Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
“After World War II, a new consensus emerged in the United States and Europe that Jews had to be integrated posthumously into white Europeanness, and that the horror of the Jewish holocaust was essentially a horror at the murder of white Europeans. Since the 1960s, Hollywood films about the holocaust began to depict Jewish victims of Nazism as white Christian-looking, middle class, educated and talented people not unlike contemporary European and American Christians who should and would identify with them. Presumably if the films were to depict the poor religious Jews of Eastern Europe (and most East European Jews who were killed by the Nazis were poor and many were religious), contemporary white Christians would not find commonality with them. Hence, the post-holocaust European Christian horror at the genocide of European Jews was not based on the horror of slaughtering people in the millions who were different from European Christians, but rather a horror at the murder of millions of people who were the same as European Christians. This explains why in a country like the United States, which had nothing to do with the slaughter of European Jews, there exists upwards of 40 holocaust memorials and a major museum for the murdered Jews of Europe, but not one for the holocaust of Native Americans or African Americans for which the US is responsible.”
—
The Last of the Semites by Joseph Massad
How can Africans be "classist" when they're immigrating to the west where Black Americans fought for civil rights and equality in order to achieve a better quality of life? Having a classist attitude towards Black Americans is both perplexing and irritating. It's not like there's a great African nation in contemporary era held to as higher standard of living and opportunities where all Blacks in the West are striving to achieve.
Your previous post noted that most Africans aren't open with their unfavorable views on Black Americans, yet west African immigrants in particular are coming from third world countries. Last time I checked, western Blacks are not immigrating to west African countries for better opportunities. It's laughable for west Africans to have such a "classist" attitude towards Black Americans given the state of their individual nation's economies, political and social systems. No, I've found a few Africans do not care whether or not a Black American is educated and well established in their field because it's all about presenting themselves as "the better black person" to white westerners. It's funny because most whites seemingly do not care either way nor seem to have a favorable view of African immigrants anymore than they do Black Americans since most western whites share cultural experiences, either good or bad, with western Blacks.
Given tribal civil wars, corrupt governments, poverts, faminine, slow economic development of certain west African countries, perhaps most Africans should re-assess projecting classism to Black Americans since many have not lived in west African societies since their ancestors were stolen, captured, and sold to the colonies. Competing with Black Americans who are descendants of enslaved Africans sold to the colonies by certain west African and Arab slave merchants and chiefs during the Atlantic slave trade are the least of west African's classist problems.
The funny thing is that some of those West African immigrants to the USA may have had ancestors that were at some point enslaved in Africa by Arabs or Europeans or other African tribes or all of the above and much more lol. So contradictions and hypocrisies knows absolutely no bounds.
...
The blood is on the hands of European colonies AND African tribes and kingdoms who participated, benefited, and prospered off the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, and will never, ever wash off.
It will have to wash off eventually.
I'm a caribbean and I'm of course aware of the role of the west-african coastal kingdoms in this historical tragedy. It's important that everyone involved acknowledge their role, but we must move on eventually.
...
I also think that in the following video Dr. Gates touches the issue as for why many people try to diminish the role the Africans played in the slave trade, when in fact, if the Africans had never accepted to get into that business, there would had been no slave trade to begin with:
...
To be more precise it'd have been very difficult.
Until the late 19th century, Europeans really didn't fare well when they tried to go inside sub-saharan Africa. They dropped like flies. In Angola, the Portuguese and some natives merged to create a mulatto people who were called the Lançados. Because they were mixed race ( but of purtuguese culture), those lançados were able to survive the african environment and they were pretty much the only europeans (if you can call them that ) who were able to go get the slaves themselves. Elsewhere along the coast, there were local peoples who took care of that trade and they were very jealous of their position and would certainly not welcome Europeans going to get the slaves themselves.
One notices that the east-african "arab" slavers were also very much mixed race.
It was probably easier for them to roam the African interior than for real arabs.
...
However, we have to consider that Africans were never one unified body or grouping of people. Europeans were enslaving other Europeans on the bases of serfdom and class and religion. Christian Europeans enslaved other Christian Europeans.
I'm pretty sure that was absolutely forbidden by the Church, which is why the slave reservoirs in Europe were always the pagan peoples. The Franks (christian Germanics) enslaved other Germanics, Balts and Slavs while those folks were pagans. In general, pagans were disorganized and ignorant and thus very easy to divide, conquer and enslave.
The Slavs in particular remained pagan and disorganized for a long time and they were subject to enslavement by everyone from the christianized Germanics, to the Vikings to the Turks and Arabs.
The Europeans didn't make many muslim slaves. In fact it was the muslims (Ottomans from the whole southern shore of the mediterranean) who were more successful in enslaving them until very, very recently in history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MelismaticEchoes
Because it falls into the Eurocentric construct of "oh the Africans don't respect themselves doing harm to each other". We have to make sure we look at it from a fair manner and lens. The concept of blackness and Africanness are imposed constructs from outside of the very region and landless such factions were imposed upon, and further ensconced upon. So keep that in mind.
I certainly keep it in mind. In general, the "civilized world" names and classifies the rest of the world.
On a smaller scale you can see it even in European history itself. Who told the Germanics that they were Germanic ? It's the Romans who told them that and gave them that name, which they adopted.
Who told the Gauls that they were Gauls and not just a bunch of warring tribes ? Again, the Romans.
Africans have been "named" by outsiders but we're far from being the only peoples to have been "named" and "grouped" like that. Often, the external grouping takes a life of its own. Nowadays black Africans ( and diaporans) have some kind of common identity that our ancestors from 600 years ago had no idea of.
By the way, classist behavior is typical of upwardly mobile groups.
African immigrants living in the same neighborhoods as poorer AAs don't have any reason to feel aloof. There may be a disconnect due to cultural differences but that's about it.
But African Americans from a higher social class exhibit just as much aloofness to their poorer AA counterparts as Africans with a higher pay grade.
In Europe, AA expatriates (the ones I have met) are VERY classist and aloof towards African immigrants.
Past slave returnees are now exclusive social class in certain African countries (such as Liberia)- where they believe that they are superior to the natives.
As we say in my home country - "Nobody holy pass."
Why should one be forced to relate to the lowest classes of people who look a bit like you ?
The AA expatriates in Europe that you speak of are probably fairly accomplished people.
I'm taking a course right now on the internet taught by an african-american math prof at École Polytechnique. The guy must be really, really, really good because there was no way any kind of affirmative action was involved. In any case, what does that man have in common with the riffraff in the banlieues ?
If he has sons and daughters, does he want them to be culturally patterned after those stuck in the banlieues who don't value school very much ? The situation of the illiterare Malians is not his fault. He has a life to live.
Just the same, when you have an accomplished African professional who moves to the usa with his intact family and his hard work values and his love of academia, why should he have to relate to the lowest of the low in the ghetto ?
I'm pretty sure that was absolutely forbidden by the Church, which is why the slave reservoirs in Europe were always the pagan peoples. The Franks (christian Germanics) enslaved other Germanics, Balts and Slavs while those folks were pagans. In general, pagans were disorganized and ignorant and thus very easy to divide, conquer and enslave.
The Slavs in particular remained pagan and disorganized for a long time and they were subject to enslavement by everyone from the christianized Germanics, to the Vikings to the Turks and Arabs.
The Europeans didn't make many muslim slaves. In fact it was the muslims (Ottomans from the whole southern shore of the mediterranean) who were more successful in enslaving them until very, very recently in history.
I certainly keep it in mind. In general, the "civilized world" names and classifies the rest of the world.
On a smaller scale you can see it even in European history itself. Who told the Germanics that they were Germanic ? It's the Romans who told them that and gave them that name, which they adopted.
Who told the Gauls that they were Gauls and not just a bunch of warring tribes ? Again, the Romans.
Africans have been "named" by outsiders but we're far from being the only peoples to have been "named" and "grouped" like that. Often, the external grouping takes a life of its own. Nowadays black Africans ( and diaporans) have some kind of common identity that our ancestors from 600 years ago had no idea of.
I think you misunderstood me. I noted lots of what you stated above on here and elsewhere on numerous threads. But I was stating a fact additionally that there were Christians that enslaved other Christians. Nothing more or nothing less.
And I stated earlier that Arabs and Muslims had many white slaves. In fact race distinctions and divisions mostblikely originated with the Arabs and their slave trade around the globe since they had white slaves and black slaves among others, and white became associated with good and black become associated with lazy but more suited for doing hard slavery work, and this concept would travel to the Iberian peninsula, and other places would begin to adopt it.
In addition class and lifestyle had a lot to do with the distinctions as well, since upper class tended to be inside more and did less dirty work and were cleaner and therefore had clarity and lightness but poor people were often doing the dirty work toiling in rubbish or dirt or fields and this manifested in poor being associated with dirtiness and darkness and that's likely where the origins stem from.
In addition slavery was ubiquitous and similar across the world, especially in the New World. In colonial 13 original colonies and after, slavery was mostly always based on partus sequitur ventrum which meant that slavery was based on the mother. One could only be enslaved based on the status of the mother or maternal ancestor. It had nothing to do with race as there were slaves of all races.
In fact most of or much of the first slaves were whites and Europeans and many of the Africans arriving to the New World were free and never enslaved. Many Africans were free and were NEVER enslaved. So we have to keep that mind as well.
The Ashanti, the tribe I belong to were major slave exporters, it was their biggest source of foreign exchange.
They were very upset when the British forced them to stop the slave trade.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
