D. Smith said...
Can't forget the Sundry Act of 1790 that exempt four South Carolina "black" families from being subject to Negro Law... as they provided evidence of their being in the direct bloodline of Morocan royalty.The US has held this treaty with Morroco since 1757 I believe...they know what's up. I feel that this is a perfect example of why we are taught that we are nothing but Black/Colored/Negro/African-Afro Americans...because their is no tie to sovereignty or nationality in any of those labels. Black is nothing but status, look at the Chinese in South Africa:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7461099.stm
Nothing more than status...and a label of second class citizenship.
13 comments:
Very Good stuff.
" ...why we are taught that we are nothing but Black/Colored/Negro/African-Afro Americans...because their is no tie to sovereignty or nationality in any of those labels. "
This is also why many Africans feel no connection to Blacks. Is it a good thing?
While I agree. There is something missing....still thinking...lol.
I believe it was the Moorish Sundry Act of 1789...Could be off on my date though.
From a previous post:
"So D Smith, are you know advocating that we reject the "black" label? Or simply redefine it?" -Big Man
I would redefine it:
Black: aboriginal and indigenous people of Amexum and all previously connected territories (NW Amexum is North America for example). Here's an interesting link regarding "Amexum" and other forgotten points in US history (of course you google to your heart's content Amexum and Northwest Amexum to find even more info). I don't think anyone would disagree that the original man on this planet was indeed Black; we get caught up in modern terminology in speaking of ancient civilizations, so it is easy for someone to denounce the possibility of Black people inhabiting all points when referencing current geography and labeling:
http://geography.about.com/cs/historicalgeog/a/amerigo.htm
North America wasn't North America until Amerigo Vespucci came into the picture according to the above link. You can hear cats yellin' "Wasn't no Black people already in North America before they were brought from Africa!" But if at one point this was one land mass and we have existed for thousands of years, ther's no denying it. You can't deny Pangea, plate tectonics, conquests that have changed the names of continents and countries, and so forth. DV threw up a post regarding all these being "easily digestible" when presented by white scientists. I recall hearing about Pangea, the Bering Strait, plate tectonics and other phenomenon in middle school (somewhere between the sixth and eigth grade).
And when all else fails, that fine sista in school talking about "I got Indian in my family" wasn't for bullsh!ttin'...
"I believe it was the Moorish Sundry Act of 1789...Could be off on my date though." -Ensayn1
This links here mentions the Moors Sundry Act being established between 1789-1790. I think I found info on Wikipedia that referred to 1790; in verifying the year I found info mentioning both...so I'll split it with ya...=)
http://azizan_moors.tripod.com/docs/History.html
http://sciway3.net/clark/freemoors/journal.htm
"This is also why many Africans feel no connection to Blacks. Is it a good thing?" -O. Mahogany
I have a good friend who is an older gentleman from Ghana, and when I asked him about this, he mentioned that alot of it is the cultural differences...in that "American Blacks" for the most part have been completed devoid of some of the cultural aspects they practice in Africa. Our culture for the most part is based on European ideologies and practices...for example chitlin's and basketball are "Black thangs" here, but slave era food scraps and James Naismith don't really get no play in the Motherland. Several friends and I used to get teased all the time in school because we played soccer..."aw you ain't Black! Black people don't play soccer!" Anybody who knows better sees soccer being played by Black people worldwide, probably moreso than any other sport.
It may be a lot more to it than that, so I don't want to just limit it to cultural differences...but that's what I've heard for the most part.
I'm trackin with yall, conceptually....but note that Pangea and any plate tectonic'isms pre-date human history, so that argument may want to be reconsidered...but what your're talking about is important.
....I feel you, D. Smith...
"American Blacks" for the most part have been completed devoid of some of the cultural aspects they practice in Africa. Our culture for the most part is based on European ideologies and practices...for example chitlin's and basketball are "Black thangs" here, but slave era food scraps and James Naismith don't really get no play in the Motherland"
"but note that Pangea and any plate tectonic'isms pre-date human history," JH
So dey say Bra.
So dey say.
But dem muhfuggahs.
Been wrong about a WHOLE LOTTA shit.
When it comes to history, nothing is off the table.
Pangea is Bull sh#t!
click here
and
click here
See and listen- Expanding earth series...
Click here
"he mentioned that alot of it is the cultural differences...in that "American Blacks" for the most part have been completed devoid of some of the cultural aspects they practice in Africa." D. Smiff
Bra D!
You got me thinking.
You know ... that's been the most proffered meme regarding the differences between so-called African Americans and Africans.
The implication is that something was "lacking" in African Americans.
But upon closer examination, I think that is not the case at all.
Ever watch Africans box? Compare an African boxer to a black American boxer.
They don't move the same.
Watch brothers from the states play basketball. No one else on the planet moves like that.
Put a brother on stage.
Nobody can move the crowd like we can. (Except Jamaicans).
Nah, D. Please tell your Ghanaian friend ... blacks in America aint LOSE nothing.
We brought some shit with us and we gained while we were here.
Watched the flicks Bra Wax.
Fascinating.
What is your take?
....BLACK is my street cred. I won't be giving that up anytime soon. ;)
...thank you gentleman.
DV,
You know that the plantation has long turned a blind eye to the obvious conclusions which scientific evidence is indicating.
Neal Adam's research says:
Our planet Earth is growing.
The sun and the moon are also growing, as are all the planets in our solar system.
All the celestial bodies in the universe are growing!!!!
If you break down his raw science of a "Positron" that he talks about with Art Bell - it goes like this:
"The New Hydrogen Nucleus Structure is a geometric model which demonstrates a count calculation of the layered Prime Matter particles bound by the force of a core positron, to form a proton. As an electron is attracted to the new proton, a new Hydrogen atom is born.
In this elegant theory for emergence of new atomic matter in the universe, Neal Adams states that new protons effectively emerge in the cores of celestial bodies through layered accumulation of 918 Prime Matter particles around a positron, in a process commencing with Pair Production.
A Prime Matter particle is the combined electron and positron fields which are theorized to neutralize each other upon converging in the Positronium state, thus rendering themselves undetectable and are assumed to annihilate.
Each Prime Matter particle carries an electron weight of two (2), one positron and one electron. The accumulated electron weight of the predicted 918 Prime Matter particles in the model is therefore 1836, same as the electron weight of a proton.
A verifiable calculation of the number of particles in a geometrically sound model is considered crucial to the veracity of Positron-to-Proton Theory.
Everything is growing."
Click here
Waaaaa.......That is some heavy Sh#t.
That might be a little hard, however,
Try this:
When magma solidifies it becomes more dense, thick, and carries more mass when it cools and expands to become rock. Hence a small point in the theory for the expansion of our planet in regards to mass.
True?
Might makes sense- however ......
We ain't even in the game.
Still talking about tectonic plates.
We were thought in school a theory that once upon a couple hundred million years ago, a supercontinent called Pangaea splintered into the globe as we now see it. Floated? Smash into each other?
All BS Bra.
They are some scientific papers that proves that there was no giant landmass surrounded by water.
I think that the Neal Adam's video is spot on that about 250 million years ago, the earth was smaller and covered completely with land.
It ain't nothing new Bra......in 1933 , Ott C. Hilgenberg, a German scientist proposed a similar idea and the earth was just one landmass . They called it "Ottland". The research then prove then that the earth expanded and Ottland broke into the seven continents as we now know them.
We are finding out more and more that people in the "geo-sciences" have been progressing along the wrong path since the 1940s and before. It’s now a question of going back in time and finding where the errors are, correcting them and progressing forward in a new direction.”
For example, the concept of “mantle convection,” a theory that heat currents shift tectonic plates has been disproven and is having a hard time holding up to rigorous science scrutiny.
Finally, DV you know that I believe in Abiotic oil more than anyone and Neal's model verifies that concept since this research indicates that the earth may be creating oil from mantle methane and perhaps abiotic hydrocarbons.
It now gives the reason why those [new oil] discoveries are [on the continental shelves] and behooves Americans to really support the efforts of the oil companies to drill in continental margins because that’s likely where a lot will be found. Think now of the BP scam that have now shut down that drilling.:)
Whoooooaaaaaaa.
Waxxxxxxx.
You on another level dude.
Thanks for the education.
Post a Comment