THE AMERICAN NEGRO IS THE AMERICAN INDIAN - WE WERE ALREADY HERE!

cashwhisperer

My favorite key is E♭
BGOL Investor
BookReaderImages.php



This has always been a very interesting pic to me.

1) They all look like current day "black" americans.
2) They are known as native Californians
3) You see a cultural identity that's clearly not European influenced

Unlike the Seminole story of how escaped African slaves joined the Seminoles because they blended in well, there's no story of escaped slaves escaping to California to join natives out west that I know about.

So just who were the Californians, why do they look so much like us and why aren't they talked much about in the so-called history we're given in Amerikkka?
 

roots69

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
This thread is full of Black Indians. I get it escaped Africans who mixed with and lived among the Indians. Some were bought by the spanish. The Seminole war or Negro War as one white general called it was basically over slaves escaping to the swamps in Florida and joining the Seminole or living in villages close by them. I am not sure what else you are trying to say. We were not always here imo.

Go read Virginia laws when that England colony was formed!! I'm at the point of my life where I refuse to repeat these colonist views and opinion of the copper color races. If your we're apart of 2-5 % slave trade that came here, wear that flag proud!! Listen to your family, read the laws that are still on the books and all the fucked up things these colonist have done and continue to do.. Then again don't and keep thinking ur smart repeating your white masters dreams and illusion!! Im done trying to snap folks outta this damn trance/dream!!!
 

roots69

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
It amazes me not many questions these lying ass schools, television, media, entertainment, McGraw&Hill and so on!! Just because they hear something from a so called figure head, politicians or talking head on TV, it's the truth!! When all a person has to do is his or her own research and they will see the truth is hidden right in front of our faces.. like 85% of the population has been conditioned and programmed to accept lies as truth and rejected anything that questioned the official narrative!! It's in this country best interest that the copper color race never wakes up, that way the corporation can steal and makes billion off of our talents and I haven't even touched on the land and resources they have stolen from our families and tribes!!
 

roots69

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
WE STRONGER TOGETHER!! IT AINT HARD TO FIGURE OUT!! THE WE IS STRONGER THAN THE ME!! Ain't nobody listening!!!


American
AMER'ICAN, adjective Pertaining to America.

AMER'ICAN, noun A native of America; originally applied to the aboriginals, or copper-colored races, found here by the Europeans; but now applied to the descendants of Europeans born in America.
 

Mrfreddygoodbud

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
WE STRONGER TOGETHER!! IT AINT HARD TO FIGURE OUT!! THE WE IS STRONGER THAN THE ME!! Ain't nobody listening!!!


American
AMER'ICAN, adjective Pertaining to America.

AMER'ICAN, noun A native of America; originally applied to the aboriginals, or copper-colored races, found here by the Europeans; but now applied to the descendants of Europeans born in America.

Fake ass

Five dollar indian.

Cappin hard

B
 

killagram

Rising Star
BGOL Investor

Question Everything and Believe Nothing!!!

Research your own family!! And dont let these colonist views history and how they view you, Stop you from finding out the truth!! The truth is hidden right in front of our faces..

And dont, I repeat dont go by today meaning of a word.. Go back to the time era and search words.. We are being mislead and miseducated, distracted, divided and kept in a deep sleep by design!!!


Before the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth, we were here. Before the pen of Jefferson etched across the pages of history the majestic words of the Declaration of Independence, we were here.
Martin Luther King, Jr.


Book-cover-small.png


You got any documentaries...on this for the kids.. brah
 

roots69

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
They have told history to our people in reverse and planted lies!! The name of the game is to, keep our people confused, misdirected, divided, miseducated, in a deep state of sleep, distracted, unfocused, and go along with the colonist story and never think about WAKING UP and wanting your property back!!


Indian Treaties and the Removal Act of 1830
The U.S. Government used treaties as one means to displace Indians from their tribal lands, a mechanism that was strengthened with the Removal Act of 1830. In cases where this failed, the government sometimes violated both treaties and Supreme Court rulings to facilitate the spread of European Americans westward across the continent.

Andrew Jackson
As the 19th century began, land-hungry Americans poured into the backcountry of the coastal South and began moving toward and into what would later become the states of Alabama and Mississippi. Since Indian tribes living there appeared to be the main obstacle to westward expansion, white settlers petitioned the federal government to remove them. Although Presidents Thomas Jefferson and James Monroe argued that the Indian tribes in the Southeast should exchange their land for lands west of the Mississippi River, they did not take steps to make this happen. Indeed, the first major transfer of land occurred only as the result of war.

In 1814, Major General Andrew Jackson led an expedition against the Creek Indians climaxing in the Battle of Horse Shoe Bend (in present day Alabama near the Georgia border), where Jackson’s force soundly defeated the Creeks and destroyed their military power. He then forced upon the Indians a treaty whereby they surrendered to the United States over twenty-million acres of their traditional land—about one-half of present day Alabama and one-fifth of Georgia. Over the next decade, Jackson led the way in the Indian removal campaign, helping to negotiate nine of the eleven major treaties to remove Indians.

Depiction of William Weatherford surrendering to Andrew Jackson after the Battle of Horseshoe Bend
Under this kind of pressure, Native American tribes—specifically the Creek, Cherokee, Chickasaw, and Choctaw—realized that they could not defeat the Americans in war. The appetite of the settlers for land would not abate, so the Indians adopted a strategy of appeasement. They hoped that if they gave up a good deal of their land, they could keep at least some a part of it. The Seminole tribe in Florida resisted, in the Second Seminole War (1835–1842) and the Third Seminole War (1855–1858), however, neither appeasement nor resistance worked.

From a legal standpoint, the United States Constitution empowered Congress to “regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.” In early treaties negotiated between the federal government and the Indian tribes, the latter typically acknowledged themselves “to be under the protection of the United States of America, and of no other sovereign whosoever.” When Andrew Jackson became president (1829–1837), he decided to build a systematic approach to Indian removal on the basis of these legal precedents.

To achieve his purpose, Jackson encouraged Congress to adopt the Removal Act of 1830. The Act established a process whereby the President could grant land west of the Mississippi River to Indian tribes that agreed to give up their homelands. As incentives, the law allowed the Indians financial and material assistance to travel to their new locations and start new lives and guaranteed that the Indians would live on their new property under the protection of the United States Government forever. With the Act in place, Jackson and his followers were free to persuade, bribe, and threaten tribes into signing removal treaties and leaving the Southeast.

In general terms, Jackson’s government succeeded. By the end of his presidency, he had signed into law almost seventy removal treaties, the result of which was to move nearly 50,000 eastern Indians to Indian Territory—defined as the region belonging to the United States west of the Mississippi River but excluding the states of Missouri and Iowa as well as the Territory of Arkansas—and open millions of acres of rich land east of the Mississippi to white settlers. Despite the vastness of the Indian Territory, the government intended that the Indians’ destination would be a more confined area—what later became eastern Oklahoma.

The Trail of Tears (Robert Lindneux, 1942)
The Cherokee Nation resisted, however, challenging in court the Georgia laws that restricted their freedoms on tribal lands. In his 1831 ruling on Cherokee Nation v. the State of Georgia, Chief Justice John Marshall declared that “the Indian territory is admitted to compose a part of the United States,” and affirmed that the tribes were “domestic dependent nations” and “their relation to the United States resembles that of a ward to his guardian.” However, the following year the Supreme Court reversed itself and ruled that Indian tribes were indeed sovereign and immune from Georgia laws. President Jackson nonetheless refused to heed the Court’s decision. He obtained the signature of a Cherokee chief agreeing to relocation in the Treaty of New Echota, which Congress ratified against the protests of Daniel Webster and Henry Clay in 1835. The Cherokee signing party represented only a faction of the Cherokee, and the majority followed Principal Chief John Ross in a desperate attempt to hold onto their land. This attempt faltered in 1838, when, under the guns of federal troops and Georgia state militia, the Cherokee tribe were forced to the dry plains across the Mississippi. The best evidence indicates that between three and four thousand out of the fifteen to sixteen thousand Cherokees died en route from the brutal conditions of the “Trail of Tears.”

With the exception of a small number of Seminoles still resisting removal in Florida, by the 1840s, from the Atlantic to the Mississippi, no Indian tribes resided in the American South. Through a combination of coerced treaties and the contravention of treaties and judicial determination, the United States Government succeeded in paving the way for the westward expansion and the incorporation of new territories as part of the United States
 

roots69

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Color Me American
You are the indigenous aboriginal people of this land.
Copper-Colored
If your complexion (or anyone in your family) is similar to that of the copper-colored penny, then your ancestors may have come from the copper-colored races of people the Europeans found in America. I spent most of my life believing my ancestors came from Africa, because I am African-American. I learned different once I started researching my ancestry.
The blog posts found here are based on facts I came across during my research. I am sharing this knowledge to help others become enlightened. The “Know Better” sections contain information for you to check out yourself. The “Do Better” sections contain suggested things to do with the information you learn. Nothing will ever change without action!
Know Better: If you are not certain your ancestors are from Africa, I encourage you to research your family’s history. You can start by getting access to census records through ancestry sites on the internet. Valuable information can also be gained by just interviewing your eldest relatives.
Do Better: Stop embracing a title just because it was given to you. Share what you learn with your relatives, so future generations will know the truth about who they are and where they came from.
Let this be the last generation to not know we are indigenous aboriginal to this land.



 

roots69

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
BROTHAS AND SISTAS!! BROTHAS AND SISTAS!!

A HIJACKIN HAPPENED AND THEY DONT WANT OUR PEOPLE TO SNAP OUTTA THE TRANCE AND WAKE THE FUCK UP AND WANT YOUR LAND & OTHER MATERIALS BACK!!!

THE TRUTH IS RIGHT IN FRONT OF OUR FFACES!!
 

roots69

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
A Ben Franklin quote!!!






Benjamin Franklin’s Racist Project for the Future of America in “Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind, Peopling of Countries, &c.”
Todd Burst
May 31, 2018 · 6 min read





Benjamin Franklin is one of America’s long-lasting heroes. He was a champion and founding father of American democracy; an apostle of the Enlightenment; and inventor; writer; cook; scientist; a deeply religious man; and a bigot. Although authors continue to write bestselling biographies about his life, his racism (before the concept of race) fails to get beyond his lesser known text and or scholarly quibs and remarks sequestered from the public by grand narratives and the social imaginary of hero worship. Public discourses that were once used to maintain/ create symmetry between America’s past and today’s norms and virtues are worn so thin, they are almost transparent. In 1751, Franklin wrote: Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind, Peopling of Countries, &c., where he stated: “the English make the principal body of white people on the face of the earth. I could wish their numbers were increased. And while we are, as I may call it, scouring our planet, by clearing America of woods, and so making this side of our globe reflect a brighter light…why should we in the sight of superior beings, darken its people? Why increase the sons of Africa, by planting them in America, where we have so fair an opportunity, by excluding all blacks and tawneys, of increasing the lovely white and red?” He wrote his essay as an instruction manual for increasing the population of white English people, which also became an argument against slavery.
Before going further into “Observations,” it is important to get a sense of Franklin’s exceptional status as it appears in today’s popular literature. In Benjamin Franklin: An American Life, author Walter Isaacson portrays the prevailing iconic stereotype of Franklin. For instance, Isaacson comments Franklin is the founding father who winks at us,” in other words, he was and ordinary person. Despite the fact that “he was America’s best scientist, inventor, diplomat, writer, and business strategist,” he was practical, accessible, and non-pretentious. This was part of Franklin intentional self-image. Isaacson implies that Franklin attempted to influence America’s unique characteristics just as he was influenced by them. In other words, they (America and Franklin) reflected one another. For instance, Isaacson argues that Franklin was “consciously trying to create a new American archetype.” As a diplomat to France, he wore a fur cap “to portray the role of backwoods sage.” Part of this archetype was the Protestant work ethic and honor for the middle class.[1]
Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind is not one of Franklin’s better-known works, however, his essay reveals Franklin’s vision for the future of America i.e. who should settle the new land and why. In addition, he gives the criteria for what it means to be a “founding father” and a new country. Contemporary modern society venerates America’s ‘founding fathers” as courageous visionaries who went to war against the strongest nation — Britain — for their freedom and independence. But what did it mean for these men to consider themselves founding fathers? This question has rarely been asked, but Franklin gives a detailed criterion for what this means.
Franklin’s premise is that marriages increase population, but it must be relatively secure and easy for a family to maintain itself. In other words, if there is war, pestilence, and poverty marriage rates would decline and so would the population. Of course, Franklin is coming from a conservative protestant background where children born out of wedlock is inappropriate — so inappropriate that these children would not register in his statistical analysis of the population (this however is conjecture on my part). Land (private property), for Franklin is essential for encouraging families. Cities, he beloved “do not by natural generation supply themselves with inhabitants,” because death rates outweigh birthrates in cities due to the poverty, disease and other matters. “In countries fully settled, the case must be nearly the same (as cities).” If there is no land available, people have to work for others for wages and living by wages generally makes it harder to raise a family.[2] “Europe is generally full settled with Husbandmen, Manufacturers, &c. and therefore cannot much increase in People.”[3]
“America is chiefly occupied by Indians, who subsist mostly by Hunting.” At this point it is important to point out how Europeans viewed history and different societies. During the Enlightenment, scholars developed Universal History, which suggested that all human societies followed the same path of development. Although there were variations according to specific scholars, the most prevalent timeline of development went as such: in the beginning were hunters and gathers, these were considered savages. The second stage was pastoralism or husbandry, where societies depended on animals and simply horticulture — these were considered barbarians. Third was fixed agriculture, this was civilization. In other words, those that did not practice agriculture were not yet civilized. A fourth stage was considered trade. Here, Franklin is saying that although America was occupied, it was occupied by savages who sold their land cheap because they did not need it as much for hunting as Europeans needed it for agriculture.
Franklin’s criteria for founding fathers deserves to be quoted at length:
Hence the Prince that acquires new territory, if he finds it vacant, or removes natives to give his own people room; the Legislator that makes effectual laws for promoting of trade, increasing Employment, improving land by more or better Tillage; providing more food by Fisheries; securing property, $c. and the man that invents new trades, arts or manufactures, or new improvements in husbandry may be properly called Fathers of their Nation, as they are the cause of the generation of multitudes, by the encouragement they afford marriage.[4]
This had a direct effect on marriages as “land being plenty in America and so cheap as that a laboring man that understands husbandry can in a short time save money enough to purchase a piece of new Land sufficient for. Plantation., whereon he may subsist a family.”[5] However, this leads to a high demand for labor.
“’This an ill-grounded opinion that by the labour of slaves, America may possibly view in the cheapness of manufactures with Britain. The labour of slaves can never be so cheap here as the labour of working men in Britain.” His first argument against slavery, therefore is that it is cheaper to have wage laborers till the land. This remark also shows scorn for the working classes in Britain, however, his anti-slavery rhetoric takes a strange turn that will inform the rest of his essay.
“The negroes brought into the English Sugar Islands have greatly diminished the whites there; the poor are by this means depriv’d of employment.”[6] In the Northern colonies, slaves are not in as high demand as the sugar plantations. However, “slaves also pejorate (pejorative) the Families that use them; the white children become proud, disgusted with labour and being educated in idleness are rendered unfit to get a Living by industry.”[7] Slaves, in other words makes white people lazy.
His final remarks concerning who should inhabit America come at the end of his essay, where he states: “the number of purely white people in the world is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new comers) wholly so… the Saxons only excepted, who with the English make the principal body of white people on the face of the earth. I could wish their numbers were increased. And while we are, as I may call it, bscouring our planet, by clearing America of woods, and so making this side of our globe reflect a brighter light to the eyes of inhabitants in Mars or Venus, why should we in the sight of superior beings, darken its people? Why increase the sons of Africa, by planting them in America, where we have so fair and opportunity, by excluding all blacks and tawneys, of increasing the lovely white and red? But perhaps I am partial to the complexion of my Country, for such kind of partiality is natural to Mankind.”[8]


The HIJACK happened on all levels!!
 

roots69

Rising Star
BGOL Investor


We've gotta start questioning every thing. They love the fact we don't ask anything and so call believe these celebrity influencers!! The truth Is RIGHT in front of ours noses. It always there! We've gotta unplug that television!!
 

Tito_Jackson

Truth Teller
Registered
This is one of my favorite threads. I have tried to convey that the history that has been told and taught to us is riddled with lies, half truths, and misinformation.

Yet, some people find it so hard to believe that many of the things that the devil has taught them are lies. Although, the devil started lying to us the moment we arrived using the Bible as their proof and support.
 

Mrfreddygoodbud

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
They have told history to our people in reverse and planted lies!! The name of the game is to, keep our people confused, misdirected, divided, miseducated, in a deep state of sleep, distracted, unfocused, and go along with the colonist story and never think about WAKING UP and wanting your property back!!


Indian Treaties and the Removal Act of 1830
The U.S. Government used treaties as one means to displace Indians from their tribal lands, a mechanism that was strengthened with the Removal Act of 1830. In cases where this failed, the government sometimes violated both treaties and Supreme Court rulings to facilitate the spread of European Americans westward across the continent.

Andrew Jackson
As the 19th century began, land-hungry Americans poured into the backcountry of the coastal South and began moving toward and into what would later become the states of Alabama and Mississippi. Since Indian tribes living there appeared to be the main obstacle to westward expansion, white settlers petitioned the federal government to remove them. Although Presidents Thomas Jefferson and James Monroe argued that the Indian tribes in the Southeast should exchange their land for lands west of the Mississippi River, they did not take steps to make this happen. Indeed, the first major transfer of land occurred only as the result of war.

In 1814, Major General Andrew Jackson led an expedition against the Creek Indians climaxing in the Battle of Horse Shoe Bend (in present day Alabama near the Georgia border), where Jackson’s force soundly defeated the Creeks and destroyed their military power. He then forced upon the Indians a treaty whereby they surrendered to the United States over twenty-million acres of their traditional land—about one-half of present day Alabama and one-fifth of Georgia. Over the next decade, Jackson led the way in the Indian removal campaign, helping to negotiate nine of the eleven major treaties to remove Indians.

Depiction of William Weatherford surrendering to Andrew Jackson after the Battle of Horseshoe Bend
Under this kind of pressure, Native American tribes—specifically the Creek, Cherokee, Chickasaw, and Choctaw—realized that they could not defeat the Americans in war. The appetite of the settlers for land would not abate, so the Indians adopted a strategy of appeasement. They hoped that if they gave up a good deal of their land, they could keep at least some a part of it. The Seminole tribe in Florida resisted, in the Second Seminole War (1835–1842) and the Third Seminole War (1855–1858), however, neither appeasement nor resistance worked.

From a legal standpoint, the United States Constitution empowered Congress to “regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.” In early treaties negotiated between the federal government and the Indian tribes, the latter typically acknowledged themselves “to be under the protection of the United States of America, and of no other sovereign whosoever.” When Andrew Jackson became president (1829–1837), he decided to build a systematic approach to Indian removal on the basis of these legal precedents.

To achieve his purpose, Jackson encouraged Congress to adopt the Removal Act of 1830. The Act established a process whereby the President could grant land west of the Mississippi River to Indian tribes that agreed to give up their homelands. As incentives, the law allowed the Indians financial and material assistance to travel to their new locations and start new lives and guaranteed that the Indians would live on their new property under the protection of the United States Government forever. With the Act in place, Jackson and his followers were free to persuade, bribe, and threaten tribes into signing removal treaties and leaving the Southeast.

In general terms, Jackson’s government succeeded. By the end of his presidency, he had signed into law almost seventy removal treaties, the result of which was to move nearly 50,000 eastern Indians to Indian Territory—defined as the region belonging to the United States west of the Mississippi River but excluding the states of Missouri and Iowa as well as the Territory of Arkansas—and open millions of acres of rich land east of the Mississippi to white settlers. Despite the vastness of the Indian Territory, the government intended that the Indians’ destination would be a more confined area—what later became eastern Oklahoma.

The Trail of Tears (Robert Lindneux, 1942)
The Cherokee Nation resisted, however, challenging in court the Georgia laws that restricted their freedoms on tribal lands. In his 1831 ruling on Cherokee Nation v. the State of Georgia, Chief Justice John Marshall declared that “the Indian territory is admitted to compose a part of the United States,” and affirmed that the tribes were “domestic dependent nations” and “their relation to the United States resembles that of a ward to his guardian.” However, the following year the Supreme Court reversed itself and ruled that Indian tribes were indeed sovereign and immune from Georgia laws. President Jackson nonetheless refused to heed the Court’s decision. He obtained the signature of a Cherokee chief agreeing to relocation in the Treaty of New Echota, which Congress ratified against the protests of Daniel Webster and Henry Clay in 1835. The Cherokee signing party represented only a faction of the Cherokee, and the majority followed Principal Chief John Ross in a desperate attempt to hold onto their land. This attempt faltered in 1838, when, under the guns of federal troops and Georgia state militia, the Cherokee tribe were forced to the dry plains across the Mississippi. The best evidence indicates that between three and four thousand out of the fifteen to sixteen thousand Cherokees died en route from the brutal conditions of the “Trail of Tears.”

With the exception of a small number of Seminoles still resisting removal in Florida, by the 1840s, from the Atlantic to the Mississippi, no Indian tribes resided in the American South. Through a combination of coerced treaties and the contravention of treaties and judicial determination, the United States Government succeeded in paving the way for the westward expansion and the incorporation of new territories as part of the United States

Hey bruh Roots keep dropping this heat....

Notice tho.. All the acts and laws to remove people happend to

"indians and negros/blacks"

because they KNOW those terms are THEIR creations, and once you ACCEPT

THEIR creations it falls under THEIR LAW...

There is a reason why there is no MOORISH removal act....

because unlike the "indian and negro" There is a Nation and the Orgin of All of Humanitys history under Moorish history.

We are the Ancients.

Berbers, Cannanites, Phoenicians, Estruscans Original Greeks not the pale faggots that came much later, those would be the "classical" faggot greeks


whom a lot of these demonic super faggy masonic and pre masonic groups are founded on... cough cough fraternities cough cough....

but I digress....

Yes they KNOW as Moorish Americans we have rights and treaties they must abide by..

but as indians, negros, africans, african american, call yourself any of these terms...

and from a legal standpoint you are just cattle to be bought and sold, but as a Moorish American.

you are above any law of an invading hybrid european species..

YOU ARE THE ONLY AMERICANS.

everyone else ESPECIALLY the hybrid european

is an invading species.....whose time to pay and leave is long

overdue
 
Top