IslandMix - Soca, Reggae, Zouk and Caribbean Entertainment

Nice strawman. You can use that claim when describing Israel and Israelis because there is a nation involved. Jews are not a nation or one ethnicity. Judaism is an umbrella term for many ethnicities that share a common religion and/or ethnic origins. Americans is a term that can refer to the people or the government/nation.

Still a strawman. You have not shown that all prominent or rich Jews have participated in the exploitation of blacks. Such a claim would be an attempt to claim that only those in power manifested their racism. Such a claim would be false. Many rich Jews have been rich, others have not and were highly involved in civil rights movements etc.

And how does this claim in his book show that he accepted any challenges to his claims? Many people rant and rave about how they will confront people, but then refuse to partake in direct debate. Van Sertima is an example of this.

And this is a typical biased statement. The Jewish establishment? Which Jewish group are we talking about? He doesn’t claim that Jews chose not to rock the boat, but that they are navigators in the oppression. It acts like they have decided that oppressing Afro-Americans will keep them from being the target. This is a false claim. Many may be ethnocentrist, (Sammy Davies probably furthered his career by converting to Judaism), and racist (severe negativity of Hungaro-Peruvian Jews to Quechua Indians converting to Judaism) but others are huge advocates of civil rights. Shoot, secular Jews have one of the highest rates of admixture out there. And it was also Jews who criticized racist Jews and transported both Native American and Bet-Israel Jews to Israel. So much for the Jewish conspiracy.

Cute. Like I said, I have read Jeffries’ theories, which are similar to Bradley’s and Ani’s in many ways. But again, their interpretations ignore the fact that many cultures evolved in the north that were not conquering cultures. Yes, there is an environment that developed in the European region of competition and warfare because of so many fiefdoms and the terrain allowed for heterogeneity of groups. This was a direct result of massive population growth and competition for resources. Not the cold. Not the ice, but much later cultural evolution. And nation states, kingdoms, etc were the major proponents, not all populations. In tropical regions that produced large populations due to abundance of farming, you see similar competition. Only when an empire comes in and imposes rule do these smaller skirmishes diminish. Large-scale agrarianism is just not seen to that level in many parts of Africa such that population explosions do not occur leading to increase in competition, when agrarian civilizations and population explosions do occur in Africa, so does an increase in warfare. Plus, Jeffries espouses the idea (like Bradley, and Ani) That Europeans somehow have developed an inherent mentality that is oppressive/aggressive in nature. Of course this is a denial that the same mentality would exist in all populations of people of African Ancestry raised in the same environment, or the same mentality in highly populated regions in tropical regions of the world.

I am aware of hunter-gatherer forms of warfare and their ritualized violence compared to that of resource driven societies. The Dene (Apache believed in ridiculing their enemies instead of killing them) The Gaels many times believed in the concept of ‘champions’ to settle their disputes, I could go on and on.
As for the Zulus, they could be just as brutal, disemboweling wounded soldiers in the medical camp at the battle of Rorke’s Drift. British were no better.
"Altogether we buried 375 dead Zulus, and some wounded were thrown in the grave," wrote one trooper, William James Clarke. "Seeing the manner in which our wounded had been mutilated after being dragged from the hospital we were very bitter and did not spare wounded Zulus." From “Zulu Victory” by Ron Lock and Peter Quantrill.

First, you would have to show the class what the context was of this battle, and show that they actually let them go get ammunition, not just food. Plus, I wonder how much of Collier’s is not romanticism of the author of the article. I am curious if this was in any of the battles where they outnumbered the Brits 20/30 to 1.

Iron had to be imported to Egypt so that was a major factor. Furthermore, Egypt was pretty homogenous in its culture and like China this homogeneity would lead to less intra0cmpetitiveness and lack of progression in the military arena. It is only when large-scale invasions by outsiders occurred that warfare technology was upgraded (Hyksos, Mongols).

You like to read: ‘Hearing Voices: Unearthing Evidence of Homosexuality in Precolonial Africa’ by Cary Alan Johnson

You want a link?
http://www.bidstrup.com/phobiahistory.htm

Oh please. Are you referring to concepts such as Sankofa or the fact the Jews keep celebrating all their past? You learn from the past but you don’t demonize the descendants of past evil. Jews do not do that with Germans. And don’t give me this sons all do the evils of their father’s shyt. For example, while the farming Boers and Afrikaners in general were pro-Apartheid, many of the Brit descendants were anti-Apartheid and the Brit controlled territories were the most liberal in mentalities. Of the country. Many Eurodescent people sought to remove the oppression as well. Go look up the movie “Cry Freedom”.
Or consider the story of Amy Biehl:
http://library.flawlesslogic.com/biehl.htm

I was making sense all along.

The fact that Jeffries theories are quoted bt Afro-Americans as well speaks volumes. Although Ani and Welsing are quoted a lot more. The Judaic aspect is but one, the White racialism is another. No matter how you disguise it as Anthropologic garble.

Nice try. It is when you place it in a form that indicates there is some type of homogeanity of racism among whites that is a problem. Just like it is a problem when claims of Blacks in general are made.

I doubt he refered to it in that way.
Foundation for Fascism: the New Eugenics Movement in the United States, Patterns of Prejudice
Race and 'Reason'
In Genes We Trust: When Science Bows to Racism

"We're throwing them out after taking their money and they're getting nothing out of it," said Barry Mehler, a history professor at Ferris State University, who helped start a program to keep minority students in college. "We're mugging (the majority) of them, taking their money, taking their dignity.

On the magazine Alkebulanian, according to anti-eugenics scholar Barry Mehler stated that the magazine carries articles that assert "the Jewish Talmud was written by `racist dogs,' that Jews have manipulated the world into grieving over the Holocaust as a way to make `black people forget that it was the same handful who participated in the African Holocaust.'"
See, no quotes around Holocaust.

Speaks volumes towards what??

And if a person says straight out "All Whites are the devil", that too is a problem. And what did that or what you wrote have to do with my comment? Absolutely nothing.

Let's try this again: if you make the egregious "mistake" of merely mentioning the race...fullstop, endpoint, halt. No placing of any "forms", no extra implications, no nothing. I'm fairly certain you can (in a general sense) recall instances where an imixer misread something written and took completely unnecessary offence over something that was never even stated nor implied.

Forgive my dotishness, but I just looked at all three links, and neither quote appears on any of said pages; none have any references to slavery, the Middle Passage, etc.

Where exactly are these quotes, and what did those links have to do with the price of tea in China?? Am I supposed to feel that because he doesn't believe that Blacks are genetically inferior, that he automatically doesn't believe that the Middle Passage is tantamount to a Holocaust???

That they weren't rare mentions.

Valid point.

Just showing he is not a racist. Interpretations are assumptions. I prefer to ask him his opinion directly.

Obviously he was defining holocaust as a genocide attempt, and not a mass death attempt. In that definition,The Black Holocaust was after emancipation. Where Blacks were targeted for murder. In contrast, it was inhumane treatment that killed Africans in the Middle Passage, but the goal was to get as many alive as possible across to profit from them. I understand where he would have misunderstood the usage and where he corrected it. Another African Holocaust would have been that of all the deaths caused by King Leopold.

There is no surprise that in a media that was seen as experimental and looked down upon the Eastern media establishment, they were able to flourish and yes, even create a dynasty. Within the constraints of the mentality of American culture. Their bread and butter relied on popular support.

Exactly, they exploited what was a deeply racist outlook and made money off of it. And this is the point that Jeffries and others make and this is the “difficult lot” that I have been alluding to.

I don’t think there is any attempt to subjugate blacks as much as there is a desire to sell movies and a referencing of what will sell most in the majority White populace. If they see a trend, they will exploit it.

The biggest ‘plot’ I have seen would be in the portrayal of Arabs and German, in the media. Germans in the past and Arabs in the current times. Not Blacks.

Again, in other words, exploiting the European/Euro-American penchant for “Othering”. Look, I don’t think Jeffries et al are saying that there is some mystical Jewish cabal convening to decide “ok, what else can we do to denigrate African people”, whether that is the case or not is irrelevant at this point. We are dealing with the manner the Europe and Euro-America have for generations, centuries, defined their outlook by identifying a group or groups as a hostile Other, and the other people, some of whom themselves have been subjected to being labelled as an Other, sought to make the best of a bad situation for themselves. You yourself admitted as much a couple paragraphs down.

The Jews for the most part still think in terms of “us against the world”, influenced to a great extent by the fact that much of the world has been against them for over 2000 years. I remember an interview with a patriarch of the famous Rothschilds and he said in answer to a comment about how well he and his family has amassed such fortunes, that he still conducts business and his life in a way that he can rapidly pack up and leave if he has to should the political climate changes – even though there was very little possibility of that happening.

Now the Curse of Ham as it applies to Africans may have been a Xian invention – i.e. adapting from a Talmudic source – but it does not change the fact that a few prominent Jews (and how many exactly does not matter; in the capitalist world it is almost always a minute few who hold power and influence over many) certainly held the racist outlook of the white Xian world. And just how many Jewish abolitionists were there as compared to Xian abolitionists?

The Nazi Holocaust had everything to do with racism and intolerance and Blacks were also exposed to this hatred. And to deny the relationship or minimize the experience as one irrelevant to explore is racist. To claim that if it is ‘white’ on ‘white’, it is not an issue, then it should be ignored is racist.

No it’s not. You have to look at the context. What people like Jeffries, Clarke and others were showing is that these holocausts and “World Wars” were about was more about white racism turning in on itself. When that happened and whites began to kill other whites, move into territories occupied by other whites, European powers began to bring in their colonial subjects –often people of colour – to fight and die to preserve the West’s way of life. This is what happened with the Boer War, World Wars I and II and innumerable wars and conflicts ever since. As Dr Clarke used to say, European powers are forever draining the disease of their sores on other people, involving them in conflicts that have little to do with them. It is in this context you must look at such statements. Jeffries himself condemned in very strong words the extermination of the Jews by the Nazis and I have it on tape.

Re homosexuality.

From the very first sentence on homosexuality in pre-colonial Africa that section impugned itself. Throughout the passage I notice self-contradictions and I tend to view the Islamic factor with some caution as well since it is also a “foreign” influence.

while the farming Boers and Afrikaners in general were pro-Apartheid, many of the Brit descendants were anti-Apartheid and the Brit controlled territories were the most liberal in mentalities. Of the country. Many Eurodescent people sought to remove the oppression as well

As for these liberal British you speak of who were in the anti-apartheid struggles, I am very guarded about liberals. Hear me well, I’m not unaware that many of them not only attacked apartheid, Jim Crow and so on but put their lives and freedom at risk by taking up arms as well. It’s just that many others simply condemn the way in which the racist status quo is maintained and not the status quo itself. Kinda like William Wilberforce in the 19th C. Hell, people like John Kerry scare me more than Bush; he’s like the British, they will stick in a knife in you just like the Americans will but they will at least clean the blade first

I was making sense all along.

In your own mind, yes.

Yeah, but Jeffries and Martin carry it further and claim that they were plotting to do it.

I think it is important because that is what Jeffries and martin seem to say.

Fully agree. Especially the business men. People driven to succeed in places like business can sometimes be more amoral than their kin.

Very true.

It would be an interesting analysis. Like you said a prominent few. Not the jewish diaspora.

He talked out both sides of his mouth then. And war and violence is hardly a European sore. We see ethnic violence to this day in Africa and other parts of the world.

Plenty of other factors were not Arab. And I suggest you go get the book. The link is not from the book.

The claim that some people are hypocritical doesn't change that others weren't The issue is still that one bullet, one settler mentality has killed inncents, just like abuse of blacks did before.

As were you.

LOL

They say the sky is red, but we all know it's really blue.

Not Black?