BROTHER ALI vs. WHITE SUPREMACY part 20
Sam’s response (again what is between the =’s are my quotes)
=Stam, i am not an Afrocentrist, and i don’t mind being critical of Africans or Afrocentricity. I am all with you about black folks doing savage things for all sorts of stupid reasons to each other in Africa (and have for a looooooong time). But for whatever stupid, tribalistic, treacherous, greedy, barbaric reasons they do what they do, they don’t do it in the name of white supremacy.=
Or even black supremacy, and you’d be hard pressed to find anything done in the name of “white supremacy,” either.
=When the white folks went over the earth massacring and annihilating all those “lost people” they “discovered”, they did so in the name of white supremacy. =
And there you go again. It’s those kinds of comments that lead me to call you a racist. a) Columbus did discover the Americas from the rest of the world’s perspective, as you well know, but to say claim he didn’t because there were already people here is both infantile and racist. You’re denigrating him because of his race. If some black guy had landed here and brought knowledge of this world back to the old world, you’d be touting him from the highest mountain. b) What Columbus, the conquistadors, and everyone else who followed did, good or bad, was done out of greed, or opportunity, or science, or benevolence, or any of a number of things, and many probably had very low opinions of those they encountered, but no one ever sailed to the Americas thinking “I’m gonna go over there and shoot me some Injuns in the name of white supremacy.”
=If you guys want to take credit for the accomplishments (that i readily admit are due to “you,”), then–to be fair and ethical–you also have to take responsibility for the utter barbarity “y’all” have comitted systematically on others in the name of white supremacy.=
Read any history book and you’ll find it detailed, and it wasn’t in the name of white supremacy, as much as you need to believe so.
On Historical Realities
=I don’t think you’ve dismissed anything i’ve said, Stam.=
Then you have a reading comprehension problem.
=My thesis is simple: people who would be considered “black” in America populated the Nile Valley region (most/all of it–not just the southern stretches) from very ancient times.=
My thesis is equally simple: people who would be considered “honkeys” if they were walking down any given street in Bedford Stuyvesant populated the Nile Valley region from very ancient times to the present, were not and are not much distinguishable from people to the east or west of them, ether in antiquity or now, and while not fair skinned Swedes were nonetheless Caucasian with SOME black AFrican presence, but not enough to label Egypt a “black” civilization any more than the U.S. could even though there are black people here.
[GOTTA ADD: Okay, if there was SOME black influence, why do MANY of the Egyptians still have “mulatto” features. As for the US having black people here, if there hadn’t been a racist apartheid system, there would be very few “white” people in the American Black Belt (Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas Delta, etc.), and the blacks in the North (before the Great Migration) would have been absorbed into the general “white” population).]
=Those “black” people contributed considerably to what we call the Ancient Egyptian civilization.=
Those dark skinned yet still predominantly Caucasian people and the black and mixed people there constituted Ancient Egypt, but the population as a whole was not so black as to be called a “black” civilization.
=Many of those people are still “black” despite–just in the past 2,300 years, extensive racial inter-mixing=
Many of the people in Egypt are NOW black due to a) the Cushite conquest in the 8th century BC and 2700 years of intermingling of southern Egypt’s people and those of Sudan, especially in the modern era when transportation was and is easier than in times past. Sadat’s mother was Sudanese, for one, leaving people like you to use Sadat as an exaple of fhe so-called blackness of the Egyptians.
[THIS COMMENT IS SO ABSURD THAT I NEED TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL INTERJECTION:
MANY of the Egyptians are “mulatto” looking today because of a Cushite invasion 2,700 years ago… but they did not become fairer skinned because of occupation, colonization, etc. by fairer skinned people for 2,300 years?!? Sadat is not a real Egyptian b/c his mother was Sudanese, but a guy in Alexandria with origins from the Levant and Turkey is a “real” Egyptian?!? What’s in this guy’s heart that he can’t say that there were black people in Egypt and they contributed to early civilization?]
=The British era doesn’t count so much, for those guys–as usual set up their little apartheid system and separated themselves from the natives. I gave you plenty of pictures of those “black” people.=
And in general, how many came from southern Egypt near the Sudanese border?
=The other side of my thesis is that when the white folks were wallowing around in the squalor of the west end of the Asian landmass in what you guys call the Dark Ages, the Moors (again, a multi-ethnic–non-“white” group of folks)=
Please try not to be childish. It was called the “Dark Ages” because it was dark compared to the peak of the Roman empire. It was light years ahead of where black West Africans were in terms of civilization at the time. And the Moors were multi-ethnic, yet still mostly Caucasian as they consisted primarily of Arabs and Berbers, with some black presence.
=came and brought civilization to you.=
And this again illustrated your racism. And childishness. Europe was civilized before the Moors set foot in it. The Moors were not generally a black people. Moorish civilization was Islamic and it got no farther into Europe than the Battle of Tours. Christian / Western civilization dominated the continent at the time and to this day. Islamic civilization did not spread outside of the land they occupied, and it ended with Ferdinand and Isabella.
=Their sciences were not merely carbon copies of the Greeks/Romans, but were extensively expanded upon.=
Or at least modestly expanded upon. The people who DID extensively expand upon them were first, the Italians of Florence, then other parts of Italy, then throughout Europe.
=The Egyptians influenced the Grreks,=
Not really. The Greeks were impressed by the Egyptians, but Greek civilization has little if any debt to Egyptian civlization. There are few if any commonalities or relationships. Two entirely different civilizations in just about every conceivable way. About the only thing they had in common was that they were both civilizations. Different language, different writing, different religion, different customs, different lifestyles, different literature, different math, different government, you name it. One would need a microscope to find so much as one point of commonality or similarity.