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.
Well you do realize that Farrakhan is 100% West Indian. His father is a Jamaican immigrant and his mother is a St. Lucian immigrant. He is not African American or Black American. Also he has mixed ancestry. IJS.
And Farrakhan does NOT represent Black America or African American culture or what true positive African American-ness is and represents.
Well who does he speak for? I don't think Tupac, if he was alive, is any more or less qualified to speak for the African-American struggle than Farrakhan. You and I don't know the mans struggle.
So you think W.E.B Dubois was a better figurehead than Marcus Garvey simply because of the whereabouts? We can agree to disagree...I like the anti-establishment icon over the shill anyday. W.E.B Dubois message is embodied today in our President...who is a tool for the totalitarian state.
Maybe Farrakhan doesn't represent the direction of Black America in the most positive light but he does focus, extensively, on the importance of family values and wants to sse Black Americans to assimilate to the culture of a western nuclear family.
There is a building, a meeting hall, in San Pedro de Macoris, still standing, that was erected by followers of Marcus Garvey's UNIA almost a century ago.
Yeah that is an interesting site to visit. Although I don't agree with all of Marcus Garvey's views and works, it's an interesting slice and piece of history to bear witness too.
Garvey travelled to a lot of places and had some influence and impact.
African Americans struggle with blackness too. All black sub groups in the Americas do.
That's just the way it is when you live in a white dominated society that constructed these nations the way that the Europeans did.
But what exactly does "struggle with blackness" mean?
To look in the mirror and see that you are dark skinned? I don't know any AA or Dominican, except Sammy Sosa, that would deny this.
Is it denying your African roots? No AA does this...and any Dominican you may stumble across would cede to this as well as long as the logistics of the premise is understood..."you have African in you to.some degree"
Educated Dominicans realize they were oppressed, maimed and raped by Haitians for a long time. They are not in denial of anything.
If the OP means that Dominicans struggle with their blackness because they understand the history. Well...that's fair enough.
But I am inclined to believe that the OP is subscribing to the "You are looked at in America as a n****r just like the rest of us" rhetoric.
But what exactly does "struggle with blackness" mean?
To look in the mirror and see that you are dark skinned? I don't know any AA or Dominican, except Sammy Sosa, that would deny this.
Is it denying your African roots? No AA does this...and any Dominican you may stumble across would cede to this as well as long as the logistics of the premise is understood..."you have African in you to.some degree"
Educated Dominicans realize they were oppressed, maimed and raped by Haitians for a long time. They are not in denial of anything.
If the OP means that Dominicans struggle with their blackness because they understand the history. Well...that's fair enough.
But I am inclined to believe that the OP is subscribing to the "You are looked at in America as a n****r just like the rest of us" rhetoric.
And that is just not true. Even for AA's!!
Don't believe for a minute that the only reason so many Dominicans are of African ancestry is that they were raped by Haitians.
Don't believe for a minute that the only reason so many Dominicans are of African ancestry is that they were raped by Haitians.
Would you deny that many black female slaves in America were raped and impregnated by slave masters and civilians alike? I think it's dishonest to trivialize it.
Would you deny that many black female slaves in America were raped and impregnated by slave masters and civilians alike? I think it's dishonest to trivialize it.
You're right...one was a demographic that was enslaved and the Dominicans whole population fell on the sword.
To be fair...Dominicans have been dishing out their own flavor of savagery on the Haitians after the fact. But....that's how history goes. It will happen in America too.
I think it is nice that you would like to see an non-racial world, but this is probably the 3rd or 4th time that I have seen you write the above bolded in regards to an old racial thread, this one is pretty old BTW. Maybe it was revived due to the West Indian/Black American thread going on right now, but any-who
Slavery in America was about race. The system of chattel slavery was not in this country at the very beginnings but by the 1700s, slavery was about race. If someone was black and free, they could easily be re-enslaved just for being black or having noticeable "black blood" so to keep perpetuating the notion that slavery was not about race, in America, is not true.
I agree that around the world, slavery was not a status that one associates with the color of one's skin. There have been plenty of Asian and European and Indigenous people all over the world enslaved by their own or by other kingdoms or ethnic groups. But here in America, the system of slavery, established in the late 17th century in specific colonies was race based.
A couple of posters, from the stormfront crew like to go about the forum stating that a black person instituted slavery in America first in the Virginia Colony, but it was actually instituted via the court system in Virginia. There were 3 indentured servants who tried to escape their indenture. Two were white and one was black. All of them were caught. The two white guys got a lashing and extended servitude term, the black man was lashed and sentenced to a lifetime of enslavement. That established black as slave. They were easier to distinguish from general society. There were many indentured servants who escaped their servitudes in America. White servants were easily able to move somewhere and blend in better due to being white. Indigenous Americans were initially used as forced, unpaid labor as well, but too many of them knew the "lay of the land" so to speak and were easily able to escape, they also didn't have the natural immunity to horrible scourges of Europe that people closer to Europe (Africans and Asians) had more of an immunity to, so the natives died off easier than whites and Africans. The African was left. The African was separate in appearance and did not know the terrain and could not easily escape due to both of these. Slowly but surely, it was written into law that black equaled slave. If a black person was not a slave they could be forced into slavery and their "freeness" in many instances was ignored. I agree that slavery was deemed "matrilineal" in America, as white slave owners wanted to ensure a steady source of black slaves. They also could ensure future slaves by "breeding" with their slave women. The concept of status following the mother was not something unique to slavery. Prior to the colonies deciding to institute this practice in this country, very few societies followed this practice and it was especially not common in England where the status of children followed the father.
So you are spreading lots of misinformation or maybe just your own personal views of black not equaling slave in this country. Though there were few exceptions in regards to "free persons of color" those persons and even black slave owners themselves (and in regards to that, there were no white slaves held by black slave owners - indentured servants were not slaves BTW) could always be enslaved just because they were black. The person who the stormfronter crew likes to pretend owned the first slave - Antonio (Anthony) Johnson had his own land basically stolen from him as racism became dominant in this country and when "slave codes" and other laws went on the books in various colonies in order to ensure enslavement was synonymous with blackness (and also indigenous peoples).
For much and most of USA race relations were fairly good or decent. That took a turn in the 20th century with segregationist one droppism and Jim Crow which splintered and damaged race relations in the USA especially between 1930 and 1960, especially since the one drop rule was implemented from 1931 to 1967. That splintered and damaged race relations. Luckily race relations and mixed race identity and mixed race consciousness and more equal and better race relations was restored in 1967. Society still has a long way to go. We have come a long way though.
I think it is nice that you would like to see an non-racial world, but this is probably the 3rd or 4th time that I have seen you write the above bolded in regards to an old racial thread, this one is pretty old BTW. Maybe it was revived due to the West Indian/Black American thread going on right now, but any-who
Slavery in America was about race. The system of chattel slavery was not in this country at the very beginnings but by the 1700s, slavery was about race. If someone was black and free, they could easily be re-enslaved just for being black or having noticeable "black blood" so to keep perpetuating the notion that slavery was not about race, in America, is not true.
I agree that around the world, slavery was not a status that one associates with the color of one's skin. There have been plenty of Asian and European and Indigenous people all over the world enslaved by their own or by other kingdoms or ethnic groups. But here in America, the system of slavery, established in the late 17th century in specific colonies was race based.
A couple of posters, from the stormfront crew like to go about the forum stating that a black person instituted slavery in America first in the Virginia Colony, but it was actually instituted via the court system in Virginia. There were 3 indentured servants who tried to escape their indenture. Two were white and one was black. All of them were caught. The two white guys got a lashing and extended servitude term, the black man was lashed and sentenced to a lifetime of enslavement. That established black as slave. They were easier to distinguish from general society. There were many indentured servants who escaped their servitudes in America. White servants were easily able to move somewhere and blend in better due to being white. Indigenous Americans were initially used as forced, unpaid labor as well, but too many of them knew the "lay of the land" so to speak and were easily able to escape, they also didn't have the natural immunity to horrible scourges of Europe that people closer to Europe (Africans and Asians) had more of an immunity to, so the natives died off easier than whites and Africans. The African was left. The African was separate in appearance and did not know the terrain and could not easily escape due to both of these. Slowly but surely, it was written into law that black equaled slave. If a black person was not a slave they could be forced into slavery and their "freeness" in many instances was ignored. I agree that slavery was deemed "matrilineal" in America, as white slave owners wanted to ensure a steady source of black slaves. They also could ensure future slaves by "breeding" with their slave women. The concept of status following the mother was not something unique to slavery. Prior to the colonies deciding to institute this practice in this country, very few societies followed this practice and it was especially not common in England where the status of children followed the father.
So you are spreading lots of misinformation or maybe just your own personal views of black not equaling slave in this country. Though there were few exceptions in regards to "free persons of color" those persons and even black slave owners themselves (and in regards to that, there were no white slaves held by black slave owners - indentured servants were not slaves BTW) could always be enslaved just because they were black. The person who the stormfronter crew likes to pretend owned the first slave - Antonio (Anthony) Johnson had his own land basically stolen from him as racism became dominant in this country and when "slave codes" and other laws went on the books in various colonies in order to ensure enslavement was synonymous with blackness (and also indigenous peoples).
What you posted here is completely false. Slavery had nothing to do with race. Slavery was MATRILINEAL. This was based on the sexist mysoginistic rule of matriliny or rather the rule of PARTUS SEQUITUR VENENTRUM. That means that you were only allowed to be a slave or be a potential target or candidate for enslavement if your MOTHER was a slave. There were slaves of ALL races, including large numbers of WHITE slaves. It was illegal to have race based slavery or to enslave someone for because of their race. Such was punishable and one would receive notable severe consequences for such. Also colonial documents don't even refer to a blacks as slaves or vice versa or that such is equivalent to such. During slavery, a person's race wad determined based on what they looked like. So if a person was mixed race during the colonial period but looked white they most often times would be considered WHITE. If they looked very mixed or identified as such they'd be labelled as mixed etc.
Not all race mixing was from rape. There were lots of complex arrangements and circumstances, unions and relationships that occurred between people of different races. In fact many WHITE woman even had children with BLACK men.
If during the early colonial antebellum era, they had enslaved people based on their race the WHITE fathers would have been held more responsible or been and acknowledged and possibly chastised. Under partus SEQUITUR ventrum support could be provided behind the scenes and under hush hush agreements, with sole focus and onus, focus, and blame being put on and centered on and around the woman.
Btw, there were masters, "massas", slave traders, captors, colonists, settlers etc of all races and race mixtures. There were also enslaved peoples of all races and racial admixtures and mixes.
As for the one drop rule no such thing existed during the antebellum colonial era or during slavery. One drop rule was a legal rule instituted on the books and in practice beginning in the 1930s. Mulatto and various other mixed race identities were recognized in the USA and on the censuses for virtually all of USA history. 1930 was the last year that mulatto and mixed race identity was legally recognized. After 1930 many ppl that identified as or were usually listed as mulatto or other or mixed had to get used to the risk of being possible mistaken for or listed as Negro or black etc. Many still weren't used to it and many still identified as mixed even during the one drop rule period. In some aspects it was also some black and mixed race black individuals that helped to support and boast/bolster the racist one drop rule, and many sectors of white and mixed race white elites didn't want a one drop rule, however some people of African descent grew arrogantly proud of their ethnic African American identity so they one dropped themselves and others. But this was only a tiny minority of ppl of color that advocated onr droppism. Most people were anti one droppist. One drop rule was put in place because of white supremacy and economic and social CLASS distinction and protection and to increase further division and create further competition. The one drop rule was a legal rule that sought to target people of mixed ancestry, and those whose ancestry was questionable. There was also a racist one drop rule that was applied to target Native Americans although it was not as severe as the hypodescent one drop rule method that was used to target blacks.
100 years ago In states like Oklahoma and Ohio legally someone like Obama would have been legally and socially treated as and considered a WHITE man.
One drop rule was only implemented from 1930 to 1967. The successful 1967 Sulreme Court Case ruling of Loving V. Virginia helped eradicate and dismantle the racist one drop rule. In 1967 mixed race and multiracial identity and conciousness was further restored in the USA.
So mixed race identity faced paper genocide because of the implementing of the one drop rule in the South from 1930 to 1967. It did a lot of damage. Had there not been a one drop rule the USA probably would not have the racial controversies and hang ups in the manner that still seems to permeate some aspects of USA society.
For much and most of USA race relations were fairly good or decent. That took a turn in the 20th century with segregationist one droppism and Jim Crow which splintered and damaged race relations in the USA especially between 1930 and 1960, especially since the one drop rule was implemented from 1931 to 1967. That splintered and damaged race relations. Luckily race relations and mixed race identity and mixed race consciousness and more equal and better race relations was restored in 1967. Society still has a long way to go. We have come a long way though.
So race relations were "fairly good or decent" when people of African descent were enslaved and considered 3/5ths of a human being?
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.
