Category Archives: African

The True Story of Rhodesia and Zimbabwe

RL: Yeah, and 1/2 of the Black population was starving. It is not like that now.

Jason Yiddish: This is in reference to Rhodesia? Interesting, sources?

It’s well known and I did a piece on it, actually.

Yeah, sure Rhodesia was a food exporter. Because all their food was going for export! How bout that?

This is not dissimilar to many Latin American countries where half the population is starving, yet they are also “food exporters” because all of the crops grown are cash crops for export on land owned by a few rich people in countries were 2% of the landowners own almost all of the land. All the rest of the people are landless peasants working for peanuts or scraping out a living on marginal land. The country does not grow enough food to feed their people. For a long time the project of the Left down there, described as Communism by the US and the US media, was actually more like, “We are trying to figure out a way to feed our people.” A pretty simple project. Apparently if you are trying to figure out a way to grow food for your people, according to the US government, you must be a Communist.

About 2% of the landowners owned almost all of the good land in Rhodesia. Coincidentally, they were all White people! Gosh, how did that happen? All of these crops were grown for cash exports. The country was not growing enough food to feed their people. All of the rural Blacks were either landless peasants working on White farms for peanuts or forced onto marginal land which they farmed inefficiently, resulting in poor yields. Incidentally, large scale farming on marginal land was causing a lot of erosion, and this was getting to be a serious problem. Much of the country was literally eroding away.

As part of the transition, the 2,000 White farmers who owned all the good land were supposed to sell their land. But the US and especially UK (because the farmers were mostly British) dragged their heels and dragged out the process endlessly. Bottom line is they were not going to sell out for any money, with the support of the US and UK.

Most of Mugabe’s supporters were war veterans. The war veterans wanted the land situation resolved. They were getting increasingly angry about the situation. Mugabe kept warning the Anglos that the situation was getting out of hand, and he would not be able to control his supporters any longer. The Anglos did nothing but continue to drag their heels.

Eventually the situation exploded and the war veterans rioted all across the land, seizing the White farms. It was not as violent as the racists make it out to be. Seven Whites were killed, but that wasn’t all of them. There were 25,000 in the country. Mostly the Whites just left.

The Blacks did not know how to run the farms, so they basically destroyed them and in a pretty moronic way to boot. When this happened, it was what Mugabe had been trying to avoid all this time, but it was his supporters doing it, and he felt he could not go against them, so he cheered it on. He also did not want the farms dismantled by them. Mugabe wanted the Whites to sell out peacefully and then continue to have large farms run more or less by the state or just break them up into small farms. The Blacks did not know how to run large farms. A large farm is a business, and it requires quite a bit of smarts to run one, which the Blacks did not have. But of course the Blacks could grow food crops on small plots! They’d been doing it for millennia! Blacks even started plantation agriculture in East Africa before Discovery.

Unfortunately this turned into a disgusting meme egged on by the corporate media called more or less, “Niggers Are So Stupid, They Can’t Even Grow Food!” Although this meme was rather humorous, obviously that’s not true because that is how they survived there for millennia. Of course all of the White nationalists on the Web continue to flog this dead horse endlessly. Did you know? Black people are so stupid that they can’t even grow food? They’re too dumb to even grow food! How dumb can you get?

You have to admit that this whole mess was pretty racist. The US and UK holding a whole country hostage because 2,000 Whites, who own all the good land, refused to sell out. The Blacks scraping away an existence on marginal land and the country eroding away as a consequence. Half of the Blacks starving and malnourished.

This is a hardcore racist foreign policy any way you cut the cake. And this was going on during the Presidency of Bill Clinton, supposedly a friend of Blacks who was jokingly regarded as the First Black President. So we are still a quite racist country in how we conduct our foreign policy, even when we have a so-called liberal Democrat president! God forbid how we act when Republicans get in. Black people better duck and cover.

For standing up to the US and UK, the two countries put the Zimbabwe under severe financial sanctions. No bank on Earth could deal with them. Of course, after a while this completely ruined the economy. Thing is, Blacks eat better now under Mugabe than they did in Rhodesia.

Mugabe has been beaten to Hell and back by the corporate media and the Anglo governments. Boy, do they hate him. You see, he stood up to us, gave us the finger, and told us to go fuck ourselves. Remember Castro did the same thing. So did the Iranians and Hezbollah.

The Empire does not tolerance insolent brats among its slave colonies. America usually declares war in some way or other against anyone who has the balls to stand up to us and tell us to fuck off. The US usually organizes guerrilla wars against these countries, tries to topple them with coups, puts them under sanctions to ruin their economies, etc. All the above entities got that treatment. We just won’t tolerate any uppity non-Whites, and we certainly do not tolerate slave rebellions in our colonies. The only appropriate way for most countries to address the US is, “Yes massa?”

Yes, Zimbabwe was screwed up for a long time, but that was 100% due to the sanctions and 0% due to anything else. They have managed to climb out of most of the mess. The farm situation is slowly being resolved. Whites have even been asked to come back to farm lands, under strict regulation of course.

A reporter recently went to the capital of Zimbabwe, Harare, and said it was nothing like how the media described it. It was clean and peaceful. Couples ate lunch in the parks on work breaks. All medical care is free, and he visited a brand new imaging center run by competent physicians. He even went to the worst slums, which were not so great. However, he said that those were probably the nicest looking slums in Africa. In other words, every other country has worse slums than Zimbabwe. Mugabe is a socialist, and the state has all sorts of social programs to help the people, and this keeps the country from collapsing to typical Sub-Saharan levels of chaos.

Mugabe has enjoyed strong support all through this mess. The people stood by him even when the place had completely fallen apart. The Opposition only has the support of 1/3 of the population at most. They are deeply in bed with the US and the UK and their project is full neoliberalism with privatization of all state functions. Zimbabweans have had a taste of Mugabe’s socialism, and they like it. They are not real keen on free market economics (in fact, they are not popular anywhere in Africa), and most African ruling parties have the words socialist, Left, progressive, popular, labor, etc. in their names. In fact, such is the case in most of the world. The US is one of the few populations that actually supports neoliberalism. Everyone else hates it.

The Opposition in Zimbabwe are also seen as Quislings, traitors and sellouts to the West. Mugabe is the man who led an anti-colonial rebellion and liberated their homeland from the colonists. Mugabe gives the people a sense of pride, whereas the Opposition seem like a bunch of sellouts. So here we see as in the Arab World and South Africa that people would rather be poor and free than wealthier and in chains.

The media turned the collapse of the Zimbabwean state then turned into “Niggers Can’t Even Run Countries!” This meme was also populated by the corporate media and both the US and UK. Like everything was going fine when Whites were running the show and growing the food, but everything quickly went to Hell when the country was turned over to Blacks because Niggers can’t run countries or grow food. You know, only White people can do that.

The whole matter is disgusting. Almost no one knows the true story, and the behavior of the US government and the corporate media has been so racist, it is sickening.

84 Comments

Filed under Africa, African, Agricutlure, Americas, Asia, Blacks, Britain, Colonialism, Cuba, Democrats, East Africa, Economics, Europe, Government, History, Imperialism, Iran, Journalism, Latin America, Left, Modern, Neoliberalism, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Radical Islam, Regional, Socialism, South Africa, US Politics, War, White Nationalism, White Racism, Whites

Africans Are Not “Stone Age” People

Now I am not defending the United States. It’s actually inferior to Canada, New Zealand or Australian white settler colonies in many ways.

But this is mostly because a great deal of stone-age people were imported as slaves or Spanish soldiers raped Red Women in the Southwest 5 times a day back in the 1700’s to create a vast Mixed underclass.

Please do not call African Blacks “Stone Age people.” That is how the White Nationalists talk. Africans had had agriculture for 12,000 years when they were imported to the US. Stone Age people don’t have agriculture. I get so tired of listening to White Nationalists call Africans Stone Age people.

Agriculture itself rose in Africa. Africans were probably the first humans to practice agriculture.

There was little if any breeding between Spaniards and Indians in the US Southwest. That was all happening south of the border.

174 Comments

Filed under Africa, African, Agricutlure, Amerindians, Anthropology, Blacks, Cultural, History, North America, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Spaniards, The Americas, USA, West, White Nationalism

Can Ancient Egyptians Be Classified as Caucasian?

Modern Egyptians have some admixture from West Asian invaders, Hyskos, Greeks, Persians, Arabs, Berbers, Levantines, Mamluks etc. So they will look lighter and more Caucasoid than the Ancient Egyptians. There is also some Black admixture; they were after all conquered by the Nubians, and later Islam brought slavery, but looking at some of the pre-Nubian statues, there already were some Blacks in Ancient Egypt in high positions.

The best representation of Ancient Egyptians is from the mural in the Tomb of Seti. In Gates’ book, The Races of Man, the Ancient Egyptians portray themselves as brownish, while the Semites and Berbers are portrayed as White and the Nubians as Black.

Ancient Egyptians in my humble opinion are their own distinct group.

How will modern Egyptians look more Caucasoid than the Dynastic Egyptians? The Dynastics were 13% Black, and the modern Egyptians are 30% Black, 20% in the north and 40% in the south. The Black percentage of the stock has increased by 2.5X, and the Caucasoid percentage of the stock has decreased by 20%. Given that, how could they possibly look more Caucasoid?

The problem here is that we look at these ancient races through modern lenses. Caucasoids in some parts of the world looked quite different than they do now.

And this is true not only of Caucasoids but of other races too. Racial stocks existed then which have vanished from the Earth. Kennewick Man’s race has vanished. There is not a trace of his race left. There are only a few minor races that look somewhat like Kennewick in the sense that they place closest to him on a graph, but they are not his people. His people are gone.

The ancient Romans are gone. There is nothing left of them at all. It is another vanished race. Sure, the modern Italians have evolved from them, but few if any modern Italians are actually “Romans” because this racial stock has vanished.

It is clearly the same with the ancient Egyptians with the caveat that skull studies show broad continuity between modern and ancient Egyptians. Modern Egyptians look more like Dynastics than any other stock on the planet does, but in general, they are not Dynastics.

The Dynastics were a peculiar Caucasoid race that has vanished from the Earth. However, based on studies of skulls and even genes, the Dynastics were absolutely Caucasian. The skulls plot clearly Caucasian on a graph. And 87% of the genes are derived from the surrounding region, mostly from the ancient Levant where the pre-Dynastics originated prior to 13,000 YBP. At that time, these archaic Levant Caucasians moved out of the Levant, down into Egypt and over time evolved into the Dynastics.

47 Comments

Filed under Africa, African, Anthropology, Antiquity, Egypt, Egyptians, History, North Africa, North Africans, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, Regional

Dynastic Egyptian Phenotypes in Modern Day Egypt

There is very strong continuity between ancient Egypt and modern Egypt in genes and skulls. The bottom line is that Egyptians have not changed a whole lot other than getting Blacker. Ancient Egyptians were 13% Black and modern Egyptians are 30% Black, so the Black genes have more than doubled.

There are still many modern Egyptians with an ancient Egyptian of Pharoanic phenotype. You can especially find them in the Copts. The Copts are said to be the closest modern Egyptians to the Dynastic Egyptians possibly because they never kept Black slaves as the Muslim Egyptians probably did. Muslims who kept Black slaves often bred in with their slaves and as a result in many ME countries, the Christian population is a lot lighter and Whiter looking than the Black population.

I have some photos of some Dynastic Egyptians that I put up at the end of the piece. I am not sure what they look like. I would say they are Caucasoid, but they are very odd looking Caucasians and they almost look sort of Oriental in the eyes. The nose is very long, narrow and straight. Hair is dark and straight or sometimes wavy.

The skin color is quite dark, however it has a very olive tinge. The mix between a more or less European phenotype and the quite dark skin seems shocking at first. I also knew a Coptic Christian pharmacist and his sister who worked at a pharmacy I used to go to. Their skin was quite dark. They were absolutely Caucasians and they looked  broadly Europid, but I must say that they were some of the strangest and most exotic looking Caucasians I have ever seen.

Modern day dynastic Egyptians often do not really look like European Whites because the phenotype does not exist in Europe. But they sure don’t look like Black people either. Who do they look like? They don’t really look like anyone!

I suppose if you sat back and thought about it, there seem to be some Arabs or possibly Berbers who look like this, especially in the Arabian Peninsula, but they don’t exactly look like those  people. Berberids with a Qaddafi-type phenotype may be an even better resemblance but I am not very familiar with Libyan phenotypes and the ancient Egyptians distinguished themselves from the Carthaginians as much as they did from the Nubians of the South.

Modern Dynastic Egyptians look like, well, Egyptians! The ancient Egyptian phenotype is quite and while broadly Caucasoid, they are best placed into a separate category all of their own.

Participants of Miss Egypt 2007 competition pose at a news conference in Cairo

Participants of Miss Egypt 2007 competition pose at a news conference in Cairo April 20, 2007. The final ceremony will be held on April 23 in Cairo. REUTERS/Nasser Nuri (EGYPT)

The woman on the far right in the first row is a classic modern day Dynastic Egyptian. Note that she looks a bit Asiatic. The woman in the first row on the far left also shares the phenotype but not in as marked a manner. The woman in the second from right, first row looks the least Dynastic Egyptian of the three, but she does retain some of the look. Note that the woman in the center first row looks almost Asiatic. I am not sure whether she resembles a Dynastic Egyptian at all.

37 Comments

Filed under Africa, African, Anthropology, Antiquity, Blacks, Christianity, Egypt, Egyptians, History, Islam, North Africa, North Africans, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Religion

“Niger Delta Beaters,” by Phil

Commenter Phil wrote another guest post for us, this time on the different ethnic groups among the Igbo tribe of Nigeria and how they are different in temperament, industriousness and wealth.
Touching upon my original topic posted a while back, I will return to my studies on the Igbo. This particular group has had a particularly long reputation for an industrious lifestyle and even on occasion having a better temperament than most Blacks in Native Africa as well as being the bulk of the successful Nigerian immigrants along with the Edo group. However, these stereotypes do not represent the full picture of the Igbo. Here I will look at multiple Igbo populations and point out ways in which they differed.
While doing research, I’ve noted that there are two Igbo populations that were described as typical savages –  the Kingdom of Eboe and the tribe of cannibals known as the Mokoes.
Eboe or “Aboh”, was a trading Kingdom that had a population that was repeatedly described as a savage despite having a King that was described at least by the Lander Brothers as behaving in a civilized manner.  Quaws or Mokoes were well known as a wild and violent class of slaves that were likely the part of the Igbo that later led slave rebellions on slave ships or New World plantations during the slave trade. These frequent rebellions led to the Igbos being seen by slavers were seen as an undesirable tribe for the slave market.
Other Igbos were seen by slavers as much more desirable. The group of yellowish-skinned Igbos were recorded, despite being at times just as violent as the Mokoes, as not typically docile and fearful, which led many to commit suicide.  However, with intervention, they were known to be good house servants yet were too frail and idle for field work due to being in poor physical condition when they left Africa.
As a prominent trading center, the inhabitants of Opodo were described as  industrious people. They were also noted to be cannibals but only in a ceremonial sense rather than as a staple diet like other tribes. This group may be identical to the Igbos who went to Liberia, who were described as wild in character and appearance yet industrious at the same time.
Another Igbo group was the Awka. They were the dominant blacksmiths of the area and would travel distances to sell their goods to other villages. Thomas Northcote, probably the greatest recorder of Ibo customs, described them as particularly wealthy and in good health compared to the other tribes. He based this view on the number of wives they had, the comments of local medicine men and his own observations of them.
The Asaba were a similar group. Northcote noted that their market was well organized, and a missionary report described them as wealthy. I will discuss the Asaba more in later posts.
Finally we have the “Breches”. These Igbos occupied a high class in the Igbo ranking order and were described by Hugh Crow as dark in pigment and good in temper. A group in America called the Egba-Breches were probably people from the same group who were taken as slaves. It is speculated that Olaudah Equiano was from this group. But he was probably not born into the group as he lacked the group’s traditional scars. Instead he was probably taken into the Breches  from another group as a child.
In future posts, I will continue to explore some of my ideas about why these different Igbo groups differed so sharply in temperament.

 

25 Comments

Filed under Africa, African, Anthropology, Blacks, Cultural, Guest Posts, History, Nigeria, Nigerians, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, West Africa

A Look at Precontact Igbo Society

This is from a good friend of mine, a young Black guy I am mentoring. We have all sorts of great discussions. As you can see, I am such a horrible racist that I mentor young Black guys! How many racists do that? This also looks like a pretty well structured society, which seems to belie the myth that these people were complete savages pre-contact. They actually had a fairly elaborate system of social and political organization.

My few Afrocentrist readers like Hucipher might be especially interested in this

The Social Order of Pre-contact Igbo Society

Negro Major – This could either refer to the King Priest or the Judge Priest depending on which Igbo system you are talking about. The King Priest would be the only real political figure in centralized Igbo society, possibly playing the role of “Loyal Patron” or “Grand Manipulator.” In the case of the Awka, the major Igbo tribe who sold slaves, he was probably the latter; with the Nri, a tribe where slaves ran to to be free, the former.

Judge Priest – The Judge Priest of decentralized Igbo society was closer to what we would call a judge or priest in our own societies. While he was seen as a man of power, he didn’t hold an executive role.

Negro Concilium – These would be the heads of village families who participated as a council. Not only did their political role make their organization democratic, but throughout the status system, this group was the focal point where things were kept “egalitarian yet complex,” possibly the best way to describe this system. In order to retain this status, one  must have had good communication skills and be what we might call “fluent speakers” and needed to maintain discipline in their administrative role.

Negro Plebeian – These would be the various tradesmen who were disciplined in their crafts and developed a hard work ethic.

Negro Minor – Younger members who were fodder for the other roles.

Negro Vulgus – Murderers, thieves, and possibly rapists who broke the laws of their societies. However, domestic abuse probably evoked little concern. These were actually looked down upon in Black societies that had an active system law enforcement, such as the Ashanti or the Igbo, and the  Malians under Ibn Battuta who developed a system of law and order due to a religious culture.

274 Comments

Filed under Africa, African, Anthropology, Cultural, Culture, History, Regional, Sociology, West Africa

Are Arabs Usually in a State of War?

RL: Most people in the region have been living in peacetime most of the time since independence.

Swank: Seems to detail a different picture here…

There has not been a war fought on Moroccan territory. Morocco has been at peace 100% of the time since Independence.

Algeria fought a civil war from 1991-2000.  That is 10 years out of 53.

There has not been a war fought on Tunisian territory. Tunisia has been at peace 100% of the time since Independence.

Libya fought a 4 day border war with Egypt in 1977. There was an on and off war in Chad for 8 years between 1978-1987. There has been civil war since the overthrow of Ghaddafi. That is 12 years of war out of 63 years. Libya has been at peace 93% of the time since Independence.

Egypt was involved in several wars with Israel, but they didn’t last long. The total adds up to maybe 2 years at most. That’s 2 years of war out of 93 years.

Indeed, Palestine has been embroiled war almost all the time since 1947.

Jordan has only fought some wars with Israel. Maybe 2 years of war out of the last 66 years.

Syria fought several wars with Israel, but the combined total only lasted two years. They fought a war with the Muslim Brotherhood that went on perhaps 1 year. There has been a civil war since 2012. That is 6 years of war out of 64 years.

Saudi Arabia has not been in any wars since 1920 that I am aware of. However, there was an internal civil war that lasted a few years recently, but it was a very low level war. Saudi Arabia was briefly targeted in the Gulf War but that was only for a year. That’s 3 years out of 95.

Oman has not been in any wars since 1920 that I am aware of. Oman has been at peace 100% of the time since Independence.

Bahrain has not been in any wars since 1920 that I am aware of. Bahrain has been at peace 100% of the time since Independence.

UAE has not been in any wars since 1920 that I am aware of. UAE has been at peace 100% of the time since Independence.

Qatar has not been in any wars since 1920 that I am aware of. Qatar has been at peace 100% of the time since Independence.

Kuwait has been at war only with Iraq and that was only for a few weeks. That is 1 month out of 95 years.

Yemen did fight a civil war that lasted maybe 8 years. This resulted in a split in the country. There has been an internal war against Al Qaeda for maybe 4 years now. That’s 12 years out of 54.

Iraq fought a brief war with the British in 1941, but it only lasted one month. There was civil war in Mosul in 1959, but it lasted no more than a week. Iraq fought a number of wars with Israel, but those amounted to no more than 2 years. The Iran-Iraq War lasted 8 years. The Gulf War was over in less than a year and was by an internal civil war on 6 months. Iraq has been at war since the Iraq War in 2003, 11 years. Since 1932, Iraq has been at war for 22 years. That is 22 out of 83.

Lebanon fought a few wars against Israel, adding up to no more than 2 years. There was a brief civil war in 1958 lasting no more than one month. There was a major civil war in Lebanon for 15 years, from 1975-1990. Hezbollah fought a 1 month war with Israel in 2006. There was a brief civil war in 2007 with the Lebanese army fought a 4 month civil war against Fatah-al-Islam. In 2008, Hezbollah fought a 1 week war with the government. The Syrian Civil War has spilled over into Lebanon for the last year. Lebanon has been at war for 19 out of 70 years.

Conclusion: Most countries in the Arab World have been at peace most of the time since Independence.

7 Comments

Filed under Africa, African, Algeria, Arabs, Egypt, History, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Middle East, Middle Eastern, Modern, North Africa, Palestine, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, War, Yemen

FEMEN Protests Against Islam during Berlin Islam Week

NSFW!

Pretty amazing video. Some Muslim group is holding a function during Berlin’s Islam Week. The balding man is a well-known leader of Berlin’s Muslim community, but he is not too well-liked by non-Muslims who consider him to be a fake moderate and a loudmouth.

I believe they are having some sort of a discussion about Islam in this conference room and the balding guy is hosting the discussion. The room is full of Muslims, mostly Muslim women for some reason. Almost all of the Muslim women are wearing the Muslim headscarf.

Halfway through the presentation, provocateurs from Ukraine’s feminist FEMEN group burst into the room and onto the stage. They are naked from the waist up. They have anti-Islam slogans written on their chests. One woman has “FUCK ISLAM” written on her chest. They take the stage and start yelling anti-Islam slogans.

The group is shocked at first and does not know what to do about them. The Muslim women stand up and start yelling at them, telling them to go away. The Muslimas are clearly disgusted by these provocateurs. The conference host does not seem to know what to do. At one point, the Muslims decide that if they give the women a standing ovation and cheer them on, that this will be enough to get the women to leave the stage. But the FEMEN girls refuse to leave the stage. The cops finally have to be called. The girls resist arrest and have to be dragged out of the room. They are screaming the whole time.

All of these things are just provocations. I expect many more of these provocations to happen in the near future. Really they are trying to bait the Muslims into responding to these insults and provocations. You could argue that the Muslims should just be cool in the face of blasphemy and other insults, but their religion just doesn’t work that way. I actually think they have been pretty calm in the aftermath to the Charlie Hebdo shootings.

These provocations will continue and will probably escalate in both size and offensiveness. The Muslims will no doubt start responding to some of the provocations. Surely more violence will occur. The non-Muslims will respond to Muslim violence the same way the French did the next day after the Paris attacks – two mosques were attacked with hand grenades. No doubt this will escalate into a tit for tat war.

Ever study the history of the Algerian War? It was like that. The FLN were definitely terrorists, but the French Foreign Legion responded with a lot of repression and torture. Food was cut off from entire cities. The more the French engaged in repressions against the populace, the angrier the Algerians got. What started out as limited terrorism soon bloomed into full scale terrorist war as the FLN was now tossing bombs and grenades into cafes full of French people.

You would be walking down and street and suddenly hear a loud gunshot. You jerk your head up and look across the street. The rebels have assassinated a 10 year old French boy just because he is French. Blood is pouring out of his head as he lies on the sidewalk. The Algerians look around anxiously. They know that the French payback for this crime is coming soon, and it won’t be pretty.

I think this tit for tat, paybacks are a bitch, feuding style of low grade war is probably going to happen in the near future in Europe and even in the US, Canada,  and Australia.

I really do not see any way out of this.

 

23 Comments

Filed under Africa, African, Algeria, Colonialism, Europe, France, Germany, History, Islam, Modern, North Africa, Political Science, Radical Feminists, Regional, Religion, War

My Views on Black People, with a Note on Afrocentrism

Darryl writes:

My last question to you Mr Robert Lindsay is what if the Egyptians are discovered to be Black or a darker skinned race – a true African race – then what? Just a hypothetical? How do your views of them change?

Are you sure you are basing your findings on fact and not on personal feelings. Your answer sounds more emotionally involved than needed (same for the others as well). Just what happens if they are discovered as Black?

I would just accept it. As a non-racist Leftist, I am somewhat pained that Blacks do not have enough accomplishments yet to speak of. I am constantly looking around for Black achievement and accomplishments and I try to play them up whenever I find them because there is so much talk of non-achievement that it is painful.

There is a wealth of material about the stagnation, retardation in terms of progress and wealth of failures and shortcomings of the Black race. There is a chorus of millions screaming this all the time. It’s trite, insulting to Blacks and demeaning to the bullies who beat up on Blacks like this.

Now and then, I write about the downside of Blacks, but it’s an overdone topic, and all it does is incite racism against Blacks. Some of my friends on here like Tulio and Alpha are Black, and I don’t feel like inciting racism against them.

So when it comes to Blacks, I prefer to look on the sunny side or else think about them as little as possible. Although Blacks might find it insulting, I don’t think Black people are all that important. The mistake that both Afrocentrists (and to a lesser extent ethnocentric Blacks in general) and anti-Black racists have in common is that both think that Black people, their behavior, evolution and track record is extremely important. In fact, to anti-Black racists, Blacks are almost at the center of their universe.

That’s ridiculous. Black people simply are not that important in my opinion. And as long as you pretty much ignore or avoid most of them, you won’t have a lot of problems with them either. Black problems are for Blacks to deal with, wring their hands over, and figure out. Whites like me are here to help, but Black issues are not at the center of our world; in fact, they are peripheral.

This also demonstrates the idiocy of Afrocentrism. Instead of dealing with the very real problems that Blacks face today, they spend all of their time in a defensive project aimed at revealing the great historical past of Black people. The ego-defensive nature of this movement is painfully obvious if not embarrassing to anyone who will look. That the past is dead is trite but true. It doesn’t matter if the claims of Afrocentrists are true or not. It doesn’t matter what Blacks did or did not do in the past. Let the dead lie. Life is for the living. Black people need to focus on the reality of Black people in the present and forget about the Black past.

70 Comments

Filed under African, Blacks, History, Left, Race/Ethnicity, Racism

Blacks Beat Whites – Film at 11

Repost from the old site.

I see idiots.

I see White Supremacists.

I see White Supremacist idiots (there is no other kind).

It’s fun to stroll over to American Renaissance once in a while. While there is a good understanding of race there and folks are not afraid to broach the subject, there is also a staggering amount of stupidity, mostly in the comments. What is hilarious about all this Dumbness is that this Dumbness is being scribbled by folks who are dedicated to the premise that they are members of the most intelligent race on the planet.

Ho ho ho!

I see this problem with nationalists, especially ethnic nationalists, and ethnic supremacists (of all varieties) all the time, although I confess that Chinese Supremacists are the least stupid of all, and sometimes I think there is no one dumber than an Afrocentrist. Gosh, is there something to the IQ thing after all?

The problem is that once you become an ethnic supremacist, you have to construct a particularly insane and insipid worldview whereby your group did all the great things in the whole history of the world, is superior to all the other groups, and the competing groups all did nothing and are inferiors.

Even if your group was not running around secretly doing all the great stuff, you need to put down all the achievements of the other groups (“The Aztecs and Maya were too stupid to invent wheels!”), while elevating the often meager achievements of your own group. Talk to a Nordicist sometime about the Germanic tribes running around with bearskins and spears and he will convince you that they were far beyond the Egyptians.

This leads to some rather breathtaking displays of brain rot. Only in White Supremacist fora will you still find intelligent humans debating whether or not humans came out of Africa. It’s just so insulting! That the White Man came from niggers! How dare you say that?

But really now, if you recognize that before that we came from frogs, it’s not so insulting.

Only on these fora do you find folks insisting that Whites were the original settlers of the Americas (!) and that Amerindians are interlopers who need to be sent back home (!). Only here do you find serious discussion of whether or not Africans still retain an “ape gene” (!) that all the rest of us have lost, at least when we are not drunk.

Only here do “White Historians” regale rapt listeners with tales of how stealth-Whites (probably disguised as other races) roamed around the world for 1000’s of years, secreting building all of the great civilizations on Earth (!) for only a consultant’s fee, and then slipping silently back to Europe or wherever while the Egyptians, Indians, Khmer, Maya, Inca, Chinese and all the rest of the inferiors got all the credit (!).

Yes, White Nationalism is a fountain of stupidity that never dries up.

Let us look at my latest finding from American Renaissance. It is from an article about fossils. The post has now been deleted by the editors (see here), probably because it makes White people look too stupid.

About the article – I think it had something to with Neandertal. One of these WN guys’ favorite obsessions is with Neandertal. Every sensible human on Earth knows that Neadandertal lived and died in Europe, going extinct 29,000 years. Everyone except…White nationalists!

ROTF.

These slobbering morons still insist, against all scientific evidence, that Neandertal gave rise to Homo Europeanansis Superioris. Now why anyone would want to claim ancestry to this big-browed hulk is beyond me, but WN’s just love it. I suspect it is because they get to claim that they are not descended from niggers!

Anyway, the comments section took off and all the usual WN droolers strolled in from their group homes waving their arms in weird ways and making animal noises. Soon the conversation degenerated as usual.

These guys’ contempt for Blacks knows no bottom floor. In the comments, they insisted, against all evidence, that Blacks had never accomplished anything in Africa before Whites showed up and taught them how to eat with forks and walk standing up.

First of all, let us note that African Blacks discovered iron (went through the Iron Age) before European Whites did. This fact is common knowledge in any anthropology department, but not one massive-brained WN European Supermen has either heard of it or will have anything of it.

I certainly am not arguing that Africa was some cultural pacesetter.

But the facts on the Iron Age are clear. Africa skipped over the Bronze Age (and the Copper Age for that matter) altogether and went straight to the Iron Age. That’s right, straight from Neolithic to Iron, how ’bout that? I dare WN’s can put a “Black ignoramus” spin on that one!

It is true that two groups did beat the Africans to the punch. Iron was developed in Anatolia in the year 2000 BC. It was then independently developed by the Ganges civilization in India in the year 1800 BC. In third place, in the year 1500 BC, are the quite-Black Africans of Nigeria. And Cleotis done it all without Massa’s help!

Iron Age Timeline:

1. Anatolia (Turks, WN’s insist that Turks are not even White) 2000 BC
2. India, Ganges Valley (Indian Caucasians, WN’s say they are not White) 1800 BC
3. Africa, Tok, Nigeria, and Termit, Niger 1500 BC (Dumb niggers!)
4. China 1300 BC
5. Middle East 1100 BC
6. Greeks (WN’s concede these folks are White?) 1100 BC
7, etc. Everyone else (Northern European “superiors”)

The Iron Age in Black Africa, straight from Wikipedia. From the text:

Inhabitants at Termit, in eastern Niger became the first iron smelting people in West Africa and among the first in the world around 1500 BC.

Other sources put the onset of the Iron Age in central Nigeria at the same time, in Tok, Nigeria. The Africans at Tok and Termit could not possibly have learned iron smelting from Arabs, as Arabs did not get it until 1100. No way did Hittites or South Indians teach it to them either. They just figured it out on their own, those big Black dummies.

The painful truth is that Blacks crushed Euro Whites in terms of beating them to the Iron Age. Whites were left pitifully in the dust by Africans. Oh God, how embarrassing.

Along with all Black innovations, WN geniuses insist that this Iron Age thingie must have come by way of Arabs. Now, WN’s always insist that Arabs are non-Whites, but in a race between niggers and A-rabs, the Arabs automagically turn White for a day, if only to beat the Blacks and claim the gold for Whitey.

Another common folly on almost all WN sites is so dumb it’s embarrassing.

Did you know that African Blacks had no agriculture until Whites showed up and taught them how to grow stuff? Neither did I! Neither does anyone in any anthropology department on Earth! But this crap is Gospel on WN sites, where it is common dogma that niggers are so dumb, they can’t even figure out how to grow food!

The truth is that agriculture in Africa goes all the way back to 5000 BC in the Sahel. That’s 7000 years ago, and it’s way before ag came to Europe. Once again, Euro Whites were completely creamed by African Blacks who beat them to agriculture. Agriculture occurred independently in West Africa, Egypt and the Sahel at around the same time. INDEPENDENTLY.

Anthropologists do not agree that West African agriculture was a diffusion from North Africa. It is considered to be an independent development.

Contrary to popular rumor, African Black folks (or niggers, as WN’s refer to these humans) are not too stupid to grow food. They were growing lots of food just fine before White folks even showed up.

Growing food is called agriculture. That’s the word grownups use when they discuss growing food, WN kiddies. Agriculture. Say it slowly and repeat it until you can say it well.

Sahelians today are racially the same as they were 7000 years ago when they independently developed agriculture. They have hardly changed one bit.

The civilizational attributes of the Sahelians came from their own culture. There is no evidence at all that all of their achievements came from some mystery Arabs cruising on through.

North Africa was all Black until 15-18,000 years ago, when some non-European looking Caucasians (minus that lovely White skin) moved down from Europe and pushed the Blacks south. No one knows what these proto-Europeans looked like, but they may have resembled Berbers. The resulting mix of mostly White, part Black in North Africa is the leftovers of this invasion.

References

UNESCO. 2002. Iron in Africa: Revisiting the History.

23 Comments

Filed under Africa, African, Agricutlure, Anthropology, Blacks, Cultural, Ethnic Nationalism, Europeans, History, Nationalism, Physical, Political Science, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Reposts From The Old Site, White Nationalism, White Racism, Whites