Black Culture Discussion Thread

Wasn't it war captives?
War captives (in which the wars were later started by Europeans for their own reasons) , kidnappings and raids,  some were enslaved as punishment for a crime, and it's even said that a small number of people enslaved themselves to avoid starvation. There could be other reasons as well.
 
Last edited:
B5oH_qAIcAAHREx.jpg



This just reminded me of one of Tariq's shows. A lot of truth.


 
Africans sold Africans. If by force u mean our own people catchin and selling our own people then yes... We should be angry at our ancestors for what they did to our ancestors.
BoriMAC11 u gotta understand that the slavery Africans done to each other was different than European slavery. Some times Africans slaves were treated like extended family members. When most african nations realize what horrors the europeans were doing to africans in americans, the africans started fighting back. They dont tell you that in history books. Honestly this whole Africans enslaved Africans is a distraction that White american try to promote as reasoning why they did what they did. And out of curiousity..why dont you just call yourself Afro-latin considering that there were more slaves in the brazil and the carribbeans than there were in the americas?
 
It's clear that the slave trade, when it came to blacks, was personal.
 
...And, if I remember my history correctly, African slavery was NOTHING compared to what occurred in this country. People weren't getting whipped, lynched and raped. So comparing the two is really just a waste of time.
 
Egypt bans 'inaccurate' Exodus film

View media item 1324343

Egypt has banned a Hollywood film based on the Biblical book of Exodus because of what censors described as "historical inaccuracies".

The head of the censorship board said these included the film's depiction of Jews as having built the Pyramids, and that an earthquake, not a miracle by Moses, caused the Red Sea to part.

Exodus: Gods and Kings stars Christian Bale as Moses.

There have also been reports that the film is banned in Morocco.

Although the state-run Moroccan Cinema Centre (CCM) had given the film the green light, Moroccan business website Medias24.com said that officials had decided to ban the movie from being screened the day before its premiere.

According to the book of Exodus, Jewish slaves were led to freedom by Moses after God inflicted a series of plagues on Egypt.

The Pyramids are believed to have been built about 1,000 years before the story of the Exodus.

The Biblical story tells how the Red Sea was parted by a miracle performed by God through Moses, allowing the Jewish people to escape from the pursuing Egyptian army.

Exodus: Gods and Kings, which cost a reported $140m (£89m) to make, took $24.5m on its debut weekend.

Mixed reviews

The Biblical epic overtook the third instalment of The Hunger Games, following three weeks at number one. However, it has had mixed reviews.

Time called it a "cinematically uninspired retelling of the Moses story", Vulture said it was "as uneven as Ridley Scott's career", while the New York Times described it as "both woefully insufficient and much too much".

The film's opening fell well short of other modern Biblical films, including Darren Aronofsky's Noah which took $43.7m on its opening weekend in March and 2004's The Passion of the Christ, which took $83.3m.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-30605059

No mention of the real race of the Egyptains, but hey its better than nothing....
 
Last edited:
Christian Bale: Moses was 'barbaric' and 'schizophrenic'
http://niketalk.com/content/type/61/id/1324360/
View media item 1324360
Christian Bale has caused concern amongst some Christian writers with his remarks about Moses, the Biblical figure he plays in Ridley Scott’s forthcoming Exodus: Of Gods and Kings.

“I think the man was likely schizophrenic and was one of the most barbaric individuals that I ever read about in my life,” Bale said at a press conference in Los Angeles.

The actor said he wasn’t knowledgeable about the Bible before taking on the role, but had undertaken significant research, including also reading the Torah, the Koran and Jonathan Kirsch’s life of Moses. Bale said he was surprised by the complexity of the figure – and his creator.

“He was a very troubled, tumultuous man and mercurial. But the biggest surprise was the nature of God. He was equally very mercurial.”

Bale’s comments have been received with scepticism by an online Christian community which had expressed the hope that Scott’s spectacular would be closer to the text than Darren Aronofsky’s Noah, released earlier this year.

Christianity Today appeared to resign itself to a secular treatment, reporting that “[w]hen asked about parallels between Exodus and the recent rise of political tension in the Middle East, Ridley Scott told reporters, ‘People can do that if they want to be really negative or just sit down and enjoy the ******* movie. It’s a movie!’”

But – as the Hollywood Reporter points out – Peter Chattaway at Patheos.com is troubled by the very idea Bale “speculates about what was going on inside Moses’ head”. Meanwhile, Faith Driven Consumer has commissioned a poll which appears to show that 74% of Americans would be likely to see the film if it was biblically accurate, but 68% would be unlikely to watch it were it inaccurate.

Chattaway echoes the disquiet of other bloggers over Scott’s treatment of the central seismic event in the film; the director shows the Red Sea parting on account of an earthquake, rather than divine intervention.

“You can’t just do a giant parting, with walls of water trembling while people ride between them,” said Scott, who said he failed to believe the sight when as a child he watched 1956’s The Ten Commandments. “I remember that feeling, and thought that I’d better come up with a more scientific or natural explanation.”

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/oct/27/christian-bale-moses-was-barbaric-and-schizophrenic
 
Another Article...

Egypt axes Exodus film over claim 'Jews built pyramids'

Egypt has banned the Hollywood biblical epic movie Exodus: Gods and Kings citing historical inaccuracies, including an apparent claim that Jews built the pyramids.



Egypt has banned the Hollywood biblical epic movie Exodus: Gods and Kings citing historical inaccuracies, the culture minister says, a day after a similar move by Morocco.

The film relates how Moses helped Israelite slaves flee persecution in Egypt under the Pharaoh Ramses by parting the Red Sea to let them cross safely.

Culture Minister Gaber Asfour told news agency AFP on Friday that Ridley Scott's blockbuster was rife with mistakes, including an apparent claim that "Moses and the Jews built the pyramids".

"This totally contradicts proven historical facts," Asfour said.

"It is a Zionist film," he said. "It gives a Zionist view of history and contains historical inaccuracies and that's why we have decided to ban it."

The ban was decided by a committee comprising the head of the supreme council for culture, Mohammed Afifi, the head of the censorship committee and two history professors, said Asfour.

Afifi said he took issue with the scene showing the parting of the Red Sea in which Moses -- a prophet revered by Jews, Christians and Muslims alike -- is seen holding a "sword" like a warrior, instead of a "stick".

Furthermore, he said, the parting of the Red Sea is explained in the movie as a "tidal phenomenon" rather than a divine miracle.



Morocco has also banned the film, despite it already having been approved by the state-run Moroccan Cinema Centre, media reported on Thursday, quoting theatre managers.

Hassan Belkady, who runs Cinema Rif in Casablanca, told media24 news website that he had been threatened with the closure of his business if he ignored the ban.

"They phoned and threatened they would shut down the theatre if I did not take the film off the schedule," Belkady said.

In March, Al-Azhar, Egypt's top Islamic body, banned the screening of "Noah", another Hollywood biblical epic starring Russell Crowe, saying it violated Islam by portraying a prophet.

The film triggered controversy in the United States where some Christian institutions criticising Crowe's reportedly unconventional portrayal of Noah.

"Exodus" has also sparked unkind reviews and upset some Christian groups, with critics saying Scott took too many liberties with the Bible and cast Western actors in Middle East roles.

Egypt has censored other movies in the past, including the blockbuster "The Da Vinci Code" after protests from the Orthodox Coptic Church.

But it did allow the screening of Mel Gibson's "The Passion of The Christ", which depicts Jesus being crucified.

Muslims believe Jesus was a prophet and was not crucified.

Previous controversy
Exodus was earlier criticised for its "white-wash" casting. The film stars Australian actor Joel Edgerton as Egyptian pharoah Ramses, British-born Christian Bale as Moses, Aaron Paul plays Joshua and Sigourney Weaver takes on the role of Ramses mother, Tuya.

Writer David Dennis said: "Not only are all the main characters white, but the servants, thieves and assassins are played by Africans."

"To make the main characters white and everyone else African is cinematic colonialism," he said.


In August 2014, SBS spoke to Australian actor Joel Edgerton about the criticism.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/12/27/egypt-axes-exodus-film-over-claim-jews-built-pyramids
 
...And, if I remember my history correctly, African slavery was NOTHING compared to what occurred in this country. People weren't getting whipped, lynched and raped. So comparing the two is really just a waste of time.

100% Correct. Slavery is a relatively new word coming from the Slavic people of Europe. You couldn't even call what the Africans did "slavery" it was more like indentured servitude. Often times instead of killing off their their enemies and committing genocide, African tribes took prisoners of war and made them work within their society. They still had rights and could even become an active participant in the society once their service was over. In some cases these prisoners could rise up and even become a leader within the tribe.

I would say the BIGGEST difference is the fact that the offspring were not bound to this servitude. They were free to live within the society. Africans never owned a person and treated people like animals. Only a savage would do that type of thing to people...
 
100% Correct. Slavery is a relatively new word coming from the Slavic people of Europe. You couldn't even call what the Africans did "slavery" it was more like indentured servitude. Often times instead of killing off their their enemies and committing genocide, African tribes took prisoners of war and made them work within their society. They still had rights and could even become an active participant in the society once their service was over. In some cases these prisoners could rise up and even become a leader within the tribe.

I would say the BIGGEST difference is the fact that the offspring were not bound to this servitude. They were free to live within the society. Africans never owned a person and treated people like animals. Only a savage would do that type of thing to people...

Thank you sir for posting a more well thought out post. I was typing on my phone and didn't feel like writing all that out :lol:
 
Watched all 3 Hidden Colors films yesterday and was just mindblown by how much information that was out there that I didn't know about. I plan to watch all 3 again and dig deeper into it. Highly recommend it
 
...And, if I remember my history correctly, African slavery was NOTHING compared to what occurred in this country. People weren't getting whipped, lynched and raped. So comparing the two is really just a waste of time.

100% Correct. Slavery is a relatively new word coming from the Slavic people of Europe. You couldn't even call what the Africans did "slavery" it was more like indentured servitude. Often times instead of killing off their their enemies and committing genocide, African tribes took prisoners of war and made them work within their society. They still had rights and could even become an active participant in the society once their service was over. In some cases these prisoners could rise up and even become a leader within the tribe.

I would say the BIGGEST difference is the fact that the offspring were not bound to this servitude. They were free to live within the society. Africans never owned a person and treated people like animals. Only a savage would do that type of thing to people...


save for the part "Only a savage would do that type of thing to people..." i believe all that to be true; given how history has transpired we can now sit back and parse the the differences in slavery, i don't take any solace in the "but our slavery was better" argument, especially when (and i'm not a super history buff, so maybe there are references to africans keeping european slaves?) we don't KNOW that africans would have treated white slaves differently...slavery was not in any way a new phenomenon; what was different was that there was this distinct separation in physical appearance that enabled europeans to see africans not as human or a lesser human. which in turn, made them feel justified in their treatment of africans as slaves, and if you look at much of the language that comes to describe africans before & after the beginning of the transatlantic slave trade you can see that shift happen...

the fact that african slavery wasn't as inhumane european slavery is somewhat irrelevant, if the argument is that europeans are/were somehow unique in their savageness, because (again can't say i know for certain) europeans didn't not appear to treat european slaves the way they did african slaves (in fact, the rules of patrilineage, who your father was determining your social standing, was changed to matrilineal so that all males from slave women were officially borne into slavery). that is one of those "feel good" (similar to the "we were kings & queens," which upon any serious reflection crumbles, because it doesn't really mean anything) arguments people like to make, when the truth is much more sinister; HUMANS (race is a social construct!!!) just have the capacity for heinous just as much as the righteous...and the extent to which these qualities are exhibited are likely the result of many different factors, not the least of which is power






"People wants everything from blackness but the burden."
View media item 1324575


thanks for sharing the vid, hadn't come across the "new black" theory (which definitely seems to lack any historical context, because there doesn't seem to be much "new" about it, i'll have to check it out) and i do believe there is some truth to the whole cultural appropriation (reminiscent of that paul mooney joke...), but i'm of 2 minds about this because on the one hand it definitely can lead to this "cultural smudging" that easily crowds out originators for "more acceptable" options, however it seems a ridiculous standard to expect everyone to need some kind of pass to appreciate aspects from other culture; speaking of which have people been in tune with this conversation:




Watched all 3 Hidden Colors films yesterday and was just mindblown by how much information that was out there that I didn't know about. I plan to watch all 3 again and dig deeper into it. Highly recommend it

i had heard so much about these films, i decided to put aside some time to watch, especially after finding out that michelle alexander was featured in one of them...i have no idea how to digest anything in those films, besides it being pretty poor on the production/presentation side, which could be overlooked were it not that it gives all of the ideas equal standing (they are also MUCH TOO long)...some of which would not hold up to even a cursory review, i wish someone more vigorous would take the idea of exposing recorded history...
 
save for the part "Only a savage would do that type of thing to people..." i believe all that to be true; given how history has transpired we can now sit back and parse the the differences in slavery, i don't take any solace in the "but our slavery was better" argument, especially when (and i'm not a super history buff, so maybe there are references to africans keeping european slaves?) we don't KNOW that africans would have treated white slaves differently...slavery was not in any way a new phenomenon; what was different was that there was this distinct separation in physical appearance that enabled europeans to see africans not as human or a lesser human. which in turn, made them feel justified in their treatment of africans as slaves, and if you look at much of the language that comes to describe africans before & after the beginning of the transatlantic slave trade you can see that shift happen...

the fact that african slavery wasn't as inhumane european slavery is somewhat irrelevant, if the argument is that europeans are/were somehow unique in their savageness, because (again can't say i know for certain) europeans didn't not appear to treat european slaves the way they did african slaves (in fact, the rules of patrilineage, who your father was determining your social standing, was changed to matrilineal so that all males from slave women were officially borne into slavery). that is one of those "feel good" (similar to the "we were kings & queens," which upon any serious reflection crumbles, because it doesn't really mean anything) arguments people like to make, when the truth is much more sinister; HUMANS (race is a social construct!!!) just have the capacity for heinous just as much as the righteous...and the extent to which these qualities are exhibited are likely the result of many different factors, not the least of which is power
It has nothing to do with the our slavery is better than theirs argument. It's pointing out the differences so people can stop trying to downplay what happened.
 
Last edited:
accurate...a lot of the white people I know don't give a damn about police or even give them a second thought...whereas as a black person you know to keep your gaze forward and don't look at the cops when you see them.
 
Last edited:
It has nothing to do with the our slavery is better than theirs argument. It's pointing out the differences so people can stop trying to downplay what happened.

Basically. In comparison to what occurred in Africa it shouldn't even be called "slavery" because that's not what it was. In reality "slavery" is just a term that's appointed to what occurred as a way for ignorant individuals to easily say " Well Africans had slaves too".

In fact let's just stop calling it slavery altogether. Indentured servitude, prison, whatever but I feel like using the word "slavery" immediately draws comparisons of o what occurred in America and that just ain't true.
 
Last edited:
[thread="604438"] [/thread]
[thread="604438"]Plenty of great points here. A lot of people are scared or don't even care for improvement of their own people cause they are aware of the benefits of white supremacy... ol ' why yall complaining we got it so good here' *** ***********s. Feels like the most prominent stoppage in our improvement. Haven't really even thought about the possibility of black owned businesses carrying their own products, we talk about how we need more black businesses all the time and cycling black dollars but while their mainly distributing commercialized products that you would get going to other businesses otherwise then we're not really breaking the cycle just passively supporting it. Producing and supporting lines of our own products is cornerstone for that type of structural change imo. I usually don't give a hoot to hear what most celebrities have to say about most things but kudos to DB[/thread]

something like more than half of new businesses go out of business within the 1st 5 years...the reality of business, especially today, while it is much easier to start with knowledge being more accessible it also is harder to compete against status quo...it sounds real good to say support black business but will people pay a premium to do so? be willing to accept quality that's not quite the same? that's just having the business, not to speak of the actual capital needed, or the knowledge & relationships necessary to build supply chains and even if those are taken care of now, you have to deal with the perception of what it means to be a "black business"...it's definitely not impossible, but it ain't easy and it is doubly difficult to cut people out of the money, and the world of business is sometimes seen as zero-sum and established business has a vested interest in guarding the gates...that has to be the understanding you have going into it, which is why most people don't...

as such many people make the point of comparing immigrants who come here and start businesses to your average person but the thing is it is anything but average to leave the place and the people they've known all their life for the uncertain circumstances of a place they've never been, most people, even in today's world rootlessness, don't leave their country to pursue opportunity, much less even get the opportunity to leave; this by definition is exceptional. so to my mind the question isn't how to get more black businesses, though that'd definitely be good, I think the question is how to get more black folk to be/feel exceptional (and not because we're black but because we each have the capacity to be exceptional)
 
Southern Africa's ancient inhabitants evicted from ancestral lands

View media item 1325313

NEW XADE, Botswana - The San people in Botswana, ordered to leave land in the Kalahari desert that their ancestors had inhabited since time immemorial, suspect the authorities want to make room for diamond mines.

The government says it wants to integrate the hunter-gatherers into modern society.

At the resettlement camp for the San at New Xade, west of Botswana's Central Kalahari Game Reserve, the only bar fills up in the afternoon.

Customers play cards in the yard. One of them tries to tune-in an old radio for music.

Some people are already so drunk they can barely stand.

Empty beer cans litter the sand.

"Everyone drinks in New Xade," barmaid Kgomotsego Lobelo said from behind the counter in the bare concrete room, with bottles ranged neatly on shelves.

"Even I drink. There is nothing else to do."

More than 3,000 San people, also known as the Basarwa, were moved from villages inside the game reserve in the Kalahari desert to three resettlement camps between 1997 and 2002.

The government says it wants to provide southern Africa's oldest ethnic group, regarded by many Botswanans as "primitive", with modern services.

The San, though, believe the real reason for the resettlement lies in the development of tourism in the game reserve, and in the discovery of diamonds there in the 1980s.

Mining is thought to have been postponed in order to first exhaust other mines in the country and keep prices high, because diamonds make up 80 per cent of Botswana's export income.

A first mine started operating in Gope in the south-east of the game reserve in September.

The operating company, Gem Diamonds, estimates it contains deposits worth 4.9 billion dollars.

Activists suspect the government wants to prevent the San from claiming royalties for diamonds found on their ancestral land.

"Officials initially told us we could not coexist with wild animals and mines in the area," said Roy Sesana, 85.

A government spokesman said there were restrictions on human activities in the game park, such as a hunting ban, but denied the resettlement had anything to do with diamonds.

It would not have been necessary to move people because of mines, and royalties were not an issue, because "natural resources belong to the state," he said.

A spokeswoman for Gem Diamonds said San people interested in job opportunities had accepted the opening of the mine.

The government compensated the San for moving to New Xade.

"I was given 59,900 pula (6,6430 dollars) and my wife was given five cows," said Xamme Gaothobogwe, 58.

Despite such offers, many of the people did not want to leave villages near which their ancestors lie buried.

"My wife was moved to New Xade in 2001, while I was away," Sesana said.

"I took her back to our village, but officials took our goats and police beat me."


"My elderly mother ran away from soldiers trying to force us to move, fell exhausted, and died of shock," said Mmolawa Belesa, 56.

The lobby group Survival International says it has documented more than 200 cases of the abuse of San men and women between 1992 and 2014, including torture leading to death.

Many of them were accused of hunting protected animals.

"We cannot say there were never any cases of abuse, but most such charges were false," the government spokesman said.

At New Xade, the 1,500 residents have a school, a health centre and shops.

But there are few edible wild plants and the hunting ban was extended from game reserves to the entire country in January, depriving the Bushmen of the hunter-gatherer lifestyle they still partly rely on.

The resettlement camp has few jobs and most of the residents live on government handouts.

Some - mainly teachers and nurses - have modern housing, while others live in traditional grass huts.

"If we cannot return to our ancestral lands, there will soon be no San people left in Botswana," activist Jumanda Gakelebone said.

But San people living in the resettlement camp also appreciate the advantages there.

"My sick father can get treatment here," Belesa said.

In 2006, Botswana's Supreme Court ruled that the San had the right to live on their ancestral land.

The government interpreted that as meaning that only the ones who had signed the court petition - less than 200 - were allowed to return.

Roy Sesana was one of them. He now splits his time between New Xade and Molapo, one of the villages that were re-established.

Activists say the government is trying to drive the San back to resettlement camps.

Their relatives are not allowed to visit them without permits, and residents are dependent on rainwater and juice from melons.

"Nobody may enter the game reserve without permits, including tourists," the government spokesman said, adding that it would not be "economical" to transport water to the few San people now living there.

In 2011, the Court of Appeal ruled the San had the right to water.

The government has allowed Gem Diamonds to sink some boreholes for them, but it has otherwise ignored the ruling, their lawyer Gordon Bennett said.

"They want us out of here," Molapo resident Kesebonye Roy said.

http://www.enca.com/africa/southern-africas-ancient-inhabitants-evicted-ancestral-lands
 

I hear you and that truly is the plight that we're dealing with. Cause of the way that we are socialized we don't have the type of leverage to compete with big business but if we made the conscious decision to support our own and somehow get the support from a good majority of our communities then it would be a no-brainer. Would take loads of sacrifice and discipline but it is what it is
 
Back
Top Bottom