William Wilberforce (1759-1833), British MP and abolitionist, led the fight in parliament against the slave trade, getting it outlawed in 1807. After that he took part in the movement to free the slaves but his health did not allow him to lead it except as a sort of figurehead. He died in 1833 knowing that most of the slaves in the British Empire would soon be free.
His grandfather made a fortune trading in the Baltic Sea. Wilberforce became rich for life at 18 when that fortune fell to him after the deaths of his father (1768), grandfather (1776) and uncle (1777).
He went to St John’s College at Cambridge University. Instead of studying he stayed up all night drinking and playing cards. It worked out well in the end: he still managed to pass while making friends with people like William Pitt the Younger, a future prime minister.
In 1780, just before he left Cambridge, he won a seat in parliament – in part by spreading money around, in part because he was a good speaker. John Boswell put it this way:
I saw what seemed a mere shrimp mount upon the table; but as I listened, he grew, and grew, until the shrimp became a whale.
He was so rich that he did not have to listen to the Tories or the Whigs (liberals). He could vote his conscience and did.
In 1785 God called. After two years of soul searching he concluded:
God Almighty has set before me two great objects, the suppression of the Slave Trade and the Reformation of Manners.
He did not think he was the man who could get the slave trade outlawed. But when no one else would step forward, he did. When his bill first came to a vote, two-thirds voted against it. So he tried again. And again. And again. And again. And again. For 20 years. Each time he would get a few more votes and get a little closer.
Meanwhile many churches were staging a grassroots movement across the country, telling of the middle passage and asking people not to put sugar in their tea.
Powerful interests defended the slave trade in parliament and the press: 80% of British overseas trade depended on it directly or indirectly. Among other things they argued:
- Too many in Britain would be thrown out of work.
- Blacks are not fully human.
- Blacks are not capable of civilization.
- Blacks are cruel and violent and given to misrule.
Therefore selling blacks as slaves to whites was an act of mercy.
Wilberforce argued that black misrule was created by whites giving guns to said rulers. To help disprove this and other stereotypes in 1792 he helped to create Sierra Leone, a British colony of black settlers.
By 1806 the slave trade had become a campaign issue. Many MPs won their seats by opposing it.
In 1807 he wrote “A Letter on the Abolition of the Slave Trade”, 394 pages long. Later that year when his bill came to a vote, only 5% voted against it! It became law throughout the empire.
See also:
Here’s an interesting piece, which I have not read, but I have an idea of what it says since I have heard the radio presenters discuss this issue.
This is from members of a radical Black pirate radio station within the UK, and it has a sister staion in one of the African countries whose name at present alludes me.
‘Will The Real William Wiberforce Please Stand Up?’
Now is my chance to have a very quick glance at it
Click to access Will+The+Real+William+Wilberforce+Please+Stand+Up.pdf
LikeLike
Cheers Abagond, If you did not post this – who knows if I would have read (well skim read) the aforesaid link. I have had so many opportunities in the past and only now have managed to do so, almost 3 years later.
There was one bit of information , that I did not see within the link:
‘but raise these poor creatures from their depressed condition, and if they are not yet fit for the enjoyment of British freedom, elevate them at least from the level of brute creation into that of rational nature…Taught by christainity they will sustain with patience the sufferings of their actual lot, while the same instructors will rapidly prepare for them a better; and instead of being objects at one time of contempt and terror…they will soon be regarded as a grateful peasentry’
Appeal on Behalf of the Negro Slaves in the West Indies by William Wilberforce (1823)
LikeLike
There is an Historically Black University in Ohio named for William Wilberforce. It’s the first Black owned and run college in the U.S.
LikeLike
There was a film about him made in 2006 called ‘Amazing Grace’.
not a lot know about himI found out about him becasue of the film not in history class although we did learn little about Olaudah Equiano though but I knew about him before.
White Brits who do know of Wilberforce love the story of him and the Abolitionlist because it make them feel a little less guilty becasue the slave trade ended earlier in the UK so they can say “Things were bad here but not like those Americans.”
LikeLike
@ J
Thanks for sharing the quote J. Please don’t think I’m making excuses, I just want to add my $0.02. While Wilberforce was a man of privilidge, inspite of his position in society, I highly doubt he was “untouchable.” Given societal pressures in that day and age, I’m sure he chose his words carefully so as to get the most “bang for his buck”. I would “hope”, that those words were chosen in a “strategic sense” so as to achieve his objective. Had he been more outwardly brandish, his words today may have been more satisfying for today’s “englightened individuals”; however, I doubt his ultimate dream would have been achieved.
Like I said, “Just my $0.02”. You of all people know not everything is as it seems.
LikeLike
Cheers ColorofLuv,
You may also have to read the link in my first post. Since I am surprised that the authors did not cite this reference.
And for that reason I thought I would submit it.
So its Spain v Holland. Its the first time a European nation is goingto win the cup outside of the European continent.
I see you have said cheerio to Dunga as well.
LikeLike
Forgive me for “derailing” Abagond –
More importantly J, I want to know how the hell that Octopus is predicting those matches!!! LOL ! ! !
Spain vs. Holland it is. All my “Latino” colleagues were carrying on in the beginning how this was going to be a grand Latin American extravaganza in the final ! (They should have paid more attention to the Octopus! lol)
As for Dunga: I have a feeling Ronaldinho is smiling.
LikeLike
Yes, sorry Abagond,
ColorofLuv
It sounds like a case of espionage . Here I think of
‘Octopus-sy’ starring Roger Moore (James Bond 007) ha ha.
Or…
As they just said on Sky Sport News with regard to the octupus guessing the predictions right for tonights game and the otehrs too.
“It shows prove that betting is for suckers”
I am not a fan of Dunga, but the way he had Brazil playing, with regard to style and formation. Ronaldinho would have been too unfit, to run up and down the pitch for 90 mins. Now I think about it Kaka could not do it either, and he was picked…
Hmmm!!
LikeLike
It is all right to talk about the World Cup if a game is in progress or just ended.
LikeLike
The British like to take credit for abolition, etc, but that is like a wife beater taking credit because he stopped beating his wife.
Even as it was it took the British 46 years to outlaw such a clear evil, which makes it sound like a generational change more than anything else. The MPs who voted to free the slaves had been hearing Wilberforce and the other abolitionists most of their lives.
LikeLiked by 1 person
For me actions speak louder than words. Lincoln, for example, was way more racist than Wilberforce but still, in the end, he freed the slaves.
So even if Wilberforce said some cringeworthy stuff, which he no doubt did, he still acted and did the right thing. Which is way more than you can say for most of the British at the time.
J’s quote sounds like an “even if you assume” sort of thing directed at people who do not believe that blacks and whites are equal.
Wilberforce did believe that blacks and whites were born equal – though they can be made unequal by the conditions of life. Being a slave, for example, tends to have a bad effect on people. He based his views mainly on the Bible. Those with an interest in the slave trade said he could not see things fairly.
LikeLike
Never heard of this guy. In any case, nobody should expect his words to be the same as words of today’s people. You can’t expect Wilberforce to talk like Tim Wise. Maybe he was a good individual with honest intentions, and maybe British made him look better than he was; but in any case, it’s wrong to judge his words and actions with today’s standards.
I know people (Abagond included) hate “it was the times” speech, and it is bad when used as a derailment tactic, or as a way to excuse all the atrocities done in the past.
But at the end of the day, we must not forget that we are all children of our TIME and PLACE. Our cultures are different than those of other people (that includes our ancestors, even though we believe we share the same culture with them).
So, in order to understand what was going on it is necessary to understand these people had different culture than we do, and we can’t judge them (for good or bad) by using our culture standards.
Or else we’ll be unable to understand what was going on.
Don’t forget, words of today’s people will sound “fake” to the people of tomorrow. For example, Tim Wise would sound really racist and Abagond will sound delusional and full of self-hate. People of tomorrow will have a hard time understanding difference between them and those “white liberals” everybody here seems to hate. *
*Unless, of course, racism truly becomes history in 100 years, which I doubt. But even then, the words of Tim Wise/Abagond will sound dated and questionable. Wanna bet? 😀
So all in all, I think we are unable to say here what Wilberforce was “really” thinking. All we can say is that he wanted- for whatever reason- to get the slave trade outlawed. We don’t know what he personally thought about black people, but since he lived in 18th and 19th century, I bet he had some believes that would be seen today as “questionable”, to say the least. So what? It’s not really about him or his character (I guess we all agree what he did was good, right?)- so it’s not really about how he “really” was as a person, it’s more about how WE see him today and how different groups of today (blacks, British) use him for their own agenda.
In other words, it’s not so much about him, it’s about us, today.
LikeLike
With regard to:
“So even if Wilberforce said some cringeworthy stuff, which he no doubt did, he still acted and did the right thing. Which is way more than you can say for most of the British at the time.”
Just three things sprung to my mind
1. Some time one has to take on board the ‘intent’ behind the ‘do-gooders’ to actually understand what was going on.
In the link it is suggested that Wilberforce intent was to ‘stall’ the abolition of slavery, but yet at the same time give the appearence that he wanted to end slavery and the slave trade.
We see this type of ‘duplicity’ even played out today in politics
2. By giving credit to Wilberforce et al, it fails to give credit to those whose ‘intent’ was more/or less in the right place like the Quakers, who more or less from the beginning refused to accept slaves
3. It also shows and reveals the problems of history as a social science, when it tries to portray an ‘accurate representation’ of the past.
These are some of the factors we need also to bear mind
LikeLike
J,
Like I said, you must understand the cultural construct. For example, I have no idea why Quakers refused to have slaves, but that doesn’t automatically make them “better”, because their motive might not be a good one (by our standards).
At the end of the day, you can’t expect any westerner (whatever you understand by that term) born after 17th century not to have issues with race. They all learned to be racist because, even if their families weren’t racist, their society was- and still is.
I think that’s given. But to assume all of them are “equally bad” doesn’t make us understand what was really going on.
LikeLike
Cultural context, I meant to say, not construct (though “construct” the term was not completely wrong term here).
LikeLike
J:
I did make it clear in the post that he did not act alone – I pointed out that there was a grassroots movement staged by churches (Quakers, Methodists, etc), but I had to keep that paragraph extremely limited in a post on Wilberforce or it would have drawn attention away from him. It is certainly worth a post in its own right.
LikeLike
However, in this instance it would make the Quakers ‘better’, since they were ‘trying’ to live a life just as ‘Christ’ would prescribe .
Sometimes and this is my own personal view academia likes to ‘confuse’ issues, and even more so when it comes to the issue of ‘race/racism’.
And we see it best in one of the commentator here, who begins to talk of definition of terms, that may or may not exist then and the list goes on.
We also have to be careful of this also. If we want to pursue this ‘game’. Then it is best to say from the very outset that we cannot ‘know’ anything.
However, I am sure this will not be viewed as the ‘right thing’ especially when history speaks favourably of ones own achievement.
LikeLike
Mira:
Right, I do not buy the “of the times” argument. But that does bring up an interesting point here: you could say that the abolitionists succeeded by changing their times, changing its conventional wisdom and accepted truths.
LikeLike
Cheers Abagond (and for the footy talk too)… I understand
Just to clarify.
I am trying to say that there were others whose ‘intent was more sincere’ than Wilberforce but have been ‘negated’ by those who write ‘history’.
And so when we read the history books we tend only to look at ‘the acts’ or ‘the final acts’.
So 500 years from now, the history books will be written – if it does take place – Obama was the man who pulled out of Iraq, and worked for that process since he alluded to it also in his election campaign.
What the history books will not show, all things being equal, how he helped to continue and maintain the war, and the ‘real reasons’ for pulling out.
This is the thrust of what I am trying to convey in points 1 2 and 3
LikeLike
O such a beautiful corruption that slavery institution was.
Empowering the wicked and the cruelest of man with fast and effortless wealth. Humbling down the good natured man. Beating to a curb the natural growth of a society, lest the advancement of modernism gave rebellious ideas to those slaves and their allies.
It was not until the physical evidence of the corruption spread by the slavery institution on their own civilization could no longer be ignored, that the western empires began pondering if slavery was maybe, worth the ordeal.
Wilberforce is the perfect embodiement of this stance.
Wilberforce never had the initiative while the Chambers were pondering and keeping the initiative. Giving enough time for the institutions to shapeshift and adapt to the new order.
All in all, though, i think he was probably a good man.
LikeLike
I understand what you’re saying, Abagond. “It was the times” is not an excuse, especially not in an argument such as racism. Even if those were the times, it doesn’t a) make it ok and b) allows you, today, to act in a similar manner.
Still, in order to understand, you must realize culture was not the same, even if you’re talking about culture you see as your own. It’s anachronistic to assign our morals and norms and views on people of the past. That doesn’t mean “giving them a pass” (but I agree people often use it for that). It means trying to understand a situation. It’s not easy. In fact, it’s extremely difficult- that’s why there are all of those social sciences/humanities trying to explain things like this one.
But to expect all the people, past and present, to share our own culture and be the same is not a good thing, because, if nothing else, it prevents us from fully understanding the situation.
As for Quakers, I am sorry to say, but as good as “living a life like Christ would prescribe” doesn’t mean much. We all know of many harmful interpretations of Bible and Christ’s words. This one is not harmful, but I must ask- did they do it for “honest intentions” or because it was their cultural norm. Did they really see black people as fully human? Did they respect them in every possible sense of the word? Did they chose to reproduce with them? Did they think of them as “one of us” or did they see them as “others”? These are all important questions to ask.
Or did they acted the way they did because that was their cultural norm, something they learned and never questioned? If so, why is different for William Wilberforce’s culture? He at least did something to oppose the status quo. But of course he was unable to escape his own culture. We are all unable to do that.
(Nothing against Quakers per se, I’m just using them as an example).
Sometimes and this is my own personal view academia likes to ‘confuse’ issues, and even more so when it comes to the issue of ‘race/racism’.
Confuse? In what way? Racism is not a clear issue- it is a construct like any other. There’s nothing “natural” about it and I do think people need to be reminded of this fact.
And we see it best in one of the commentator here, who begins to talk of definition of terms, that may or may not exist then and the list goes on.
I guess you’re referring to Thad. I don’t like his splitting-hair style, especially when he seems to (pretend) he didn’t understand what other commenters are talking about. Still, he is right: people need to question themselves about what certain terms mean to them, because what we see as “natural” and “normal” in fact, isn’t- it’s cultural. And that’s something we mustn’t forget.
We also have to be careful of this also. If we want to pursue this ‘game’. Then it is best to say from the very outset that we cannot ‘know’ anything.
However, I am sure this will not be viewed as the ‘right thing’ especially when history speaks favourably of ones own achievement.
I don’t want to play “Thad’s game”. This isn’t an academic discussion after all.
Still, you are first to admit that we cannot know anything for certain about Wilberforce- so why do you continue to make him (or anybody else for that matter) seem as “worse” than he was portrayed?
Isn’t it better to focus on those who try to make him look better (or those who try to make him look worse) to see what’s their agenda?
Whether Wilberforce was a saint or a horrible man is irrelevant here. After all, only a fool would believe he was either. What it matter is the way we, today, see his achievements. Why do British praise him so much? Why do certain blacks see him as positive? Why do other blacks don’t see him as positive?
All in all, I agree with Abagond: actions speak louder than words. But to expect Wilberforce or anybody else (black or white) born in 18th century to think the way today’s people do is not realistic.
LikeLike
@J
I am trying to say that there were others whose ‘intent was more sincere’ than Wilberforce but have been ‘negated’ by those who write ‘history’.
What else is new, J? That’s how history works.
I’m not saying you, or anybody else, should believe in the “official” story about Wilberforce (it is a good thing to always question whether people that are praised really were the way history wants you to see them).
But in order to understand Wilberforce- or anybody else: Tolkien, for example, you must understand his culture: his place, and his time.
LikeLike
Also, I’d love to see the way Wilberforce was portrayed in the movie. I bet it’s a gem.
LikeLike
Oh, dear, Mira. Who’s splitting hairs now? 😀
Most of the time I ask people to define their terms it is because I don’t think that THEY have a clear idea of what they are talking about. And I think our split with regards to this has to do with our areas of interest. To you, most of what’s being discussed here is new whereas I’ve been dealing with it for about 20 years. This is probably because, as I understand it, you are an archeologist and I am an urban anthropologist who studies contemporary cultural formations.
No, I do not think people have a very clear understanding of what they are talking about much of the time, and this is because they are more interested in repeating and reinforcing dogma rather than really thinking about race and what it means and has meant.
As for this being an “academic” discussion…
First of all, I’m not even sure what that means, other than an ad hominem way of attacking someone’s point of view.
Secondly, people could do with a bit more “academics” on this issue if by “academics” we mean “reading some books and thinking about them”. I mean seriously, Mira: you didn’t know who Wilberforce was and most of the people posting above seem to reference him only via a recent Hollywood movie. That indicates to me a fundamental lack of basic knowledge about a topic that everyone here is supposedly extremely interested in discussing and when that occurs the solution is… formal education. Go to library, open book, read it.
If that’s “academics”, we need much more of it.
LikeLike
Oh, dear, Mira. Who’s splitting hairs now?
Am I? I thought “was Wilberforce really a good guy” question was one of the main points of discussion here. So I’m discussing it.
I didn’t bring that into discussion before others decided to talk about it.
To you, most of what’s being discussed here is new whereas I’ve been dealing with it for about 20 years. This is probably because, as I understand it, you are an archeologist and I am an urban anthropologist who studies contemporary cultural formations.
Well, it’s not “new” new, but 20 years ago I was in elementary school, if that’s what you think.
Secondly, people could do with a bit more “academics” on this issue if by “academics” we mean “reading some books and thinking about them”. I mean seriously, Mira: you didn’t know who Wilberforce was and most of the people posting above seem to reference him only via a recent Hollywood movie. That indicates to me a fundamental lack of basic knowledge about a topic that everyone here is supposedly extremely interested in discussing and when that occurs the solution is… formal education. Go to library, open book, read it.
I used “academic” as the opposite of “everyday talk with everyday people who might not know anything about anthropology and other humanities”.
As for Wilberforce, you’re right, I know nothing about him, and that’s why I didn’t focus on him per se. So yes, I am guilty as charged for posting long messages without knowing anything abut the guy. Still, I was not talking about him- I just tried to state my opinion (“academic” or “everyday” one): you can’t judge people using your own culture standards. I don’t have to know anything about Wilberforce or abolitionism to know this.
So what are you saying, that I’m not qualified to discuss here? If you are the only one who knows more about Wilberforce than any of us here, good for you Thad, but the post is here and aren’t the rest of us allowed to discuss it the way we see fit and using what we know about the subject, even if that isn’t much?
LikeLike
Mira,
With regard to the Quakers, if one looks at the history books, you will see tehy were by and large different from other White Christain of the time.
They saw the ‘wrong in ‘owning slaves’ and they were also a persecuted group within Christain/White society.
These are the ‘facts’ and the ‘context’
LikeLike
I know that, J. I was just saying that just because your culture says something is wrong, and you follow it, it doesn’t make you, personally, anything more enlightened than the people whose culture is different. In other words, even if they said slavery is wrong (and that is, obviously, something we all agree here), I can’t call all of them good people, or pro-black as you sometimes call it. (Once again, Quakers are just an example here, it could be any cultural group).
LikeLike
Mira,
I think I understand what you say.
However, what you refer to here may not be the best example.
Off course there are cross-cultuaral differences in ‘morality’.
However, history, as it relates to a particular group of people is also ‘unique’ at the same time.
To discuss that there are cross-cultural differences, and at the same time to negate a particular group can lead us into some very ‘ridiculous’ argument.
For instance, with regard to Neo-Nazis etc once could argue the ‘validity’ for the extermination of the Jews, on the ground that Hitler was utilising ‘a differnt form of ‘morality’, and so are these modern day Neo-Nazis.
And this is the danger of this type of reasoning. Personally, I see it as a ‘red herring’. Since as I said previously on this blog, Western nations, academics etc generally know when to use ‘it was the time’, difference in morality’, ‘cross-cultural differences’ etc when it meets and serves their own purpose.
And this is what I see as the biggest danger of such argument and reasoning.
…If this makes any sense
LikeLike
Mira,
With regard to:
“And we see it best in one of the commentator here, who begins to talk of definition of terms, that may or may not exist then and the list goes on.
I guess you’re referring to Thad. I don’t like his splitting-hair style, especially when he seems to (pretend) he didn’t understand what other commenters are talking about. Still, he is right: people need to question themselves about what certain terms mean to them, because what we see as “natural” and “normal” in fact, isn’t- it’s cultural. And that’s something we mustn’t forget”.
I would take this one step further and look at this issue from the ‘Philosophy of Language’.
Sometimes we confuse the ‘significance of words ‘without really understanding what is the purpose of words and language.
Language is merely a ‘descriptor’ to explain the world we live in. There is nothing ‘special’ about it.
An argument in philosophy is
Are we ‘arguing’ over language
or
Are we arguing over events in the world.
For example and I have mentioned this already. Long before the idea of race (Negroid, Mongoloid etc) came into the world Blacks were discriminated against because they were Black.
The matter then evolved into the issue of ‘race’.
Q: So to then go on a semantic debate and say when did racism against Black people begin ??
A: It could not have begun until the concept of ‘race’ begun which would esentially be 1800s
… is not a reflection of what happened historically.
And hence the point about is it merely ‘words’ we are discussing, or how the ‘events’ unfold??
Sometimes it is important to have the right ‘terminologies’ but sometimes it can be used like a circular arguement that never ends. A bit like when children keep asking but why mommy, why, why??
…if you follow.
LikeLike
And,
with regard to not knowing your subject matter. Many of us have been guilty of doing that here.
As long as one does not come across as arrogant, spiteful, as alluded to by one commentator here in another post ie in other words post respectfully.
Personally I do not have a problem with it anyone commenting on a subject they are not aware off.
LikeLike
@J
Off course there are cross-cultuaral differences in ‘morality’.
However, history, as it relates to a particular group of people is also ‘unique’ at the same time.
Yes, this kind of thinking (extreme relativism) is potentially dangerous because it can make people believe “everything is allowed”, so to speak. If there are no strict moral rules, if there is no right and wrong- anybody can do anything, no mater how bad it is, right? And any historical figure can be excused by saying “it was the times” and/or “it was his culture with different moral norms”.
I am aware of that, J, and I in no way support that line of thinking. However, between that, and claiming everything is absolute- which gives us, today, the ability to judge others using morals and beliefs of our times and our culture- is a great middle area. Individuals can decide for themselves where they, personally, want to stand. All I wanted us is to remind people here that judging Wilberforce using today’s standards (whatever that means) might not be a good thing (whether that makes him look better or worse in our eyes is irrelevant).
Language is merely a ‘descriptor’ to explain the world we live in. There is nothing ‘special’ about it.
Wrong. It is not. Language is more special than people might think, me included. Language is very powerful and it can shape people’s perception of the world.
“Genocide” sounds more horrible than “mass killings”. “Racism” sounds more horrible than “prejudice based on race”. “Rape” sounds more horrible than “coercion” (as proved on this blog, when everybody attacked Thad for not using term rape when describing relationship between master and slaves).
LikeLike
While Wilberforce was a man of privilidge, inspite of his position in society, I highly doubt he was “untouchable.” Given societal pressures in that day and age, I’m sure he chose his words carefully so as to get the most “bang for his buck”. I would “hope”, that those words were chosen in a “strategic sense” so as to achieve his objective.
I agree with Color O’ Luv
Frederick Douglass downplayed the fact that many slaves fought for the British during the Revolutionary War in order not to alienate the patriot’s sympathy to his cause.
LikeLike
@Mira
So what are you saying, that I’m not qualified to discuss here?
Perish the thought! I just think that “academic”, like “liberal”, gets tossed around as a curse word quite often here and I think it gets a bad rap.
If you are the only one who knows more about Wilberforce than any of us here, good for you Thad, but the post is here and aren’t the rest of us allowed to discuss it the way we see fit and using what we know about the subject, even if that isn’t much?
Mira, please note that of the two of us, the only one who’s ever complained that one of us should not discuss things is you.
This is the internet. I’m of the opinion that people should be allowed to pretty much discuss what they want because one can always ignore it if it isn’t one’s cup of tea.
LikeLike
@J
For instance, with regard to Neo-Nazis etc once could argue the ‘validity’ for the extermination of the Jews, on the ground that Hitler was utilising ‘a differnt form of ‘morality’, and so are these modern day Neo-Nazis.
I think that anglos have trouble understanding relativsm because you seem to believe that to understand something is to excuse it as valid.
Hitler was indeed using a different from of morality – one quite similar to what you express at times, J. Hitler’s morality said “Anything’s valid as long as it allows me to place the Germans on top of the heap where they belong.” He used the race issue, instrumentally, in order to generate mass fervor for his policies.
And why didn’t Hitler win? Not because his morality was “worse”, but because other peoples took him down.
“Validity” has no meaning in politics other than what we ourselves make it out to be. You think, for example, that white people are supposedly consumed by guilt over African slavery. Meanwhile, you and other Brits don’t seem to be consumed by guilt over what you are doing in Iraq and Afganistan. In fact, I very much doubt you even think about it more than occasionally.
So unfortunately J, morals are subjective and not objective things.
LikeLike
Mira,
I think we may be speaking of different things.
Perhaps the best example to demonstrate the ‘Philosophy of Language’ point.
If any one has lost someone dear to them through (a tragic) death. Then no amounts of ‘words’ can describe the ‘rreality’ of the anguish.
The language may give an individual an idea the pain but the words in and of itself cannot represent the anguish felt.
Similarly, humans through a process of ‘phenomenology’ create words to ‘express’ reality and to communicate with each other (again another expression of reality).
Furthermore each culture through their understanding of the world, will bring forth appropriate words to express a cultural thought pattern.
This is why in Chinese thought you have the concept of ‘chi’, ‘tao’ etc but you do not find them in the Western world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_language
LikeLike
Hathor,
Just to point out there may be times when it is necessary to
to downplay something for ‘political expediency’
Within the social context of its time Wilberforce would be speaking a profound ‘truth’ when he spoke of ‘Negro inferiority’.
What he is suggesting here is that Blacks should be raised from their lowly staus as sub-human, if possible to a ‘better’ position of ‘peasentry’ (ie underclass)
LikeLike
Furthermore each culture through their understanding of the world, will bring forth appropriate words to express a cultural thought pattern.
The problem is that your view of “culture” here is what Alred Whitehead would call “misplaced concreteness”. It is also reifying and anthropomorphizing.
“Cultures” are not things, J. They do not exist outside of their bearers. Cultures thus do not “bring forth” anything. At best, culture is a recognizable pattern of symbolic activities and expressions, but it is never closed, static or limited to just one people or set of peoples. By its very nature, culture is learnable and that is precisely why you, as a westerner, know what “chi” means.
So while subjective experience is indeed unknoweable (and hell, why stretch so far as to talk about a death in the family when your experience of orange icecream is equally as “unexpressable), culture is quite, quite knowable, understandable and manipulateable.
From my first day posting here, this has been our main argument. I believe that there are two realms of activity, the subjective and the objective, and that language and culture are an imperfect attempt to bridge the two. You seem to believe that there’s a seperate essential realm lying somewhere between the two which objectively unites all people of a certain ancestry and phenotype (but only those people) and that this union preculdes the need for language or culture because it occurs at some sort of deep physical or spiritual level.
“Cultures” are not things, not property and don’t “belong” to anyone, J, because they are ultimately learnable by everyone. That, indeed, is the base function of culture. There is thus no ineffable “cultural understanding of the world” that is created by cultures. PEOPLE create cultures, J, and while cultures mold people, if they are no longer relevant to peoples’ interests, they will be quickly modified and forgotten.
LikeLike
J,
After reading the preceding post when I read that statement I did see it in the way that Color o’ Luv saw it. This doesn’t mean that I give anyone a pass on their character, but I don’t know enough about him to speak on it.
I am also like Abagond in that his deeds count for more than his motives. I also think that brilliant ideas can transcend the man who has them, for example Thomas Jefferson.
What a different world we might live in if certain philosophers had not impacted the Western world.
Black folk have not had it easy, but we have move forward because some folk saw a need for slavery to end and Thomas Jefferson said all men, not rich, nor only white, or only educated in the Declaration of Independence. We only had to cross the barrier of becoming man, not poverty and education under the law.
This has not been an end all or be all situation for Blacks, but the structure was there for us to fight. We didn’t have the numbers in the US to actually have an insurrection, but we had the courts, the right to protest, the bill of rights, which gave us specifically equal protection under the law. It may have take more than one protest or court case, but we finally got out from under Jim Crow Laws, that were deem unconstitutional. Not that any of this made people accept us or reformed racist, but it has given us protection, that we wouldn’t had if this had been a dictatorship,divine monarchy or theocracy.
LikeLike
Thad,
In a nutshell the difference is that you believe and think as an ‘anthropologist’ within essentially a ‘euro-centred’ framework.
Anything that is outside of this reference you have problems dealing with
LikeLike
“He was so rich that he did not have to listen to the Tories or the Whigs (liberals). He could vote his conscience and did”
That one phrase scares me. So rich you dont have to care about ANYONE else. Awakening to alot of that in this day and age…..
LikeLike
Cheers Hathor,
Its good of you to admit so.
Just one point if I may. With regard to ‘deeds’ and ‘motives’.
History as a social science is to do with both phenomena, and this is why you will see historians analyse a variety of issues from the World Wars, Russian Revolution and so forth in minute details.
In other words the ‘intents/motives’ are (more often than not) the ‘origins’ which will lead to an explanation of the final ‘deeds’ (or acts)
LikeLike
“I wanted you to see what real courage is, instead of getting the idea that courage is a man with a gun in his hand. It’s when you know you’re licked before you begin but you begin anyway and you see it through no matter what. You rarely win, but sometimes you do”
— Atticus Finch, To Kill a Mockingbird
LikeLike
And this recent work by a ‘British’ historian gives further support to the contention raised ‘Will the Real Wilber-farce Stand Up?’
After Abolition: Britain and the Slave Trade Since 1807
Marika Sherwood
Here she describes how slavery remained very much a part of British commerce and empire, especially in the use of slave labour in Britain’s African colonies. She also examines some of the causes and repercussions of continued British involvement in slavery and describes many of the shady characters, as well as the heroes, connected with the trade – at all levels of society. After Abolition contains important revelations about a darker side of British history…
http://ehistory.osu.edu/osu/reviews/reviewview.cfm?id=59
LikeLike
Another great educational post!
Still haven’t seen the film “Amazing Grace” which I own and believe is based on Mr. Wilberforce’s anti-slavery efforts.
It’s good to read about a good person who I assume was not racist for a change.
LikeLike
I’d love to know how Wilberforce was portrayed in the movie.
LikeLike
Here ya go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazing_Grace_(2006_film)
LikeLike
I mean, I have to watch it. I wonder whether made him look like a saint and whether they truly focused on abolition (or if they made a typical white movie where the struggle to end slavery is just a background and anything else could be there instead of it).
LikeLike
@J
In a nutshell the difference is that you believe and think as an ‘anthropologist’ within essentially a ‘euro-centred’ framework.
J, the roots of your ideas can be quite easily traced to the German romantic reaction against the Enlightenment. You are as “eurocentered” as I am – more, in fact, because I don’t fool myself into thinking that I can make bad European philosophy into good African philosophy simply by switching the valences on “black” and “white”.
LikeLike
I have to agree with Thad here. That is the main problem with Afrocentrism (and not just Afrocentrism). You can’t take Eurocentric ideas and instead of Europe/whites put Africa/blacks and expect them to work or to be somehow relevant.
LikeLike
Mira,
With regard to ‘Afrocentricism’ its a very huge area of study with differing perspectives and ideology.
If we being honest both Thad and yourself have read a few books critiquing the varying perspectives but tyou do not know anything about the ideas or theory in a substantive way.
What is surprising is that you will not say so.
As for ‘Mad in TH(e he)AD’ he is just an ‘academic troll’ so nothing he does suprise me on this blog
LikeLike
With regard to ‘Afrocentricism’ its a very huge area of study with differing perspectives and ideology.
That’s true. Unfortunately, the stuff we always hear you spouting here comes from the same late-Victorian romantic and proto-fascist playbook.
LikeLike
Mira,
And forgive me here,
What we have here is two Whites. I think you are more ‘sincere’ than ‘Mad in Th(e)ad, (who I would classify as a ‘White racist’) trying to tell Black people what is ‘best’ for them.
Its the same thing Biko and other Blacks constantly talk about, that whenever Whites gather around Black they always like to ‘ridicule’ etc Blacks attempts – to do what they consider as the ‘right thing and not the ‘white thing’.
And this is one of the chief reasons many Blacks like to organise independently of Whites in the real world.
LikeLike
I agree on Afrocentrism. Still, in most of the cases, proponents seem to strand into Eurocentric pretty quickly. I’m not even talking about authors/scholars. I’m talking about “regular people” who want to follow Afrocentric ideas.
I do see this Eurocentrism in some of your posts, J, which makes me believe you don’t fully understand Eurocentrism OR Afrocentrism, their good sides and their bad sides. In a way, it’s ok. You are not an anthropologist or a scholar so you don’t need to know, just like I don’t need to know how to do a DNA test or how to fix a kitchen sink- but it’s ok, it’s not my job to do it. Still, I don’t understand why you refuse to believe your words are often Eurocentric, and so are words of some Afrocentric authors.
I never said Afrocentrism was utter crap and pointless. My main concern with it it’s the fact it often turns into Ethnocentrism. I do hope you understand what I’m talking about, because I understand this issue is important to you and I understand you don’t like bunch of whites “lecturing” you on this.
LikeLike
With regard to:
“I never said Afrocentrism was utter crap and pointless. My main concern with it it’s the fact it often turns into Ethnocentrism”
We live in a White ethnocentric world. If there is a ‘war out there’ then Blacks need to do what they can to ‘survive’. Its not about making ‘friends’ as such. And in fact the same also applies to the Arab world, or any other POC group who are the victims of White Supremacy
LikeLike
I meant “. My main concern with it it’s the fact it often turns into Eurocentrism”.
It’s not like I don’t understand why you refuse to believe some of the things you value are Eurocentric. People in my country refuse to believe- with the same passion- that many of their ideas about ethnic struggles came from their enemies (namely: Germans). But it doesn’t change the fact the ideas DID originate with their enemies and changing the name of ethnicity from German to Serbian doesn’t make these ideas new or good.
LikeLike
We live in a White ethnocentric world. If there is a ‘war out there’ then Blacks need to do what they can to ‘survive’. Its not about making ‘friends’ as such. And in fact the same also applies to the Arab world, or any other POC group who are the victims of White Supremacy
I made a mistake: I meant to say “Eurocentrism” instead of “Ethnocentrism”.
There is no such thing as a white ethnocentric world, J. Ethnicity doesn’t equal race. There are so many ethnicities in conflict (in my part of the world, or in Africa, Asia) but people involved are of the same race. Still it’s an ethnic hate. Don’t get me started on ethnic conflicts J. I could talk about it for hours (without even mentioning race).
On the other hand, I understand what you’re saying, and I support struggles against white supremacy. I just fail to see how applying Eurocentric ideas disguised as Afrocentric can help.
LikeLike
With regard to:
Eurocentric ideas dressed up as Afrocentric ideas demonstrate my very point that you have not read the vast array of ‘afrocentric literature’.
What you say here, like Thad, is taken directly from those who oppose ‘Afrocentric ideas’ and thinking.
If what I say is wrong here:
Do tell the blog, what African centred books or even internet links that you have read vis-a-vis those that are against the concept of African centred thinking??
LikeLike
And this same question goes out to:
Mad in Th(e he)ad too:
“Do tell the blog, what African centred books or even internet links that you have read vis-a-vis those that are against the concept of African centred thinking??”
LikeLike
Abagond,
Can I kindly request that all of the aforesaid comments be transposed to ‘How to tell if a commenter is white, part II’,
starting from Thad’s initial comments to this one because this in essence is what this ‘dialogue’ is about.
Cheers!!
LikeLike
I read some of Diop’s work, though not all of it, I admit. Also Molefi Kete Asante. I also read Bernal, though I’m not sure if he’s considered Afrocentric (being white and against the label himself). There are number of links I read but I can’t remember any of the urls by heart.
Still, I don’t understand why you’re asking for authors when we’re talking about “regular” people (like you) who interpret those ideas? I know you want to defend Afrocentrism, but when
I am sorry if I sound harsh, academic-trollish or egoistic. I don’t want to insult or pretend I’m “smarter” than you.
LikeLike
What we have here is two Whites.
J, you know it’s distressing that you bring up the color of my skin. Why? Because it shows that you have no other argument to offer.
When you are reduced to “I am black and thus right while you are white and thus wrong”, you have been reduced to imbecility. It distresses me that a guy of your intellectual caliber is ultimately reduced to playing off of skin color because you have no other argument to offer.
It SHOULD be distressing to you as well, given that people like Nell Painter and Paul Gilroy – black people – make the same fundamental arguments I make here. But I guess all you need do in those cases is dismiss those folks as “not really black”.
By the way, I think that it’s enormously ironic that you, a Londoner, should be lecturing Mira, a Serb, on how “it’s a war out there in the world”.
How many times have you or your family been bombed J, as opposed to Mira or her family?
You see, this is why this neo-fascist rhetoric of yours is so much pants. You whine on and on about how “white people” have “declared a unified war on all people of color” and how “we need to unite to survive”, but at the end of the day, it is YOUR country which bombed Mira’s, isn’t it?
Do you even bother to stop to think about that contradiction J, when you’re lecturing Mira on her white priviledge?
LikeLike
My favorite Afrocentrists are by far Africans such as Mahmood Mamdani and Anthony Appiah.
Of course, J wouldn’t be interestd in these men because they are not fascists.
LikeLike
I thought Appiah was a cosmopolitan.
LikeLike
Cheers Mira,
I am asking because if you have not read the vast array of ‘african centred’ literature, and you come on what in esence is a ‘Black’ board (if Abagond does not mind me saying) and then suggest Afrocentric is eurocentricism in disguise or words to that effect then that is ‘condescencion’.
Its the issue of ‘condescension’ and a ‘White’ person coming to a board and behaving in that manner is the reason why I ask.
Its nothing to do with who is cleverer than whom.
If you had read the Afrocentric literature then I could at least give you the benefit of the doubt and say well she read the various books and views it this way because she disagrees and can critique the various and differing theories and its not just she is defending certain aspects of eurocentricism/White supremacy etc.
Just one more thing that interests me, where did you get the concept that Afrocentric is Eurocentricism disguised. Obviously you will not find this in some of the works of Diop that you have read??
LikeLike
I thought Appiah was a cosmopolitan.
So’s J, whether he admits it or not.
LikeLike
I think you are correct FG,
So much for Mad in Th(e h)ad
LikeLike
J, Mira didn’t suggest that afrocentrism is eurocentrism in disguise. AFAIU, she claimed that the “afrocentrism” expressed on this board by people like yourself is often european philosophy in discguise.
The “up, up mighty nation” rhetoric you neo-Garveyites engage in is a case in point. And if you don’t like being told that your zipper is open, maybe you should close it, neh?
Both Mira and I have given you some pretty good examples of why we think what you’re saying isn’t new and we spénd a lot of time here dialoguing with you. When I critique you, I try to make my criticisms towards what you SAY and not towards your person.
And yet all you can do is sniuff and whine that we’re the bad evil whities who are condescending to you? J, if we were condescending to you, we certainly wouldn’t be taking your arguments seriously or pointing out the holes they contain.
Tell it true, J: “respect”, to you, means unquestioning acceptance of whatever you say, no matter how obviously flawed.
And you want to talk condescension? When white fools start spouting fascism, I’ll call them out on it, just as I’m doing to you. Apparently, you think it would be less condescending for me to say “Oh, poor J. He says a lot of stupid s***, but I’ll be nice and pretend that everything he says is pure gold, because, you know, he’s black and thus should receive special treatment. One can’t expect him to actually understand history, y’know.”
You’re calling “condescension” people’s honest critiques, J. The root problem is that you’re an ideologue and can’t accept anything that goes against ther grain of your dogmas.
LikeLike
I would say that Appiah is more afrocentric than many of his critics. He correctly perceives that much of what masks itself as “afrocentrism” is reworked europeanism such as fascism, nationalism and racialism. Appiah has published some stunning critiques of cosmopolitainism and has rooted wuite a lot of his understanding of the world in his understanding of Africa as a non-subordinate entity.
More “afrocentric” than that – in any real sense of the term – would be hard to come by.
But then again, J is preocuupied with blackface more than he is withanything approaching a true worldview with Africa situated at its center.
LikeLike
Thad,
The real problem is that you are confused in your ‘White identity’. You are what is called the ‘classic’ ‘White liberal’ even to the point that you find yourself a Black partner to demonstrate this.
Then you have to come on to a board like this – not that I am wishing you away, and begin to preach to Black people by and large about a variety of topics which you know little or nothing about.
Your time would be best spent trying to convert your fellow White racist on sites like Stormfront.
One side of the coin…
Then as a White racist, you have problems with this blog, because it challenges aspects of ‘White privilege’ which you so hold and cherish, presumably something to do with you being born and raised within the US
Then with no more coins…
The next issue is your lack of critical reasoning skills that is not so becoming as a lecturer that makes it impossible to have a ‘reasonable’ conversation with you.
LikeLike
@ J & Thad…
I’m glad you’re both on this blog.
What I would like to do is write a short story where all the characters (who stick around this blog or sometimes pass through) come together with intertwining storylines in an alternate reality on a planet called “Abagondia”. The setting is post apocalyptic space cowboy meets ‘dungeons & dragons’. You two are the protagonists diametrically opposed to one another, each with their own view on who should be sherrif in town, and how best to define what ‘defines’ best sherrif, and what history has pointed to what makes the definition of a good sheriff a good sheriff – and how a finalized definition should be reached upon further evaluation of the processes involved in defining how to define what a good definition of a sheriff is. Meanwhile, those evil Storm Troopers are taking over Abagondia. If only J-Ra & Thad-Right (or maybe it was Thad-Left) would join forces, the evil Storm Chasers, errr I mean Storm CREATORS…. doh, I mean Storm Troopers would then be defeated.
I mean, the synergistic energy when combined between the forces of J-Ra & Thad-Right would be exponential.
Seriously – I don’t know how you guys have so much energy. The “storm foolery fire” should have been extinguished long ago with all the energy you guys have! ! ! — LOL —
LikeLike
So tell me J, have you stopped beating your wife yet?
I mean you really love that rhetorical dodge, don’t you?
LikeLike
Cheers ColorofLuv for the intervention Libra and all that…
However, its time for the bully blog to take a few home truths which he has been handing out liberally
Speaking of ‘beating wives’…
It gives me the opportunity to say with regard to your White identity crisis Thad.
You chose a partner, who in fact appears to lack ‘race consciousness’ and is in fact the ‘spitting image’ of you in your politics.
It would have been very difficult for a ‘racist’ of your kind to chose a ‘militant Black women’. Since herein you would be reminded of what you destest so much about this board.
I am afraid you are a very sad fella
LikeLike
You know me J – Libra all the way! 😉 Regardless of our differences, I think the main focal point is that we all want what is fair & balanced. We want love, we want happiness, we want a better world for our children. We want ‘happiness’. There are so many doggone rabbit holes that I think we sometimes find ourselves lost in them. We may disagree on history, politics – even race, but at the end of the day, I would like to think we have more in common than not.
I’ll try and gather my thoughts to respond to your question over on the ‘Negritos’ thread.
See you soon and have a great weekend bro!!!
-CHEERS…
LikeLike
J, any time you’d like to lecture Ana about how she supposedly isn’t a militant black woman, go right ahead. Our blog is open for that.
As is, all I can say is that you talk a very loud talk about Ana, but curiously don’t seem willing to engage her in debate yourself.
Afraid of getting pwned by a girl, J?
Because I have a feeling that in any argument, Ana’d whip your ass like a red-headed step-child.
LikeLike
Forgive me, you are fortunate that I have only started to respond to your posts again. Thad you not noticed for a long time I did not respond to anything you had to say.
I have more sense than wanting to contribute to your blog.
However, if you feel she can whip me, there is one way to see. You can bring her over here
Just for the record….
She may well be able to whip my ass intellectually, however, it will not change or affect anything that I have said about both of you.
So it is essentially a moot point, but I understand and recognise that as the ‘bully blog’ it constitutes a response, in the form of a defence mechanism’ on your part, even if it is not appropriate, and where you must always have the last word off course
LikeLike
Thank you ColorofLuv, and the same to you and your family. Nice one
LikeLike
However, if you feel she can whip me, there is one way to see. You can bring her over here
Yeah, because actually arguing with a woman on the internet would be too expensive, amirite? 😀
She may well be able to whip my ass intellectually, however, it will not change or affect anything that I have said about both of you.
I don’t think Ana expects dogmatic ideologues to change their attitudes when they are exposed in public. I know I certainly don’t.
Your problem, J, is that you seem to think Ana would or should be crushed because a crypto-fascist neo-Garveyite thinks she’s a sell-out for not agreeing with him. 😀
LikeLike
Sorry, I do not understand what any of this means
LikeLike
I’m sure you don’t, J.
😀 😀 😀 😀
It’s the Willi Wonka!
LikeLike
‘Mad in Th (e he) ad’
It sounds ‘ana-l’ to me cos your partner is not yet on this board to prove or demonstrate anything
LikeLike
There was a lot of discussion going on while I was away!
@Thad
By the way, I think that it’s enormously ironic that you, a Londoner, should be lecturing Mira, a Serb, on how “it’s a war out there in the world”.
How many times have you or your family been bombed J, as opposed to Mira or her family?
You see, this is why this neo-fascist rhetoric of yours is so much pants. You whine on and on about how “white people” have “declared a unified war on all people of color” and how “we need to unite to survive”, but at the end of the day, it is YOUR country which bombed Mira’s, isn’t it?
Thank you, Thad.
I am not a fan of the oppression Olympics, but of course things could be seen like this.
J, at the end of the day, you could say that “my” people did nothing wrong to “your” people, but “your” people did bad things to “my” people. Do you understand what I’m saying?
And now what?
@J
I am asking because if you have not read the vast array of ‘african centred’ literature, and you come on what in esence is a ‘Black’ board (if Abagond does not mind me saying) and then suggest Afrocentric is eurocentricism in disguise or words to that effect then that is ‘condescencion’.
I was not aware this was a “Black” board. I understand most of the posts are about black people and their experience, but it’s certainly my (or your) fault whites are usually not interested in these topics. Abagond never said whites are not welcomed here so it never occurred to me it’s a “black” (non-white) blog. Like I said, it’s not my fault whites are not interested in discussing racism.
And I never said Afrocentrism is Eurocentrism in disguise; I only said people sometimes use it that way- and I said I didn’t like seeing that. (Understand the difference?)
Its the issue of ‘condescension’ and a ‘White’ person coming to a board and behaving in that manner is the reason why I ask.
I am white, and I understand what it means to you. But like I wrote above in my reply to Thad, my culture is the one that is often seen as inferior, so my alleged superiority complex is, if not diminished, extremely different than a westerners. Failing to see that makes our discussions more difficult.
If you had read the Afrocentric literature then I could at least give you the benefit of the doubt and say well she read the various books and views it this way because she disagrees and can critique the various and differing theories and its not just she is defending certain aspects of eurocentricism/White supremacy etc.
So, you don’t think I read enough?
Just one more thing that interests me, where did you get the concept that Afrocentric is Eurocentricism disguised. Obviously you will not find this in some of the works of Diop that you have read??
J, once again, I did not say Afrocentrism is Eurocentrism in disguise. I just said people sometimes use it that way- you included.
Whenever you have a new paradigm, or a movement, or a philosophy, it will be evaluated and various people will say what they think about it. So you point good sides of it, and say what you think its weak sides are. It’s just how it goes. All I said is what I think might be a weak spot in Afrocentrism- because people can quickly turn it into Eurocentric thinking without even noticing (like you do, J.) There are good sides to Afrocentrism and I believe I talked about them, but people were not interested in discussing that with me.
@Color O’ Luv
I bet that would be a great story! But movie casting would suck because filmmakers would not want so many black actors around.
Also…
I hope J is aware of his own western privilege when saying certain things here. J, (and other westerners, especially Americans) you must be aware of your own privilege when talking about other, non-western cultures. It is important.
It amazes me why nobody believes black people in Brazil maybe… just maybe have different view on things? I remember some of the people here were (negatively) shocked to learn blacks in Brazil see blacks from the US as people from another culture. Why is that so difficult to understand?
We all have prejudice and PRIVILEGE to unlearn. For some reason, I thought people who know what is like when others force their privilege on you would understand this mechanism better.
LikeLike
Mira,
The fact of the matter is that you came on here suggesting Afrocentricism is a parody of eurocentricism,
This is the classic response from Whites that Blacks are being ‘racist’ too. In this instance we can replace ‘racists’ for the respective terms ‘eurocentric’/afrocentric.’
And again,
If you have not read much ‘african centred literature, and do not understand much of the theories that are involved – and I would say neither Thad or you do.
The question which arises is ‘how could you then know it is a reverse form of racism’.
I would aver that it is something you learnt in a world that is constructed according to ‘White Supremacy’, since you often informs us that you do not live in a place where there is little or no Black people.
This is what the issue is about. Indeed we all have prejudice, privelege etc, but that is not the issue at hand with regard to our discussion.
Rather it is your ‘how’ process, – which is being examined.
viz. How did you come to reach the conclusion that afrocentricism is a form of ‘reverse racism’. Since if we are being honest, this is what ‘eurocentricism’ means by and large??
LikeLike
The fact of the matter is that you came on here suggesting Afrocentricism is a parody of eurocentricism,
I never said that. I am sorry if you interpreted it that way, but that was not what I meant. All I said you can’t take a bad idea, change the names of participants and expect it to be good somehow. This is NOT what Afrocentrism is really about, but it IS the way people sometimes apply it- you included. So you’re not actually fighting for Afrocentrism but for the exact thing you hate- eurocentrism and its ideas.
On the other hand, I do think eurocentrism is a “parody” on its own way, but that’s another story.
This is the classic response from Whites that Blacks are being ‘racist’ too.
I never said such a thing. Tell me where I used this argument. If you think using eurocentrism is racist, ok, but then you should stop doing that. I don’t know how else to put it. I’m telling you the same thing I tell people in my culture: if you hate your enemies so much, then stop using THEIR ideas and their point of view.
But I guess it’s not an easy thing to understand. People in my culture definitely refuse to see it, so why would it be different for you? I guess that’s just the way it goes.
But I certainly can’t keep my mouth shut on this one, if nothing else, because I don’t like seeing oppressed people adopting the style of their enemies when I know that’s certainly not something they want to do.
LikeLike
Also
If you have not read much ‘african centred literature, and do not understand much of the theories that are involved – and I would say neither Thad or you do.
I do understand the theories; you seem to be the one who doesn’t. I might be a worst racist on the planet but I did study these theories, ALONG THE OTHERS so permit me to say I do understand where they stand in the grand scheme of things better than you who read theories casually and only stuff that interests him.
The question which arises is ‘how could you then know it is a reverse form of racism’.
There is no such thing as a reverse racism.
I would aver that it is something you learnt in a world that is constructed according to ‘White Supremacy’, since you often informs us that you do not live in a place where there is little or no Black people.
So, you believe racism in country with no black people is the same form of racism seen in the west? See, this is exactly what I’m talking about, J: you don’t understand. You don’t understand other (non-western cultures), you watch world from your own privilege. It is not a bad thing per se; you’re just a regular guy, it’s how it goes.
Racism in my country is so called pre-contact racism and it’s in so many ways different to racism you can see in your country. And yes, I DO believe I know it better than you do. Wanna bet?
This is what the issue is about. Indeed we all have prejudice, privelege etc, but that is not the issue at hand with regard to our discussion.
Rather it is your ‘how’ process, – which is being examined.
True, but it’s always good not to forget your own privilege and the fact rules of your culture are not universal and that other might, just might, be different than you imagine them.
viz. How did you come to reach the conclusion that afrocentricism is a form of ‘reverse racism’. Since if we are being honest, this is what ‘eurocentricism’ means by and large??
No, it doesn’t. When I say certain people (you included) use Afrocentrism as Eurocentrism I mean exactly that: they use Eurocentrism and Eurocentric ideas- not African ideas against Europeans.
See the difference? Afrocentrism the way you apply it is not directed against European/white people, but it works FOR them, because it uses THEIR ideas; ideas that were shaped by THEM, ideas that use THEIR CAUSES and THEIR needs.
This is certainly not what Afrocentrism should be, but in hands of individuals like yourself, that’s what it becomes.
(Just like Marxism was one (dare to say, pretty good thing) on paper, but the way it was applied, it was something different).
LikeLike
Cheers for the long response Mira.
As far as I am concerned I still see what you say as a dangerrous and I would say racist argument viz.
Replacing one centricism with another need not lead to the same exploitation ie approx 85% of the world, as under teh Western nations.
What we know for sure is that ‘White Supremacy’, specifically of the Western nations kind with its co-terminus factor of ‘eurocentricism’ helped to exploit the world, with regard to POC vis-a-vis- White.
And what you seem to suggest from your initial commet, when you were concurring with Thad. This would be the same if Afrocentricism took over.
It need not be so, and to compare and suggest that Blacks would be just the same as those ‘European nations’ is a very dangerous game in my opinion.
This is why Steve Biko in the link I provided suggests this is the classical ‘White liberal’ argument to ‘derail’ independent thinking of Blacks.
Finally I think you also make one fundemental mistake. Afrocentric thinkers are not hoping to gain ‘converts’ around the world unlike ‘eurocentricism’.
Afrocentricism is to do with seeing world through ones own basis but not a euro-centred one, and to do with the uplift of Black people. Its not about making the Chinese believe in afro-centricism, whereas the same cannot be said for ‘eurocentricism’.
LikeLike
Mira, just because you may not have been following this on the other threads…
J has for the past week been linking us to extremely racist and fascist websites as “good to think” race. His latest venture has been to qualify as “afrocentric” a white Canadian anti-semite who believes that white Europeans are a “special” race (and who coincidentally now thinks that the news re: neanderthal DNA proves his theory). This guy’s site literally needs to be seen to be believed:
http://michaelbradley.info/
According to J, this is an “afrocentric” author.
Given this, I think we can pretty clearly say now that J is either an unabashed fascist or is taking the piss out of this site on a collossal level.
LikeLike
As far as I am concerned I still see what you say as a dangerrous and I would say racist argument viz.
Ok.
Replacing one centricism with another need not lead to the same exploitation ie approx 85% of the world, as under teh Western nations.
So what are you saying? That eurocentric ideas were not bad per se; the only bad thing about them is the fact whites had power to oppress others? Without that power, eurocentrism would be ok?
Also, I am glad you mentioned western nations and not whites this time, because, obviously, it’s not the same thing.
And what you seem to suggest from your initial commet, when you were concurring with Thad. This would be the same if Afrocentricism took over.
No. I’m saying that you use Eurocentric ideas in their pure form. Like you said yourself, Eurocentric ideas are used against non-whites.
It need not be so, and to compare and suggest that Blacks would be just the same as those ‘European nations’ is a very dangerous game in my opinion.
I never said that. Those who colonized did it in the specific historical moment that can’t be repeated and applied as such to others.
But to think it has something to do with “being white” is not a good way to go. If it is about being white, then how would you explain the case of white European peoples that didn’t colonize anybody?
This is why Steve Biko in the link I provided suggests this is the classical ‘White liberal’ argument to ‘derail’ independent thinking of Blacks.
So I’m a white liberal again? I already asked you not to call me liberal. I am not a liberal. I don’t mind other kind of insults, but do not call me a liberal, because I am not a liberal.
Finally I think you also make one fundemental mistake. Afrocentric thinkers are not hoping to gain ‘converts’ around the world unlike ‘eurocentricism’.
Eurocentrist didn’t hope to do it… They just did it, with force at first, and then by taking the control over education. You can’t escape eurocentrism and neither can I. For example, why are we communicating in English now, and not in some other language?
LikeLike
“Liberal”, to J, is anyone who’s not a fascist, Mira, so don’t take it personally.
LikeLike
Thad,
I don’t always manage to follow all of the comments, and to be honest, I sometimes skip the arguing so I don’t know about it.
As for J, and any other person here, I already said I assume what they say about themselves is true.
LikeLike
Well, take a look at that site and be aware that this is a man J claims is an afrocentric author with a reasonable take on race.
LikeLike
I am reading it, but after the personal ad, I am not quite sure if I want to continue.
LikeLike
Edit: WTF?!
Is this true, J? Do you really respect this guy’s opinions and see him as Afrocentric?
LikeLike
Here’s the direct quote, where J suggests afrocentric intellectuals for others to read:
With regard to theories and ideas
1. Neeley Fuller’s UICCS
2. Frances Cress Welsing -”Cress Theory on Color Confrontation”
3. Cheik Anta Diop – Two cradle theory as it relates to culture,
4. Michael Bradley – Iceman Inheritance
Btw, you should realize that J’s not alone in this. Read the following by Dr. John Henrik Clarke:
http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/henrik22.htm
There’s an entire intellectual line in anglo-american black nationalist thought that specializes in recycling aryanist theories of race and presenting them as “afrocentric”.
LikeLike
Btw, Mira, you might also like to read Dr. Henry Louis Gates’ original article that sparked Clarke’s response:
http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/gates22.htm
You probably don’t realize this because you are a Serb and these black/white race issues are new to you. But in spite of the posetrings of posters like J and Ank Mié, there IS NO UNIFIED BLACK POLITICAL POSITION ON ANYTHING.
Like any ethnic group, the members of the African diaspora have many and varied political positions. Dr. Gates is as much an outspoken critic of fascism as Clarke is its apologist.
LikeLike
So Dr. Henrik Clarke, Garvey and J, are fascist but Gates who like Thad sees ‘reparations’ as a pipe dream is not.
I wonder if like me Clarke is going to be bestowed with the thitle of a neo-Garveyite.
A pattern is slowly but definitely emerging.
Any Black scholar that is against the ‘system’ is a ‘fascist’ and any Black scholar that acquieses to the system is ‘acceptable’
Whites like Jensen who advocate a policy against the system is viewed as ‘I hate Whites who see themselves as leaders, and attempt to speak for all Whites’
LikeLike
Slow down, Thad. I understand you’re really passionate about this, but I prefer J to answer my question, if he wants.
You probably don’t realize this because you are a Serb and these black/white race issues are new to you.
It is not a new thing. Some of this stuff J is talking about is something people in my culture often use. I try my best to fight these attitudes so I am often called a traitor. But that’s how it goes, I guess.
But in spite of the posetrings of posters like J and Ank Mié, there IS NO UNIFIED BLACK POLITICAL POSITION ON ANYTHING.
I don’t understand why you bring Ankhesen into this discussion. Again, it is unfair to do this behind her back, so to speak, since she’s not here at the moment.
You do sound like you want to turn people against each other in order to find “allies” here. I don’t like this, Thad. Thank you for providing the updates, but I don’t really need your advice about other posters.
LikeLike
You have the temerity to ask me to give you information on a subject that you had said elsewhere you were conversant with.
The reason I ask is because I am indeed familiar with Diop and I don’t recall him parroting the “caucasians are a special race” line anywhere in his writing.
Now, you’ve set yourself up as the forum’s reigning Diop scholar, J, so perhaps you’d like to show us exactly where Diop makes this claim.
Frankly, I think you’re full of what makes cows fart. You know damned well that Diop didn’t make that claim, but you’re too much of an intellectualk coward to admit.
But then again, maybe I’m wrong. I certainly haven’t read everything Diop’s written.
So how about you put up or shut up? Look at it this way, J: if you’re not just spouting BS this time, it’s an excellent way to show me up, no?
(But then again, both you and I know that you haven’t a single leg to stand on in this argument, don’t we?) 😀
LikeLike
Whoops! Wrong post.
Sorry.
LikeLike
Yeah, J. Gates may be many things, but he’s no fascist. He doesn’t believe that all black people everywhere should hew to one political position, that this position should be decided top down by an elite and force fed to the people and he doesn’t believe that blacks have a mystical essential unity based on biology or what have you.
He is no fascist.
You, on the other hand, believe that politics are decided by biology and that all bnlack people, everywhere should have the same political position (which just happens to be the one you espouse). You believe in the existence of biological races and you believe that blood determines culture. You believe that all members of a “race” must unite withint the same political fold or be called out as traitors. You also apparently believe that women who marry “outside the race” are also traitors.
Their is no substantial difference between your position and that of early 209th century fascists, J, except in terms of the race you seek to champion.
You are thus a fascist, or close enough to one as to be no never mind.
Do you deny any of these positions by the way? No: you revel in them. And you take every opportunity possible to link this forum to aryan supremacists, some of whom you claim are “afrocentrists”.
You are not at all against the system, by the way: you happen to think that the system is just fine, but that it works for the wrong people. You are as conservative as they come.
Spare us the “Woe is me, poor beset upon revolutionary” BS, J. Rewarming Gobineau and painting him in black face is hardly revolutionary or anything that could be labled “against the system”.
LikeLike
Yeah, Mira. I guess you say I AM passionate about racist aryanist f***s who pose as black revolutionaries. For a long time, I thought J simply didn’t realize what he was talking about. When he began “innocently” linking us to the ultra-Aryanist Metapedia and declaring Michael Bradley to be an “afrocentric” scholar, it became blindingly clear that he was a cynical bastard.
Frankly, I wouldn’t be surprised if the man was a member of Stormfront. Then again, his hero Marcus Garvey wanted to ally himself with the KKK at one point, so I guess it shouldn’t be that surprising that neo-Garveyites like J are also similarly attracted to aryanists.
LikeLike
What question is that Mira??
LikeLike
This one:
Is this true, J? Do you really respect this guy’s opinions and see him as Afrocentric?
I was referring to Michael Bradley.
LikeLike
I have read his first(??) book
which Thad correctly pointed out was originally published in 1978.
This book which is written by a White Canadian attempts to offer an explanation of racism. Its an interesting read.
I would not describe his an ‘Afrocentric’ even if one compared him to Martin bernal
As for the website I did not even know he had one until Thad suggested it.
As for mentioning Bradley, I did not have to. Since my own opinion, I do not know for sure though is he utilised Diop’s analysis.
Now that I think about it, I think Bradley mentions a rare paper by freud that comes close to the theory he is advocating about racism, which is essentially due to the hostile environment.
Anyhow the reason I mentioned Bradley, because his ideas are somewhat close to Diop, and since I was answering Danila’s question. I suspected she would not be able to find Diop’s 2 cradle theory and how it relates to racism.
And I have been proved correct because it does not appear even up to now that Thad has been able to research the information.
Therein ends part 1
LikeLike
And after a short break pt 2.
With regard to ‘Ice Man Inheritance’ Thad had never heard of thE book and/or the author. So when he did his internet search, it carried him straight to the webpage.
Not knowing it was a book he was supposed to be seeking.
This is why he could conflate Bradley’s book 2001(??), with facts derived only a few months ago and suggest Bradley was influenced by this new finding to suggest ‘European superioirity’. Obviously this can not be possible
From what Thad said about the link refers to his second book.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Michael+bRADLEY+cHOSEN
Since there is no mention of Jews in his book called ‘Iceman Inheritance’.
So whatever was stated on the link, Thad then went on to say I am endosing it, I posted the link on this blog and so forth.
And his efforts have been somewhat ‘effective’ in that I am ‘claryfing’ the sequence of events.
Perhaps I may go on to his link and give you my assessment of what he has to say.
What would be of interest to me is whether ‘Ice Man Inheritance’ is mentioned on his site, because Thad does not like White individuals like this, who comes out in no uncertain terms and say Whites are racist, and have always been more or less been time and it can be traced historically.
You do not have to answer whether there is reference to his first book on the website.
There you go, hope this has clarified
LikeLike
J, you quite clearly mentioned Bradley and quite clearly situated him as an afrocentric theorist. I quoted you directly, above.
As for Bradley’s theory, it has nothing at allk to do with Diop’s “two cradle” theory, which is a strictly CULTURALIST theory. Diop did not beleive that blood=culture. Bradley certainly does.
LikeLike
Edit: should read
and have always been more or less SINCE it can be traced historically.
LikeLike
Thad,
As I shake my head, this is what you wrote to Mira:
“Here’s the direct quote, where J suggests afrocentric intellectuals for others to read”
And this is what I wrote to Danila’s question:
“With regard to THEORIES AND IDEAS
1. Neeley Fuller’s UICCS
2. Frances Cress Welsing -”Cress Theory on Color Confrontation”
3. Cheik Anta Diop – Two cradle theory as it relates to culture,
4. Michael Bradley – Iceman Inheritance”
Thanks for the quote, and you do not like it when I say you tell lies here.
LikeLike
Thad,
1. You do not seem to know much about the 2 cradle theory, let alone how the theory relates to racism
2. You had not even heard of the Ice Man Inheritance’ book nor Bradley, until a few days ago
3. And now you are an expert on both these respective scholars and you can compare and contrast them.
Aren’t you the same man who urged and criticised others for not reading the actual works before commenting??
Please…
LikeLike
Actually, J, I’m pretty conversant re: the two cradle theory. Diop wasn’t an aryanist. He did not believe that there were two (or any)”special” bloodlines in the world that vrought about civilization. His “two cradle” theory follows diffucionist theory of the time and is essentially culturalist in nature.
Nowhere in Diop’s writings does he presume that either the peoples of the northern or southern cradle had a special or unique biology which somehow served as the impulse for their civilization-building activities.
This is quite clearly Bradley’s position – a position, I might add which you wourself believe to be correct.
J, “Iceman Inheritance” is very accessible on the internet. Try “Pirate Bay” if you want a copy. It’s not an especially sophisticated or complicated read and the theories espoused by the author are simply aryanism warmed over.
This isn’t deep stuff, J. It took me a couple of hours to get through it and I do thank you for bringing the book to my attention and also for bringing to my attention the fact that many so-called “afrocentrists” like yourself think that it’s a top-rate piece of scientific work.
And, as I’ve mentioned many times, I’ve not read all of Diop’s work, but I have read quite a bit of it.
LikeLike
Cheers Thad,
I have all Diop’s book and Ice Man inheritance within my possession. This is why I can say you do not know the theories.
I guess you are now going to tell us you have read ‘ice Man inheritance’
LikeLike
J, your “part 2” is a complete red herring.
Bradley’s website claims that the new findings on DNA support his hypothesis.
You imply that Bradley’s website is somehow thematically or theoretically different from what he published in his book. In fact, his website is a CELEBRATION of what he feels is the scientific vindication of his book’s theories.
For our intents here, it’s rather as if you were accusing me of giving Hitler a bad rap for being an anti-semite because I’ve never read “Mein Kampf” – this, when Hitler maintains a website talking all about his book and its theories and their supposed tie-ins to today’s research findings.
But finally, you state that I had never heard of the book before you mentioned it.
This is true and I thank you for that mention. Without it and your recent paen to Metapedia as an excellent source for information about race, i wouldn’t have become as aware as I am now of how a certain branch of “afrocentrism” is recycling aryanist and anti-semitic authors.
To tell the truth, I had always thought this charge rather overblown. Sure, Farrakhan is an anti-semite, but I rather thought he was pretty much isolated over in his corner. Talking to you and following the leads you’ve posted has shown me that not only is this sort of thing not an isolated position,it is a very CONSCIOUS position, being hewn to by a lot of people who are apparently enamored by the idea that blood = politics.
But you are simply wrong whern you say I haven’t read the book. Iceman Inheritance is widely available on-line and I downloaded a copy to my Kindle a few hours after you brought it up. Anyone who likes can go out there and get a torrent which will give them a copy for free. And I suggest that this is how people go about acquiring a copy.
It’s not a difficult read (though its author has a very turgid style), nor are its theories anything new to anyone who has a background in the study of race and racism.
I find it amazing that you consider this book to be theoretically connected to Diop’s work – which for all its problems is not and has never espoused the idea that blood=culture or politics. Diop was a first class scholar. I might disagree with some of his conclusions, but he definitely did his research. Bradley is a gutter fascist who’s trying to give aryanism a make-over. It’s disturbing in the extreme that people like yourself, who claim to be “afrocentric”, place Diop and Bradley’s work in the same category.
LikeLike
Welcome to the 21st century, J: books are now available at one’s fingertips if you know where to look for them.
By the way, I notice that you’ve artfully dodged Mira’s principal question, so let me restate it:
Do you believe, as Bradley does, that white people are a “special” branch of humanity, having evolved seperately from the rest of humanity and that, furthermore, the “semitic peoples” are a threat to human development as a whole?
LikeLike
Thad,
This is your question, Mira has not been online thus far
“Do you believe, as Bradley does, that white people are a “special” branch of humanity, having evolved seperately from the rest of humanity and that, furthermore, the “semitic peoples” are a threat to human development as a whole?”
LikeLike
Cheers Bay Area Guy
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=B6AWWVGBaswC&dq=capitalism+and+slavery+eric+williams&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=XS46TMvVMIGNuAfgysiWBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false
LikeLike
Mira asks it above, J: do you believe in the Bradley’s anti-semitic and essentially aryanist position?
LikeLike
Y’know J, what bothers me about people like yourself is that you don’t have the courage of your convictions. You claim over and over that blood = culture, blood = politics, that race is everything. And yet when it comes to simply saying “Hell, yeah, fascism – or some black version of it – is a great idea”, you get all squishy and dodgy.
You don’t want to decry fascism because that would put too many of your own beliefs on rotten ice. And yet you full well know that any reasonable human being with a knowledge of history isn’t going to accept a fascist position.
So you hew and haw and bullsh&* your way along: “Oh, yeah. Look at Bradley: this is afrocentric theory… Did I say afrocentric theory? Oh, silly me. I meant something completely different. Oh, Bradley’s got more screws loose than a Russian space station? Oh, well, hey, it’s his unexpressed ideas and not his expressed ideas that are really important… And he used Diop. Oh, Diop DIDN’T believe in a ‘special’ white race with special racist powers? Oh, deary me. Of course he did. He just said that in a book somewhere which you’ve never read. No, I can’t give you a reference on where Diop says that.”
Jesus, J, at least have the strength of your convictions. If you’re a fascist, well and good. I think it sucks, but hell, argue away.
But please stop trying to convince the world that you’re some sort of afrocentric revolutionary when you’re just babling European gutter philosophy from the 19th centurty.
Your position isn’t liberal or conservative J and it certainly isn’t “radical”: it’s appropriately known as reactionary.
LikeLike
Bay Area Guy,
With regard to
“This was at least the case in Jamaica.”
I think this was the case for ALL the islands the British controlled in the Caribbean.
Are you also aware there are books etc that critique Williams, I would suggest from a euro-centred perspective -but criticisms nevertheless.
Shame I cannot remember author and titles…
LikeLike
Always remembering, of course, that a “Euro-centric perspective” means one that actually looks for proof to back up claims, rather than inventing them out of thin air, hey J? 😀
LikeLike
Thanks for informing us once again, since its not the first time, that only White writers and those Black writers who pander towards ‘Whites’, are the only scholars to ‘look for proof to back up their claims’ and in essence are the only one ‘fit’ to write upon academic issues etc.
Whereas those who write from an African centred perspective ie presumably Black academics are ‘inventing them out of thin air,’
And I guess this would also hence why you are against Jensen who is NOT an Afrocentric but wants you to disavow your own ‘white glorious heritage of racism/white supremacy’ is viewed in a similar negative light vis-a-vis African centred black scholars.
LikeLike
Yeah, Martin Bernal sure “panders to whites”, J. As do Mamdani, Gilroy and Appiah.
In short, anyone you disagree with is either “eurocentric” or “panders to whites”.
You sure you don’t want to change that to “people who are tools of the international Jewish conspiracy” or some such other like claptrap?
It’s a sad day, J, when black revolutionaries think a European gutter philosophy such as Aryanism is, in fact, an ‘afrocentric road to the future”.
As for Jensen, I return to my question, which you apparently can’t answer: how are white people supposed to SIMULTANEOUSLY forget that they are white AND pay reparations for the crimes of white people in the past?
You want a contradiction, J.
LikeLike
With regard to:
“As for Jensen, I return to my question, which you apparently can’t answer: how are white people supposed to SIMULTANEOUSLY forget that they are white AND pay reparations for the crimes of white people in the past?”
As I said to you previously, you are living a ‘schizophrenic’ life with regard to your own ‘White identity’.
On the one hand the ‘good guy’ who visit such blogsfighting down other commentators who are ‘openly’ racist and yet at the same time, belittling other Black members on this board.
Within your personal life we see a similar contradictions, as I said before a BSWM partner, but nevertheless Black but yet at the same time White but never yet Black enough.
As I said if you had chosen someone like that it would have reminded you of this board so much – and that surely would be a ‘living hell’
Then your love for those aspects of your glorious White heritage, which is filled with racism/White Supremacist values but you have trouble admitting to it.
This is one for you to resolve. It is not for me to give you the answer, not that you sincerely want an answer. The only answer you are looking is one to go off on another diatribe.
This is what it is all about.
LikeLike
So J, how about telling us how white people are supposed to SIMULTANEOUSLY forget that they are white (a la Jensen) and yet also work towards reparing the damage caused by slavery by giving out reparations?
Simple question man. Can you answer it?
LikeLike
I can actually – but I do not know how many White people will be ‘truly’ be able to do it in practice.
As I said somewhere else before teh way the system, and teh way ‘nature’ works. There will only be those few ‘exceptional Whites’
Unfortunately, you fall into the category of one of those who ‘cannot’ at present, if your words on this blog are anything to go by..
If I felt you were a little ‘sincere’ in your presence here and in your questioning, then we could have entered into a dialogue ‘respectfully’ to discuss what Jensen actually means, but this has not been the case with you. Notwithstanding being able to follow a line of reasoning and follow it through to its logical conclusion
To be honest, its fairly obvious what Jensen means, and that you cannot understand it, ‘speaks volume’.
The hard part is NOT undertanding what Jensen says – but its actually completing the ‘arduous’ mission.
LikeLike
J, so why don’t you tell us the trick? How can you forget an identity and yet be hyper aware of it at the same time, J?
It is not at all obvious what Jensen is saying, nor is it obvious how this trick could occur. If it were obvious, you could boil it down into a couple of sentences. Instead, you’ve spent the last three months dodging this question whenever it comes up.
You’re a greta man for making bold and dogmatic statements, J, but you have a real problem with follwoing these up and showing how they’re supposed to work in real life.
I’m summarily uninterested in your dime-store analysis of my personality, given that yoiu know sweet f***-all about me and given your tendency to believe that anyone who disagrees with you needs must be your ideological enemy.
LikeLike
Afrikan People Abolished The Slave Trade
Click to access Afrikan+people+abolished+the+slave+trade.pdf
LikeLike
Oh, how cute: London’s anfro-nationalists are so dedicated to German philosophy that they even Germanicize “Africa”, changing it to “Afrika”.
How very afrocentric! 😀
LikeLike
Once again another example of your own ignorance academically and your lack of knowledge as a ‘eurocentred scholar’ with things pertaing to Black people, history, culture and issues
Why spell Afrika with a K?
http://www.trinicenter.com/kwame/2002/Feb/172002.htm
Here’s the answer – good try. I look for you to come again in the form of the ‘academic troll’ you are.
Not that I do not mind you efforts but it would be helpful if you had your facts correct.
As an anthropologist what did you say about making conclusions from things that can be coincidental?
LikeLike
Interesting. According to that post, most vernacular languages on the continet of Africa spell the word with a “k”. Do you think the esteemed Doctor Nantambu could tell us how that could possibly be so, given that the letter “k” is part of the Greco-Roman alphabet which was, of course, brought into Africa by European colonizers? “K” or “C”, it’s a European linguistic decision, J, and not an African one.
I mean, can one come up with a stupider argument than this?
Call Africa by it’s original name – which it apparently doesn’t have in any African language because the notion of “continent” is also European in origin, or call it Africa, Afrika, or even Afriqua: it’s ALL European spellings for a European term.
thank you for daily showing to us, J, how radical afrocentrists have their collective head so firmly jammed up their collective arse that they can’t even perceive their own contradictions.
LikeLike
A few minutes ago they were copying the Germans – how stupid is that, from a supposed academic??
LikeLike
And apparently you are.
Guess who romanticized a goodly portion of the spoken languages of Africa, J?
😀 😀 😀 😀
For a man who claims to be afrocentric, you don’t know much of the history of colonialism in africa, do you?
LikeLike
Without stating the obvious
And it is this ‘stupidity’, why I have not provided you with any references, quotes etc.
I provide a link to reveal your ‘stupid thinking’. Instead of acknowledging it. I know its difficult for you to do so.
You ignore your own stupidity and thank me for providing the truth, but not in the appropriate manner that would be befitting of an academic, but rather by saying:
“thank you for daily showing to us, J, how radical afrocentrists have their collective head so firmly jammed up their collective arse that they can’t even perceive their own contradictions”.
Well your own very words can be applied to you here also in this instance.
Its a Thad (sad) world…
LikeLike
Btw, how off the wall can Nantambu get? “No European language outside of Dutch and German has the hard ‘C’ sound”?
Hello? Both Portuguese and English have that sound, as do every other European language I can think off.
Nantambu is a doctor of what, exactly? There’s no bios of him anywhere and, apparently, most of what he publishes is self-published?
Is the guy a linguist? That’s hard to believe, given the howlers he’s put to print in your link.
LikeLike
Would you like to contact them and ask them personally?
Here are the details
http://www.trinicenter.com/contactus.html
Good luck with your point
LikeLike
“And it is this ‘stupidity’, why I have not provided you with any references, quotes etc.”
Oh, you’ve provided enough. Let’s not forget the aryanist Metapedia and Michael Bradley and now Dr. N’s wild affirmations that the hard “C” sound doesn’t exist in Europe outside of Dutch and German.
LikeLike
What, did Dr. N lose his tenure bid at Kent State then?
LikeLike
Apparently, then, J, you believe that “country” is pronounced “sountry” in English, given that you agree with Dr. N that English doesn’t have a hard “c” sound. Which probably also explains why your mates laugh at you when you call someone a “sunt”. 😀
LikeLike
Please take up your query with those who DEVISED the idea. Your may get a more fruitful and rewarding argument…
LikeLike
Sounds like you have reverted back to talking ‘ana-l’ again
LikeLike
Is “query” pronounced “sery” then J?
LikeLike
Enough! You’re too easy a target, J. And I’m letting my fascism-inspired nausea get the best of me so I’ll lay off you for now. We’ve taken this little tiff too far off topic. (Or should that be “we’ve tassen this little tiff too far off topiss”?) In any case, ENOUGH for now.
LikeLike
I’ve just finished A Brief History of the Caribbean and I’m half way through A History of Barbados. Both books have given me a different viewpoint of slavery and abolition. While I don’t want to discount the work of Quakers and other religious groups that fought against the institution, the role that Africans played in fighting against slavery is often ignored in official histories. The slaves were never just passive victims; slave rebellions were a constant fear of the plantation owners.
Let’s not forget the power of the Haitian revolution. At the time of its defeat, France was a great world power with a huge empire. This successful rebellion did play a role in considerations of whether to continue with slavery or end the practice while everyone (the rich, white elite) could come out ahead financially.
In addition to armed resistance, the slaves were also able to organize and engage in non-violent protest against some of the worst practices. So, I’ve become suspicious of this idea that freedom was a magnanimous gift offered up to the long-suffering black slaves. Rather both ends of the candle were being burnt at the same time. The result was the end of slavery and the beginning of a long fight for human rights.
LikeLike
Excellent comment.
LikeLike
The role that Africans played in slavery in general – both in profitting from it and in fighting it – is ignored.
LikeLike
To his credit, he was instrumental in helping King Henri Christophe’s education reforms in northern Haiti from 1806 to 1820. He championed the Lancasterian method.
LikeLiked by 1 person