Be Careful!!! Don't lose your mind.......
- Thread starter water
- Start date
I don't understand how it is believed that the Africans were not of a violent disposition to create the gun, because they did create weapons for warfare. So why is this argument used to describe the defeat of the Africans by the whites? And responding to the Dr. Clarke vid, were the Africans with all of the knowledge and wisdom that they owned,that naive to believe that the whites would not do them dirty; so they willingly were nice and pleasant towards them without keeping a watchful eye?
I don't believe the gun was just another weapon of warfare.
Weapons are created for a purpose.
It is the purpose behind the development that should be the emphasis.
example. When African nations warred against each other, the conquered would be absorbed into the nation. They were free to practice their own religion, most of them became servants (serfdom) but some of them became wives of kings, officials of the court and other esteemed positions of society.
Having said all of that, the gun was used to further the European agenda of greed and oppression.
Concerning the European guile towards their victims, from the African nations to the Native Indians and broken treaties, the European has mastered the art of marketing i.e. saying one thing and doing the other.
So the Africans were incapable of greed and oppression, thus it was unfathomable for them to create the gun to accomplish those ends?
Moreover, what is the purpose of war? Why did the Africans war with other nations if they did not want to expand empires and conquer those people and take all of the riches.
So are you saying the weapons that the Africans used were not meant to conquer and subjugate another nation? In addition, those weapons that the Africans used were used to peacefully conquer a people and have them subjugated?
And under the premise of Africans being the founders of mankind or civilization, you mean to tell me with all of their innovativeness and engineering genius that the were fooled by cavemen? Moreover, Africans with all this wisdom could not imagine that Humankind especially their own kind was capable of deceit and evil?
So the Africans were incapable of greed and oppression, thus it was unfathomable for them to create the gun to accomplish those ends?
Moreover, what is the purpose of war? Why did the Africans war with other nations if they did not want to expand empires and conquer those people and take all of the riches.
So are you saying the weapons that the Africans used were not meant to conquer and subjugate another nation? In addition, those weapons that the Africans used were used to peacefully conquer a people and have them subjugated?
And under the premise of Africans being the founders of mankind or civilization, you mean to tell me with all of their innovativeness and engineering genius that the were fooled by cavemen? Moreover, Africans with all this wisdom could not imagine that Humankind especially their own kind was capable of deceit and evil?
There are two typs of weapons the europeans used to conquer Africa.
1. Military weapons
2. Cultural weapons
You may have read the story of Hannibal. What did he do when he had most of Spain conquered? He left.
I am saying that Europe (western) has very little natural resources.
Africa has the most of the world's natural resources.
Which culture do you think would adapt to become more warlike?
The one with resources (land, minerals etc) or the one without?
Mansa Musa was the king of the Mali Empire. What is his legacy? Timbuktu, one of the two greatest centers of learning (other being Alexandria).
He gave away so much gold on his trip to Mecca that it took 2 years for the currency to normalize.
These are not myths, these are facts.
Now show me any Empire in Europe that was focussed on creativity, learning, charity, selflessness.
European Empires grew, prospered and fostered greed.
Read Bartholemew De la Casa's account of Christopher Columbus' voyages.
They were savages!!!
Those that were not destroyed by their far superior weapons were destroyed culturally.
It still goes on today. Cultural assimilation into a european way of life that emphasizes individualism, greed, selfishness, deceit, exploitation, oppression.
When you say that Africans did not expect deceit "by their own kind" in all their wisdom....... you are assuming that European are descended from homo sapiens.
It is more likely that Europeans descended from Neanderthals.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7062415.stm
Different characteristics...........
I meant to say that the Africans should have known that humankind or any kind of specie is capable of deceit or trickery. I am sure there were Africans who tricked other Africans into believing things and then did them dirty behind their backs, much like the Europeans did to the Africans.
My other question is why couldn't the Africans create and use the gun for their peaceful and charitable conquests. Once the Africans defeated their opponents with guns, then they could go back to their homes. Why couldn't that have been a possibility?
You see I don't believe that a nation who endeavors to conquer another nation does so with the intention of doing good. So why couldn't the Africans create the gun, which is a more efficient weapon for their conquests, and why couldn't they defeat these damn cavemen with guns.
Isn't it more difficult (bloody, chances for injury) to use spears instead of guns for conquest?
My other question is why couldn't the Africans create and use the gun for their peaceful and charitable conquests. Once the Africans defeated their opponents with guns, then they could go back to their homes. Why couldn't that have been a possibility?
You see I don't believe that a nation who endeavors to conquer another nation does so with the intention of doing good. So why couldn't the Africans create the gun, which is a more efficient weapon for their conquests, and why couldn't they defeat these damn cavemen with guns.
Isn't it more difficult (bloody, chances for injury) to use spears instead of guns for conquest?
That's like asking why German was defeated even though they possessed far superior weapons.
The part in red is disputable.
America had a civil war to unite this country, the United States of America.
Similarly Menes the first Pharaoh, united the Upper & Lower Egypt forming the first dynastic period.
There have been wars between nations/countries/tribes/families with the intent being to do good.
The Zulus created an empire, however in the process the nations that were absorbed were not oppressed as per the European model. The people of these nations sometimes became officers of teh court, esteem members of society and even wives etc
Now tell me which European Empire on conquering another people allowed them such accord?
I see your point Kayanation about African conquerors including the nations conquered into their civilizations. However, when uniting an empire or conquering a people to create a larger empire, there is a victor and a defeated. It's simply difficult for me to grasp that a nation can conquer another nation and have all members of the new empire on equal footing. I guess I'm way too familiar with the European model of conquering nations.
Consider this point for example: the Africans brought here through slavery are now through several Amendments, Civil/human rights struggles are now "citizens" of America. There have been a few Blacks that were awarded positions of power in America. However, the vast majority of African-Americans are living in "second class citizenship."
Thus, due to this model, it is difficult for me to accept the notion that simply because there were a few people awarded positions of leadership in a newly formed African empire such as a Zulu or any other, that the vast majority of the conquered people would enjoy equal citizenship with their new rulers.
I must admit that I have a very shaky foundation on African civilizations. Perhaps, those African conquerers you mentioned treated those they conquered as complete equals. I need to read those Diop books!!!
And your response "That's like asking why Germany was defeated even though they possessed far superior weapons" is noted. However, I am operating from the premise that Africa is the cradle of Mankind. The greatest minds, engineers, mathematicians all came from Africa. Thus, they should have had the knowledge of the dynamics of human behavior, and to know that humans (Africans) are capable of deceit and trickery just like the Europeans (Neanderthals) are capable of deceit. Moreover, if the Africans were the greatest beings at that time then they should not have been tricked by cave dwellers in any situation, and the Africans should have had the capabilities of defeating these people by any means that their intelligence offered them (mentally, spiritually, culturally, physically, or by weaponry).
Consider this point for example: the Africans brought here through slavery are now through several Amendments, Civil/human rights struggles are now "citizens" of America. There have been a few Blacks that were awarded positions of power in America. However, the vast majority of African-Americans are living in "second class citizenship."
Thus, due to this model, it is difficult for me to accept the notion that simply because there were a few people awarded positions of leadership in a newly formed African empire such as a Zulu or any other, that the vast majority of the conquered people would enjoy equal citizenship with their new rulers.
I must admit that I have a very shaky foundation on African civilizations. Perhaps, those African conquerers you mentioned treated those they conquered as complete equals. I need to read those Diop books!!!
And your response "That's like asking why Germany was defeated even though they possessed far superior weapons" is noted. However, I am operating from the premise that Africa is the cradle of Mankind. The greatest minds, engineers, mathematicians all came from Africa. Thus, they should have had the knowledge of the dynamics of human behavior, and to know that humans (Africans) are capable of deceit and trickery just like the Europeans (Neanderthals) are capable of deceit. Moreover, if the Africans were the greatest beings at that time then they should not have been tricked by cave dwellers in any situation, and the Africans should have had the capabilities of defeating these people by any means that their intelligence offered them (mentally, spiritually, culturally, physically, or by weaponry).
^^^^
The example you used - America where few blacks were awarded is actually skewed.
Blacks were not awarded anything in America. It always involved a sacrifice of life and limb to achieve.
Consider segregation. The fact that a few blacks were able to do well financially e.g. Madame CJ Walker doesn't not mean that the general culture was the oppression of blacks through segregation.
Consider lynching that was used as a tool (terror tactic) to suppress the advancement of blacks.
Consider the KKK and the legalization of segregation.
That is a completely different model to what took place in Africa.
In Egypt for example other cultures were allowed to flourish within the Empire.
I would also suggest that you read "The Destruction of Black Civilization" by Chancellor Williams
Also Dr Henrik Clarke laid it out quiet well and showed that throughout history the world's indigenous peoples have always ben accomodating to other cultures.
Consider the native americans that initially embraced the Europeans.
Consider the numerous African Empires that embraced the Europeans.
Consider the Aztecs, Incas & Mayas who initially embraced the Europeans.
To these people fear of differences do NOT exist.
To the European, there is a fear of difference even today.
The aggressive stance toward anything that is different, anything that behaves differently, looks differently is seen as a threat instead of a logical extension of the diversity of Nature.
That stance is totally unique to the European and it is understandable considering that they, as a racial grouping defined by 0.15 genetic variation expressed in their skin color, are a minority in the world.
The European/white man as is currently defined would cease to exist if kumbaya was to be adopted by him.
So I understand their perspective even today as a matter of survival of a genetically recessive specie.
The European model is based on white supremacy i.e. the replacement of the conquered's culture in totality.
The example you used - America where few blacks were awarded is actually skewed.
Blacks were not awarded anything in America. It always involved a sacrifice of life and limb to achieve.
Consider segregation. The fact that a few blacks were able to do well financially e.g. Madame CJ Walker doesn't not mean that the general culture was the oppression of blacks through segregation.
Consider lynching that was used as a tool (terror tactic) to suppress the advancement of blacks.
Consider the KKK and the legalization of segregation.
That is a completely different model to what took place in Africa.
In Egypt for example other cultures were allowed to flourish within the Empire.
I would also suggest that you read "The Destruction of Black Civilization" by Chancellor Williams
Also Dr Henrik Clarke laid it out quiet well and showed that throughout history the world's indigenous peoples have always ben accomodating to other cultures.
Consider the native americans that initially embraced the Europeans.
Consider the numerous African Empires that embraced the Europeans.
Consider the Aztecs, Incas & Mayas who initially embraced the Europeans.
To these people fear of differences do NOT exist.
To the European, there is a fear of difference even today.
The aggressive stance toward anything that is different, anything that behaves differently, looks differently is seen as a threat instead of a logical extension of the diversity of Nature.
That stance is totally unique to the European and it is understandable considering that they, as a racial grouping defined by 0.15 genetic variation expressed in their skin color, are a minority in the world.
The European/white man as is currently defined would cease to exist if kumbaya was to be adopted by him.
So I understand their perspective even today as a matter of survival of a genetically recessive specie.
The European model is based on white supremacy i.e. the replacement of the conquered's culture in totality.
Two Thousand Seasons (African Writers) (Paperback)
by Ayi Kwei Armah (Author)
2000 SEASONS
African scholar and historian John Henrik Clarke once pointed out that in colonizing the world, Europeans also colonized information about the world. The savage theft of land and resources, the wholesale murder of millions - this physical assault was accompanied by an ideological assault from which Africans are still trying to recover.
In recent years, many of us have stepped up to challenge the backward, racist ideology that permeates much of what is written about African people, history and culture. Ayi Kwei Armah is one author who has taken on the task of reconstructuring out story. The body of work he has produced is just one example of how even creative outlets can be used to further our struggle for liberation.
Armah's novel Two Thousand Seasons was first published in 1973 and was reprinted last year by Per Ankh, an African publishing cooperative based in Senegal. Its significance is profound for all Africans fighting to reclaim out stolen land and resources, primarily because it tells a story built upon the progressive theories of African revolutionaries such as Nkrumah, Garvey and Diop. Armah lays the foundation for this in the opening pages of the novel by asserting that "we are not a people of yesterday," "that we black people are one people we know," and that "[Africa] is ours, not through murder, nor through theft, not by violence or any other trickery. This has always been our land. Here we began."
Two Thousand Seasons by Ayi Kwei Armah, is a deeply profound and monumental text, for those who understood it. It is titled an historical novel, however it really doesn’t fit into any of the european defined structures for books. The term ‘novel’ implies “fictional,” “untrue,” “made up” and the like. One critique agrees. “Indeed the term ‘novel’, though it appears clearly on the title page, sits oddly on a book so apparently remote from the existing novelistic models.” (Pg. 64, The Novels of Ayi Kwei Armah by Robert Fraser)
2000 Seasons IS about actual accounts told from our oral tradition and only the exact names of people and places have changed. For those of us who know our connected history, it reads like autobiography of disconnectedness and reconnectedness. There have been some critiques that have said that there is no connection of Black people and that Armah’s history is off. I personally do not want to waste wrist energy typing that stuff but, for those interested, the text is Ayi Kwei Armah’s Africa by Derek Wright beginning on pg. 221.
Beyond a literary critique of this masterful work, 2000 Seasons is a text that can help Africa’s children return home, return to ourselves and return to OUR WAY (OUR WAY). It shows possibly how we let the arabs and europeans into our societies and our lives. We were trippin’!!! We had started to get lax in performing rituals, in exercising reciprocity, in being connected Afrikan people. We did not listen to the Oracles, Sages and Prophetesses. We turned our backs on that which had sustained us. Is it possible that the last 500 years have been an Afrikan Ancestral Butt whippin’? Was it allowed so it could whip us back into Afrikans? Will it continue until enough of us faithfully and from the heart return to OUR WAY (OUR WAY)?
WE SHALL SEE!!! The creator of this site felt exceptionally moved, not only by the text in its totality but also with the character of “Isanusi.” As you all remember, Isanusi was the older man who stuck to the traditions-at all costs. He saw what was coming down the pike, acted accordingly and was labeled a madman and banished to the fifth grove (beyond the third grove). After things got increasingly worse, the King sought him out to calm the people down, Isanusi still spoke the truth and he was sent back to his “prison.”
This site especially reflects the warnings and teachings of Isanusi. I personally attempt to live my own life as close to OUR WAY (OUR WAY) as possible, however I am still growing, and am falling by the wayside on a few things, but that is expected with growth. ReAfrikanization is a life long process. We are constantly in a process of “becoming.” For those of us who are CONSCIOUSLY re-embracing OUR WAY ( OUR WAY), we already know this and are growing daily. What I would like to share now is part of the conversation Isanusi had with the people of Anoa and with the children who understood him. These words ring loudly to our situation today and I submit that we need more Isanusi’s around today to get us out of this present mess.
“Have we forgotten the cause of our long wandering? Did we not learn near the desert how priests and warriors are twin destroyers, the priest attacking the victim mind, the warrior breaking bodies still inhabited by resisting wills?” “All honest people who have come to us have come because they sought to do themselves good among us, as part of our people, and they said so. These white men, they do not want to be part of us. But here they have come claiming they have crossed the sea from wherever it is they come from just to do us good. They are pretenders. They are liars. We have asked them for nothing. We should not have let them come among us. They have no desire to live with us. They will live against us.” (153-154)
“’The whites intend a lasting oppressions of us’ . . . He told us in the town Poano he had heard a white man, a missionary whose white greed was so subtle it looked forward to the ending of the open trade of human beings, to the beginning of a subtler destruction. This white missionary thought there would be far greater profit in keeping the victims of the trade here on our own land, having the kings and courtiers use them to mine and grow whatever the whites need, then offering the product to the white destroyers . . . Isanusi said this white missionary would be busy finding ways to eternalize our slavery through using our leaders in a cleverer kind of oppression, harder to see as slavery, slavery disguised as freedom itself. ‘The whites intend a long oppression of us.’” (163)
(The narrator) “Our choices in the life we were ready to begin would not be many: we could fit into existing arrangements, abandoning our dreams of that better world, dreams of our way, the way. Or we could try to realize the way. That would mean fighting against the white road, the white people’s system for destroying our way, the way.
We listened to Isanusi. We did not know then the knowledge contained in his words was immediate, urgent knowledge. We thought we would have time to absorb it, time to adjust to its meaning. We had none.
Isanusi tried to warn us but we misjudged him. We thought there was a distance between his words and reality, a space for us to manoeuvre in. There was none . . . . He warned us to stay completely clear of the new arrangements, the positions which had already become mere jobs for parasites.”
(Isanusi)”The way things have become, if you do not want to be parasites you need time in which to think of what else there is to be. And above time, courage to do what you conclude you ought to do, which is more difficult . . . .”
(Isanusi)”If you knew who you were, you would accept no invitations fromlack men who call white people friends. Such unnatural friendships are fed by bloody interests. You will live to be their victim.” (164-166)
I could go on and on. There is soooooooooooo much wisdom and knowledge contained within 2000 Seasons for Afrikans who Consciously want to reconnect to OUR WAY (OUR WAY). WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SAY?
.
I Need to get back right. I was following nuwaabu a while ago and lost my focus stop living and eating right. where can I find these books?
They are available on amazon.com
I try to buy from this store as much as possible
http://www.africanbookstore.net
They are available on amazon.com
I try to buy from this store as much as possible
http://www.africanbookstore.net
thanks.
Sometime I feel like im sleep walking when I listen to people like her. I really need to cleanse my soul.
thanks.
Brother, all you need is within you.
Seek and you will find, knock and it shall be opened.
Fist step is to stop beating up yourself.
Let go and understand that sometimes we go through situations so that we can learn from them, understand them so that we may be able to connect and uplift those in the situations you have been in.
Blessing go out to you brother........
You already have everything you need for your journey. You only need to hold fast to your purpose..........
maaan shut the fuck up.
I don't have time to listen to all of that shit. What is it about, motherfuckers shrinking dicks in the Congo?
http://www.nypost.com/seven/04232008/news/weirdbuttrue/weirdbuttrue.htm
http://www.nypost.com/seven/04232008/news/weirdbuttrue/weirdbuttrue.htm
Marimba Ani
Yurugu: An African-Centered Critique of European Cultural Thought and Behavior
Within the nature of European culture there exists a statement of value or of "moral" behavior that has no meaning for the members of that culture. I call this the "rhetorical ethic;" it is of great importance for the understanding of the dynamics of the culture. The concepts of traditional European anthropology are inadequate to explain the phenomenon to which I am referring here, as it has no counterpart in the types of cultures to which anthropologists have generally directed their attention in the past. But with the concept of asili, which facilitates an ideological approach to the study of culture, the rhetorical ethic becomes visible; even compelling. It fits the logic of the European asili, assisting the culture in the achievement and maintenance of power. Without this interpretation certain manifestations within the verbal iconography of the culture appear to be inconsistent with its underlying ideological thrust. And that simply would not make sense. Let us see how the mechanism of the rhetorical ethic works.
Don't be scared.............
.
WHERES THE LINK!!? ISN'T THIS A VERY RARE AND EXPENSIVE BOOK?
Similar threads
