PS. For white supremacy substitute 'capitalism'.

[blugiant]

You are reading but you are not comprehending. I'm simply making a point on one's perspective. The whole sell out thing is bogus. To deny one's happiness based on some stupid code of "selloutism" is a retarded thought process. To base it on race or skin color is racist...My point is this, everyone and anyone could be considered a sellout by applying the term to a specific topic that is important to any one person...perception vs reality.

yuh missinn da deeper pint yuh usinn oyinbo individualistrixx ideologee to define blakk issue.

yuh position iss bout maintaininn oyinbo supremacee by usinn divide ann conquer cons ann tricks dat de reasons fe arguinn against blakk communitee being able fe hold sellouts inn check

[blugiant]

For those that spout about the evils and wrongs that are brought onto one person or a race of people by another....

Just like the statement that all white people are racist (which I agree with) so is the fact that EVERYONE, especially if you live in the first world is a sellout.

Just as a white person does not have a choice but to live and enjoy the advantages that come from being white, no matter how many anti racist views he/she possesses so does a person who enjoys anything that has an exploited, mistreated person attached to it in one form or another.

tink yuh readinn ann tartinn fe ovatand sum aff mii argument bettar dan moas. scary sintinn cah iff mii change peeps tinkinn den mii will change more peeps mindset

imagine inn a oyinbo cantrol wurld peeps a argue fe color blindness

[blugiant]

Ah what yuh ah she? blu nuh live ah Jamaica?

A wha de!!!

yuh mean awl da thyme yuh read wat mii poas ann yuh neva kno dat

[blugiant]

So, if a Jamaican in Jamaica perceives the reality of you leaving Jamaica as you being a sellout, his perception is reality that you are a sellout...meaning that it is true and you can't dispute that reality.

diss argument mekk mii laff wild provinn mii pint

a latt aff thyme wen mii use mzungu mii chattinn bout stranger woo nuh ovatand dem social location so dat y dem gitt lost ann doan gitt itt. mii natt chatt bout individual realitee cah da oyinbo myopic logtrikks. oyinbo ave a nastee habit aff tryinn fe cantrol blakk peeps tinkinn by dismissinn wat being argued by chattinn bout individual self interest wen racism iss bout competition between racial groups. lackinn da abilitee fe grasp dat ann individual lack da power fe defend imm interest wen imm competinn against a racial communitee

[blugiant]

Your definition of sellout is yours. It's not mine and it's not the definition of hundreds of millions of Africans and African descent people. "We' if there is a 1.5 billion 'we' is myriad, we contain many definitions, ideologies, beliefs, etc. No one person can speak for the 1.5 billion. The lumping us all together came from the mindset of the enslaving, colonising, mass murdering, mass raping, mass thieving European slaving and colonising project. Pan-Africanism, Black Consciousness, Black Power and the like, were all created in defensive reaction to white supremacy. I understand their creation and activities. Martin Delaney, Carter G. Woodson, Marcus Garvey, Omowale et al. were the products of their generation, the collective experiences of previous generations, and the knowledge and thinking of their eras. We can learn from them whilst developing our own thoughts and perspectives. That is what I choose to do.

no mii usinn garvey definition aff a sellot. manee peeps didd natt agree widd garvey cah dem chose fe maintain oyinbo supremacee instead aff power. agree widd yuh dat no wan parsan can speak fe awl afrikkans butt da commuitee aff blakk afrikkans can ave wan voice dedicated to da upliffment ann empowerinn aff afrikkans. da issues yuh avinn iss dat yuh ave issue widd blakks decidinn woo iss blakks ann woo ar sellouts cah dat mean dat blakks peeps wood develop ann shape dem enviorment. groups do unite to defend da group interest ann dat iss natt a negative ting. mii agree widd yuh dat blakks ar da collective experience aff previous generation butt dat also mean dat wii carry da ancestaral obligations natt fe sellout by adoptinn oyinbo argument dat support oyinbo supremacee

[blugiant]

There is not a single black reality. Or if there if there is, it has been created by the white supremacist ideology of the European elites. Let me break this down.

There are around 1.5 billion African and African descent people. Our histories, cultures, languages, belief systems, social organisations, political ideologies and economic statuses are diverse. To say there is one reality that links the 1.5 billion is ridiculous.

I believe your concept of 'black reality' is one borne out of the collective experience of slavery and colonialism. Central to this black reality is the spectre of the white man. As I say in another thread, white supremacy defined the many and varied peoples of Alkebulan as 'black'. Therefore, black reality is born out and is supposed to function as a counter to white reality. I understand this view, I no longer share it and await your response.

realitee iss dat de peeps aff da wurld ar desended fram blakk afrikkan dna. so yuh argument bout 1.5 billion afrikkan ann afrikkan descent peeps iss flawed cah da wurld population iss bout 7 billion afrikkan ann peeps aff afrikkan descent. even dough oyinbo, asian, etc desended fram afrikkan dna dat nuh mekk dem afrikkan. da way wii determine woo fe cawl afrikkan iss bout race ann kulcha. wat mii repeatedlee seyinn iss dat even doah oyinbo desended fram afrikkans ann ave afrikkan dna nuh mekk dem afrikkan. itt like dem oyinbo inn afrikka now woo cawlinn demselves afrikkans fe maintain dem oyinbo privileges. da way fe identifii da real afrikkans iss bout race ann kulcha dat y cheik wukk was so important

yuh need fe read ann ovatand chiek anta diop ann yurugu by marimba ani

"In practice it is possible to determine directly the skin colour and hence the ethnic affiliations of the ancient Egyptians by microscopic analysis in the laboratory; I doubt if the sagacity of the researchers who have studied the question has overlooked the possibility." --Cheikh Anta Diop

oww do yuh classifii woo ar da real afrikkans iff yuh doan use race ann blakk kulcha? wat mii chattinn bout iss oww oyinbo tried fe claim afrikka by lieinn dat de great pharoahs were natt blakk to push oyinbo supremacee ideologee. dat iss proof dat de blakk realitee predate slaveree ann oyinbo supremacee. yuh tryinn fe mekk politrixx argument usinn oyinbo ideological reason fe chatt bout blakk kulcha widdout ovatandinn dat itt natt onlee politikkal but ideologee. y yuh tink mii use afrikkans wurds like mzungu ann oyinbo? wat mii challenginn yuh pon iss oww yuh assumptions ann pressumptions cah yuh usinn oyinbo ideologee fe examine blakk kulcha.

wat mii askinn yuh fe examine iss oww yuh argument furdar oyinbo supremacee. yuh usinn oyinbo dichotomy tinkinn dat teaches yuh fe tekk on oyinbo concepshams ann argue dat afrikkan conceptsham ar flawed. once yuh accept dat dichotomee tinkinn den yu will argue dat wan canceptshan iss superior ann wan iss inferioritee dat iss da basis aff oyinbo supremacee

[franksterr]

Are you saying that Europeans could have accessed the mineral wealth and land earlier but chose to wait over 100 years? Europeans did not have the means to enslave 10s of millions of Africans without the systemic cooperation of other Africans.

No they did not have need for Africa's raw mineral resources until after the 1800 , being that the driving force for the "scramble" was the "Industrial Revolution" and the end or the growing unpopularity of the slave trade.

Yes, and yes. Why?

Why because you stated the following

Walter Rodney has an excellent chapter in which he details how the Dutch had an entire regiment made up of Africans armed with rifles who killed, kidnapped and took other Africans to the Europeans. That is one of many examples. Africa was complicit in that trade

That is not proof of complicity, conscript army or in this case slave armies are fighters under coercion not of their free will, so it should not be seen as cooperation

Yes, I have. This does not preclude other African communities collaborating with Europeans to perpetuate and institutionalise slavery.

True....but slave or conscript armies is not evidence of cooperation neither is puppet kingdoms (vassal states) set up solely to serve European slaving interest proof of African free will participation

My line of argument comes out of my own thought. I have not read and have barely listened to Gates. I certainly haven't been influenced by revisionist European, African or African descent academics. Far from it, my university experience discussing this subject ended with a European lecturer ending a seminar early as her tears spilled in response to my comments.

Learning from the past so that positive change can be affected demands a level of cold objectivity rather than simplification that portray history as binary, them/us, black/white, good/evil. That's not my reading. Some Africans and some Europeans collaborated to the detriment of those who were enslaved and the entire African continent, and to the benefit of European economies, elites and emergent middle classes.

Whether you recognize it or not I know when these arguments where made and popularize by mass media and academia

I wonder if the Jewish kids were ever ask to name the benefits of the holocaust??
I don't understand the reason for this question as I never even hinted at there being a single benefit of European enslavement and colonisation of my ancestors. That isn't the issue in any of posts.

I do not know your ethnic extraction, the question was meant to show how the arguments you are espousing was introduce to the general public.

The ignorance is in preferring beating, imprisonment or death rather than succumbing to coercion or bribery.

Ignorance denotes not having accurate or true information or knowledge, which is the ground most Agent Provocateur loves to use to mislead and manipulate.

It seems that you (the Pan Afrikan movement) use 'proxy war' as a way of excusing Africans of responsibility for butchering other Africans and laying all the blame with Europeans.

Yes...Africans did do the killing and the butchering there is no denying that, but at whose bidding or on whose orders and who benefits - in other words where does the proverbial "buck" stops.

This is one of several reasons why I moved away from Pan Afrikanism (we should have a thread discussing PA). In may view, not taken from any book or speaker, Afrika is the mother who abandoned some her children callously selling them to a paedophile and thoroughly abusive European step father,

You are blaming the victim for being abused, for being out manned and out gunned by a stronger militarily.

Death rather than slavery. I'm a parent and I cannot imagine any circumstance under which I would abandon my children to the cruelty of others. You say 'coercion', 'conscription' and 'slave army'. I say excuse, excuse, excuse. There wasn't a concept of Africa amongst the Hausas, Yorubas, Igbos, Fulanis, Ashantis, etc. There was an incredibly loose federation among some of these nations, but overwhelming, they saw themselves as separate. This in itself was not a bad thing, it was what it was.

You assume they knew what was to become of their children, let alone that they willing gave them up....Resistance not suicide was the choice made by Africans. And history has proved them right in doing so.
You call this truth "excuse", and accept as true a lie, that has now led you to abandon Pan Africanism......The Agent Provocateur has done his Job well.
I have already concede that the Africans may not having seen themselves as One Homogeneous Whole but as you state a "loose Federation". Pan Africanism is the political movement that is promoting the idea that we need to Unite as One African People to confront the continued European assault.

European academics, rulers, slavers and colonisers called these many varied peoples, black, African, negro and nigger. It was white supremacist ideology that created the concept of blackness and it is white supremacy that spawned Pan Afrikanness, because Pan Afrkanism emerged as a response to white supremacy. Once more, I don't see this as a good or bad thing, rather as a consequence of history from which we have the opportunity to learn.

True....Pan Africanism is a Response to white supremacy and it is a Good.
For we have learned that only through Unity and Truth can we overcome and prevail against the functional Unity of Europeans in respects to Africans.

As an aside, Of the words above "nigger" might not be of European origin, as well as the idea of "blackness" may actually be of Egyptian Origin Khamites - meaning Blacks, lastly Africa may be a mispronunciation or mistranslation of the African word "Af Ra Ka - Flesh Sun Soul

Delaney, Garvey, John G. Jackson, Woodson, Chancellor Williams, Lumumba, Omowale, Chinweizu, et al. are amongst those who influenced my early political consciousness. So I am not interested in disparaging Pan_Afrikanism. I do, however, see that it is time to move on because history does not stand still and just as I see the Islam preached in the 7th century AD as archaic, so I see Pan Afrikan philosophies in need of postmodernisation.

Move On to what?

All the Freedoms enjoyed by Africans at Home and Abroad is due to Pan - Africanism
Greedy (capitalist) and Racist European are still united Against African and the continue to sow dissension and reap discord in Africa as they rob and pillage.
You are recommending an abandonment of our roots our people, if we do so then what is to engender of cohesiveness?
Europeans are not abandoning Greco-Roman teachings nor the Jews the Torah as old as they are.

What would you suggest as Post modernization improvement to Pan Africanism philosophy?

For a start, taking off the melanin tinted eyewear.

That is not our doing as you stated earlier, that is biology and we or I do not have a problem with it, it is a problem to racist whites

One thing this does is stop representing Europeans as supermen and many different peoples living in the African continent as so weak in body and mind that they were physically overpowered and psychologically controlled by Europeans. This is what constantly blaming Europeans whilst making excuses for the different nations in the African continent. Let me stop here and move on.

On This Point You Have Been Misled and Misinformed
You have it all wrong.....That is not the doing of Pan Africanism that is the doing of Mass media teaching what is called "Learned Helplessness" by teaching a view of history in which blacks are nothing but slaves and who has accomplish nothing throughout history or contribute anything meaningful to human progress in any meaningful.
It is the Racist white who tried to impart to slaves under their whip that whites are gods and superman by pointing to their painting of Cesair Borgia as Jesus Christ and forbid the painting and making of black images of Christ available to Blacks.
One of the earliest teachings of Williams and Blyden can be summed up in a Garvey Quote
Whatsoever things common to man, that man has done, man can do.
Marcus Garvey

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/au...svax88A8Jdj.99

My awareness and admiration of the Mbundu's queen extended to my naming a daughter Nzinga. However, this thread is about selling out, not about Afrikan resistance. I am well aware that many Afrikans resisted Arab and European imperialism, that is not what is at issue in this thread. We can talk about that elsewhere.

Yes and that is what I am doing showing that the new push in spreading the meme that Blacks were active and willing participants in the slave trade is widely and grossly overblown and misconstrued. They have put a black face on this new increase dissemination by even have some African countries Apologize for their role in Slave trade....
To what end do they do this???

I used to coach football. Whenever my team lost a match, I focused more on us rather than the victors. Yes, identify what the victors did that helped them achieve their goal, but place greater emphasis on what we did that contributed to our defeat and seek to learn from, and change so that we succeed in the future. Your/Pan Afrikan analysis seems too myopic and inflexible. Sorry to say it, but I see the effects of white supremacy permeating through Pan Afrikanism.

Yes but whether you focus on yourself or the other team one must have an accurate picture of what occur and never stop playing as a team - unity
If I am myopic and inflexible is because I will not let lies confound me or abandon the prize which we seek...unity in other words teamwork.