Use the drop-down boxes above to navigate through the Website  
Return to Reasoning List

Here is a link to this page:


1 - 1011 - 16
Time Zone: EST (New York, Toronto)
Messenger: royal dawta Sent: 1/27/2016 9:23:06 AM

Chancellor Williams, in his classic work, The Destruction of Black Civilization, explains that after the over land passage of African trade had been cut off at the Nile Delta by the White Arabs in about 1675 B.C. (the Hyksos), the Egyptian/African economy was thrown into a recession. There is even indication of "pre-historic" aggression upon Africa by White nomadic tribes (the Palermo Stone).. This culminated as an unfortunate trade, in that, when the White Arabs attacked, they had the benefit of the knowledge and strength of Africans on their side, as their slaves. This is a significantly different picture than the propaganda that we sold our immediate family members into slavery to the Whites.
It becomes a kind of racism; that, while all ethnic groups have sold its own ethnic group into slavery, Blacks can't do it. When Eastern Europeans fight each other it is not called tribalism. Ethnic cleansing is intended to make what is happening to sound more sanitary. What it really is, is White Tribalism pure and simple.
The fact of African resistance to European Imperialism and Colonialism is not well known, though it is well documented. Read, for instance, Michael Crowder (ed.), West African Resistance, Africana Publishing Corporation, New York, 1971. Europeans entered Africa in the mid 1400 s and early 1500 s during a time of socio-political transition. Europeans chose a favorite side to win between African nations at a war and supplied that side with guns, a superior war instrument. In its victory, the African side with guns rounded up captives of war who were sold to the Europeans in exchange for more guns or other barter. Whites used these captives in their own slave raids. These captives often held pre-existing grudges against groups they were ordered to raid, having formerly been sold into slavery themselves by these same groups as captives in inter-African territorial wars. In investigating our history and capture, a much more completed picture emerges than simply that we sold each other into slavery.
The Ashanti, who resisted British Imperialism in a Hundred Years War, sold their African captives of war and criminals to other Europeans, the Portuguese, Spanish, French, in order to buy guns to maintain their military resistance against British Imperialism (Michael Crowder, ed., West African Resistance).
Eric A. Walker, in A History of Southern Africa, Longmans, London, 1724, chronicles the manner in which the Dutch entered South Africa at the Cape of Good Hope. Van Riebeeck anchored at the Cape with his ships in 1652 during a time that the indigenous Khoi Khoi or Khoisan (derogatorily called Hottentots) were away hunting. The fact of their absence is the basis of the White "claim" to the land.
It has been important to present the matters above to dispel the notion of an African slave trade that involved mutuality as a generalized dynamic on the part of Africans. If we can accept the documented facts of our history above and beyond propaganda, we can begin to heal. We can begin to love one another again and go on to regain our liberties on Earth.
Respectfully, also Inda process of the colonialisation of Africa there were a number of treaties and agreements and what not I think that if we examine the major source of this treaties we will go to a three volume work by the official historian of Queen Victoria by the name of Edward Hertslet, he wrote a three volume work / book The map of Africa by treaties ... Under these treaties .. It show there where certain Chiefs sign away lands by the mark of an X, the documents are written in English, French, Dutch, depending on who the coloniser was.. But there is no document of such written within any existing African language ata time.. There is nothing in any of these treaties that would indicate that anyone can take away the land and. Sell it or become a owner of it.. Treaties were formed between European and Europeans, the worst of such treaties was the one whereby they took the entire of what was then called Congo later the Congo Free State with the approval of the United States of America, Great Britain and the other twelve colonisers of Europe.. Started 1830 when France invaded Soweto.. Tongo and Cameroon and so forth were German terrotory.. Germany went all the way down to what is today Sout West Africa, Namibia..... America control Europe up to this day despite of the latest revolution based on treaties made by the United States of America and England and even at that time when negotiations was made at the Berlin and at the Brussels Conferences and others held all over the world when it was decided who was gonna get what piece of land of Africa there were no African Representative at any off such conferences ...!!!... And still and Yet at that time we had independant African Nations .. We had Ethiopia which became independant in what is older then any other administration of the world, we still had Haiti which had become independant in the 1800's we had Liberia who become independent in 1857.. The Africans who signed these treaties had no authority whatsoeva and many Africans didn't sign anything and they had many people on paper which neva existed ...

Messenger: royal dawta Sent: 1/27/2016 9:42:57 AM

Slavery Wasn't a Trade, It Was a Robbery and Genocide.Just like colonization, Africans did not enslave themselves in the Americas. The European slave trade was not an African venture, it was preeminently a European enterprise in all of its dimensions: conception, insurance, outfitting of ships, sailors,factories,shackles, weapons, and the selling and buying of people in the Americas.
Not one African can be named as an equal partner with Europeans in the slave trade.
Indeed, no African person benefited to the degree that Europeans did from the commerce in African African community used slavery as its principal mode of economic production. We have no example of a slave economy in West Africa.
The closest any scholar has ever been able to arrive at a description of a slave society is the Dahomey kingdom of the nineteenth century that had become so debauched by slavery due to European influence that it was virtually a
hostage of the nefarious enterprise. However, even in Dahomey we do not see the complete denial of the humanity of Africans as we see in the American colonies.
Slavery was not romantic; it was evil, ferocious, brutal, and corrupting in all of its aspects. It was developed in its greatest degree of degradation in the You Ass
The enslaved African was treated with utter disrespect. No laws
protected the African from any cruelty the white master could conceive.
The man, woman, or child was at the complete mercy of the most brutish of people.
For looking a white man in the eye the enslaved person could have his or her eyes blinded with hot irons. For speaking up in defense of a wife or woman a man could have his right hand severed. For defending his right to speak against oppression, an African could have half his tongue cut out. For running away and being caught an enslaved African could have his or her Achilles tendon cut. For
resisting the advances of her white master a woman could be given fifty lashes of the cowhide whip. A woman who physically fought against her master's sexual advances was courting death, and many died at the hands of their masters. The
enslaved African was more often than not physically scarred, crippled, or injured because of some brutal act of the slave owner. Among the punishments that were favored by the slave owners were whipping holes,wherein the enslaved was buried in the ground up to the neck; dragging blocks that were attached to
the feet of men or women who had run away and been caught; mutilation of the toes and fingers; the pouring of hot wax onto the limbs; and passing a piece of hot wood on the buttocks of the enslaved. Death came to the enslaved in vile, crude ways when the angry, psychopathic slave owner wanted to teach other
enslaved Africans a lesson. The enslaved person could be roasted over a slow-burning fire, left to die after having both legs and both arms broken,oiled and greased and then set afire while hanging from a tree's limb, or being killed slowly as the slave owner cut the enslaved person's phallus or breasts.
A person could be placed on the ground, stomach first, stretched so that each hand was tied to a pole and each foot was tied to a pole. Then the slave master would beat the person's naked body until the flesh was torn off the buttocks and the blood ran down to the ground

Messenger: royal dawta Sent: 1/27/2016 9:52:07 AM

it excuses an evil of one’s own past by finding the same sort of evil done by others. Whites sold slaves, but Africans and Arab traders did too! Which, morally speaking, is at the same level as an eight-year-old saying, “He did it too!” when caught doing something bad. We do not accept this argument from eight-year-olds, nor from bank robbers or wife beaters. “Africans did it too!”  is no better.
But it is as a derailing argument that it comes into its own:
Its main purpose is to draw attention away from what whites did by turning the tables. That part of their past makes White Americans uncomfortable. But instead of facing up to it, they have built up defences against it:
Africans sold their own people as slaves.
Africans are still selling slaves.
Arab traders sold slaves too.
Slavery goes back thousands of years.
All races have practised slavery.
Whites stopped slavery.
My family never owned slaves.
That was Ancient History.
You are living in the past.
Get over it!
It was the times.
Slavery did not make economic sense.
Whites got to where they are by their own hard work
Blacks are better off in America than in Africa
Africans were savages.
And on and on.
Why not just face up to it? Because part of their sense of self worth is built on being white and how whites are better than everyone else, particularly blacks. But it is a huge lie, a lie that can only be maintained by not looking at their past – and present – squarely and honestly.
Africans in the Diaspora have the challenge of rewriting a history that has been stained by years of distortions, omission and downright lies. One of the biggest challenges of rewriting this history has been the Atlantic Slave Trade, and one of the biggest sore points has been the idea that “Black Africans sold their own into slavery”. A lack of information, a paucity of expansive scholarship and an unwillingness to have a serious discourse on Colourism as it existed in Africa even before European intervention, has contributed to this. Diaspora Africans are often quite na?ve and will do anything to hold fast to the illusion that ” we are all Africans” and ignore the racism that has existed among a group that is far from uniform. 

Messenger: royal dawta Sent: 1/27/2016 9:55:39 AM

Servitude systems that existed in Africa, and in other indigenous communities cannot be compared to racist slave systems in the Western world and to this day we attempt to try to see this slavery in the same context.

Messenger: Voodooruuts Sent: 1/27/2016 10:10:06 AM

For one really it could never be aaid that Africans sold Africans into slavery because they wouldnt have seen themselves as such. Most black probably dont even know of the tribal wars and captives being sold to the whiteman. Most blacks probably just know whites went to Africa and took slaves. Its only ones who study and read into that history that will say that. Ive never got the impression of family selling family from that history. Ive always got Aro Chukwu capturing off Igbo villages, Fanti being captors on Gold Coast. The King of Dahomey selling off neighboring peoples, NOT father selling kids, NO!

Them Africans were tribal and the next tribe wasnt viewed as the same people so to them they werent selling their own people. It was the europeans who viewed them in collective, as Africans, NOT thr Ewe or Yoruba themselves.

From ex-slave stories they talk about being lured on ships, captured by whites, coming freely as migrant workers only to be lied to and enslaved. They talk about being war captives or criminals. Some came under jurisdiction of King of Morocco as workers but were enslaved (Moors Sundry Act).

Maybe Europeans and Arabs did instigate the enslavement of I people but it was still I people that went along with it. We werent just naive village folks, there very well sophisticated kingdoms, trade and business people there at that time. They had some very learned people in Africa. Some fought it some profitted from it its just the reality of it.

I dont see how accepting the reality of the situation is a bad thing. Its almost as some of those "indigenous blacks" who deny their ancestors even came from Africa.

I have no problem if Efik sold Igbo or Fanti sold Ashanti because they had THEIR OWN histories with EACHOTHER and views of EACHOTHER. It was the European who told them they were Black and African, to them they were their tribe, but thats what was used against them.

Are we going to say Garvey didnt speak badly of HIM or do we accept the reality of it?

Messenger: RastaGoddess Sent: 1/27/2016 12:40:53 PM

Without "romanticizing" Afrika, or denying that cultural differences existed, a few key points should be looked at.

Some, not all, of our "warfares" were often pageantry competition. Showmanship.

Such colonial myths of exaggerated tribal warfare allowed the West to exploit Africans and encourage inter- tribal warfare

At the same time, had Europeans not wanted African slave labor for their American colonies, there would not have been any market for African slaves. African wars fed the slave trade, and the slave trade, in turn, fueled internal Africal wars.

Again, the system of "slavery" (servitude) in Afrika, simply cannot be compared to the Afrikan Holocaust. A "slave" was treated as a human being. It was when slavery become a tool of CAPITALISM that slavery assumed a brutal and inhumane character, of which the western (and Arab) world us guilty of.

In regards to Garveys later views of HIM, none can deny those. Rather then seeing their views as contradictive, I would prefer seeing them as complimentary. They are still part of the foundation of Rastafari. If one pillar is made of gold, and the other of obsidian, both remain individual yet collective pillars of strength.

1 - 1011 - 16

Return to Reasoning List

Haile Selassie I