African-American Slaves & West Africa - History Books are Lying (pt 1 & 2)

[xoxodede]

Yeah that's what I actually meant but didn't say explicitly, that Lagos Nigeria was named after Lagos Portugal. Strange how history works, because the one in Portugal is quite a small town, not even the capital of the region. Nice place btw, despite the history. There's a museum about slavery but it was closed when I was there

As to the bolded, I saw a french documentary that actually stated that the premices for chatel slavery actually was in Sao Tomé e Principe, previously uninhabited islands off the western coast of Africa. The Portuguese developped the techniques there before implementing them in the Caribbean and Americas, as they knew the weather was similar there. Haven't researched much more on that though. Those islands are overlooked when talking about slavery, yet looks like they played an important role : it's after the "success" of these plantations that relationships with african kings seem to have changed. But again, I haven't looked more into all of this.

On the documentary --- I haven't heard of Sao Tomé e Principe - I will definitely make sure I read about it. But, I know the techniques were called "seasoning" - which were brutal.

US Slave: Seasoning African Slaves By Thomas Clarkson

Sao Tomé e Principe​

By the 1510s, it was clear that sugar would be by far the most profitable crop, with an almost limitless market in Europe, one that the reigning major supplier, the island of Madéira, could not satisfy.[2] The problem was not the crop, but the labor needed to grow, harvest, and process it. Sugar was, and is, very labor-intensive and is best grown as a plantation crop. In the early 16th century, this meant slaves; and in the geographical context of São Tomé, this meant slaves from the nearby African mainland, especially from the recently-contacted Kingdom of Congo, in what is today northern Angola. In less than a decade, an enormous slave-trade grew up, with tens of thousands of Africans being brought to the island to labor on the newly-established sugar plantations, while thousands of others were “seasoned” on the island before being shipped across the Atlantic to the equally new plantations in the West Indies and on the American mainland.

http://www.hrpub.org/download/20170330/SA4-19608119.pdf
The Early Sao Tome-Principe Slave Trade with Mina, 1500-1540 on JSTOR​

 

[xoxodede]

That most certainly isn't true!
Though the current physical state was somewhat 'carved out' by European powers, many of the same groups who've occupied the area, and surrounding areas for over a millennia, are the same neighboring, warring, slave trading groups inhabiting the area, today. The actual nationalization of these groups under one umbrella, or nation is what is 'artificial'.

What were your dna results, btw?

 

[Apollo Creed]

Got it. Thanks for explaining.

I have to do more research on it. I know Europeans benefited more - but I understand a small amount of Nigerians benefited economically.

It's just crazy cause they were a large part of the trade - and country/people are in such bad condition.

The Transatlantic Slave Trade began in the late 15th century in Nigeria. By 1471, Portuguese navigators hoping to tap the fabled Saharan gold trade had reconnoitered the West African coast as far as the Niger Delta, and traded European commodities for local crafts as well as slaves, the latter which turned out to be highly lucrative. In the early stages, Europeans captured Nigerians in raids on coastal communities, but as the demand grew they relied on slaves to be supplied by local rulers, traders, and the military aristocracy, providing these agents with rum, guns, horses, industrial products, and fine muslin cloth.​

Enormous profits were made, mostly by Europeans, but a small number of Africans also benefited economically, mostly along the southwestern coast of Nigeria. Over this period of trade, more than 3.5 million slaves were shipped from Nigeria to North and South America and the Caribbean colonies. A smaller trade also existed to Europe and other regions.

In using local brokers to provide captives, the slave trade degraded preexisting social, political, and religious structures and destroyed longstanding trading patterns, turning markets along the trans-Saharan trade routes into slave raiding stations. Competition among local tribes in the slave trade was intense and spurred internal wars to provide a steady stream of slave captives. Those groups that were implicated in supplying the most slaves (the Aro, Oyo and Hausa) also experienced internal crises and struggle, and Yoruba city-states ended up engaged in internecine wars for control of the slave trade. In the north, the Islamic legal prohibition against enslaving Muslims led to rising conversion to Islam in order to avoid enslavement—though the economic incentives ensured that many Muslims were taken by Muslim raiders or predatory neighboring polities.​

On Lagos being a Portugese word...

Lagos, Onim:

By the late 15th century Lagos Island had been settled by Yoruba fishermen and hunters, who called it Oko. From the late 16th century to the mid-19th century, the area was dominated by the Kingdom of Benin, which called it Eko. The Portuguese first landed on Lagos Island in 1472. Trade developed slowly, however, until the Portuguese were granted a slaving monopoly a century later. The local obas (kings) enjoyed good relations with the Portuguese, who called the island Onim (and later Lagos) and who established a flourishing slave trade. British attempts to suppress the slave trade culminated in 1851 in a naval attack on Lagos and the deposition of the oba. The slave trade continued to grow until Lagos came under British control in 1861.​

Think of it this way.

Say you have a Home with a Mother and Father and two children.

A group of white men come to the home and kill the mother and father, kidnap one of the children and drops them off in a prison, and for the child left, the white people tear down the house and what is left gets turn into a prison that the child has to live in.
The Child that is left over is Nigeria.

A better way of thinking about this is to look at the region that was the Slave coast.
1.Identify the kingdoms/chiefdoms of that region
2.Identify the method of commerce used in that Kingdom for wealth.
3.If it was selling Africans to Europeans, then Identify if that kingdom still exits.
4.If that Kingdom still exists then one would have an argument that this kingdom is guilty. And those that govern the kingdom should have some sort of accountability. You have to separate those governing the Kingdom from someone who is simply a member of the Kingdom because a citizen of the kingdom was simply subjected to the rule of governing class (i.e. An AA is a citizen of the USA but is simply a person subjected to the rule of those that govern the system thus you wouldn't tell an AA to cough up Reparations for Chattel Slavery, being that 1.they are a victim of it of course, and 2.They did not govern nor benefit from the acts of the greater USA at the time).

One must not confuse Tribe/Ethnicity with Kingdom though. A Kingdom is an institution, and that institution can be made up of different tribes or ethnicities. So for example there could have been a Kingdom where someone was a slave or servant class in that kingdom, and of the same tribe as the monarchy but not of the same family/clan of the monarchy. Would all members of that tribe be responsible for the Slave Trade?

Now look at say the USA for example. You have white people who say "I wasn't around during Slavery so I'm not guilty of anything" BUT the institution that engaged in Chattel Slavery still exists AND every White Person in that institution directly benefits from from the system that utilized Chattel Slavery. A White person from Germany could move to the USA and would inherit the benefits of the institution because this racial institution is still alive and strong.

Nigeria was an institution of Britain, so in order to find the Africans at fault you would have to find the remaining Kingdoms that exist that are benefitting from their role in Chattel Slavery and that would be a hard task to do because most of them were destroyed.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

People in here thinking that Blumenbach's flawed understanding of 'race' that was highjacked by racists/racialists in the 18th Century and turned into 'scientific racism' is an accurate definition of 'Black'.



Ol' 'One-Drop' rule-face.

Kids probably called you an 'octoroon' and made you cry in elementary school 'cause you didn't know what it meant.​

 

[T'krm]

Interesting. Your numbers, especially the % of European blood seem on par with most
Was there a breakdown by group?

 

[IllmaticDelta]

You have Asians in India much darker than us yet they were never called Negro or any other variation of black lol.

well, some indians look like dark skinned white people and some other's actually look like black people. The asian/mongolid type that looked more like classic "negros" are the ones white people called "negritos"

 

[xoxodede]

Think of it this way.

Say you have a Home with a Mother and Father and two children.

A group of white men come to the home and kill the mother and father, kidnap one of the children and drops them off in a prison, and for the child left, the white people tear down the house and what is left gets turn into a prison that the child has to live in.
The Child that is left over is Nigeria.

A better way of thinking about this is to look at the region that was the Slave coast.
1.Identify the kingdoms/chiefdoms of that region
2.Identify the method of commerce used in that Kingdom for wealth.
3.If it was selling Africans to Europeans, then Identify if that kingdom still exits.
4.If that Kingdom still exists then one would have an argument that this kingdom is guilty. And those that govern the kingdom should have some sort of accountability. You have to separate those governing the Kingdom from someone who is simply a member of the Kingdom because a citizen of the kingdom was simply subjected to the rule of governing class (i.e. An AA is a citizen of the USA but is simply a person subjected to the rule of those that govern the system thus you wouldn't tell an AA to cough up Reparations for Chattel Slavery, being that 1.they are a victim of it of course, and 2.They did not govern nor benefit from the acts of the greater USA at the time).

One must not confuse Tribe/Ethnicity with Kingdom though. A Kingdom is an institution, and that institution can be made up of different tribes or ethnicities. So for example there could have been a Kingdom where someone was a slave or servant class in that kingdom, and of the same tribe as the monarchy but not of the same family/clan of the monarchy. Would all members of that tribe be responsible for the Slave Trade?

Now look at say the USA for example. You have white people who say "I wasn't around during Slavery so I'm not guilty of anything" BUT the institution that engaged in Chattel Slavery still exists AND every White Person in that institution directly benefits from from the system that utilized Chattel Slavery. A White person from Germany could move to the USA and would inherit the benefits of the institution because this racial institution is still alive and strong.

Nigeria was an institution of Britain, so in order to find the Africans at fault you would have to find the remaining Kingdoms that exist that are benefitting from their role in Chattel Slavery and that would be a hard task to do because most of them were destroyed.

That was a great breakdown. I understand a lot better.

But, I still have a question about tribes.

For instance, I made a thread about some of my African matches on Ancestry.

Here's a portion of the OP:

One is a Male from Accra, Ghana from the "Ga" Tribe.

Another is also a male from Accra, Ghana and "Akan" from the Fante/Fanti tribe.

And the last is a woman from the "Abia State" of Nigeria and from the "Igbo" Tribe.

Q: I noticed for the two from Accra, Ghana - they are from two different tribes who went to war with each other. Could this possibly be how my ancestors were enslaved?

Ashanti–Fante War - Wikipedia

Ga–Fante War - Wikipedia

The Fante and the Transatlantic Slave Trade​

So for this example...

The Tribes that fought each other - I have a distant "cousin" from each.

So, the tribes wouldn't be at fault -- since both lost people ....right?

Would it be the Fante Confederacy and Ashanti Confederacy? Which Kingdoms/Confederacies both would be present day Ghana.

It's confusing. That's why I look at it via the African countries - not tribes - cause they all had people sold, kidnapped or tricked into the trade.

 

[xoxodede]

Interesting. Your numbers, especially the % of European blood seem on par with most
Was there a breakdown by group?

Breakdown per group?

Sorry, I don't understand.

It states the percentage of each.

I know my non-African dna is from my maternal side via my family tree -- and maternal dna (chromosome) via violation during enslavement and right after.

 

[Apollo Creed]

That was a great breakdown. I understand a lot better.

But, I still have a question about tribes.

For instance, I made a thread about some of my African matches on Ancestry.

Here's a portion of the OP:

One is a Male from Accra, Ghana from the "Ga" Tribe.

Another is also a male from Accra, Ghana and "Akan" from the Fante/Fanti tribe.

And the last is a woman from the "Abia State" of Nigeria and from the "Igbo" Tribe.

Q: I noticed for the two from Accra, Ghana - they are from two different tribes who went to war with each other. Could this possibly be how my ancestors were enslaved?

Ashanti–Fante War - Wikipedia

Ga–Fante War - Wikipedia

The Fante and the Transatlantic Slave Trade​

So for this example...

The Tribes that fought each other - I have a distant "cousin" from each.

So, the tribes wouldn't be at fault -- since both lost people ....right?

Would it be the Fante Confederacy and Ashanti Confederacy? Which Kingdoms/Confederacies both would be present day Ghana.

It's confusing. That's why I look at it via the African countries - not tribes - cause they all had people sold, kidnapped or tricked into the trade.

So let me break down tribes because I often see AAs get confused about it.

Think of it this way

1.African American is an Ethnic group within the United States.
2.Creole People are a Subgroup (Tribe) within the African American Ethnic group
3.A Community of say 4 families of Creole People (when I say families I mean like literal 4 different Families) that have lived in this community for say 100 years (meaning everyone in this community belongs to one of the 4 families) would be considered a Clan.
4.The Subset of Clan would be the literal family (Say everyone with the last name Smith that is Creole, from the community mentioned in number 3.

Now say the Creole people went to War and enslaved a Tribe of AAs who's region of living was the Midsouth ( lets just call em the Midsouth tribe). Now while this war is going on you still have other AA tribes like say the Gullah Geechie, living their own life and doing their own thing in the Carolinas.

Now in my above example one could say AAs owned Slaves, which would be a true statement.
But the Gullah Geechie may say "yeah I'm AA but idk anything about what happened when it comes to slaves so I don't think I'm in the wrong". And they would correct, because the Creole "tribe" is the tribe who the one who enslaved the Midsouth Tribe not the Gullah Geechie.

Now in the above example replace
1.African American with Akan, because Akan is an Ethnic group.
2.Replace Creole with Ashanti (because Ashanti is a Subgroup of Akan)
3. Replace Midsouth with Fante (another Akan group)
4. Replace Gullah Geechie with Nzema (another Akan group).

So in theory you can say All AAs are the same Ethnic group, share a common history, and have very similar traditions. But if you look closer you will notice there are specific differences (some may be small, some may be big) which are specific to their experiences in their specific regions, thus you notice all 3 sub groups of AA (Creole, Midsouth, Gullah Geeche) may dress a little different, speak different dialects/languages, etc. even though they are all AA.

Make sense?

It is common place to see Tribes within an Ethnic group go to war, Clans within an Ethnic group go to war, or Ethnic groups go to war against other Ethnic groups, or Kingdoms (a Kingdom can consist of numerous Ethnicgroups, in the same manner the USA has numerous ethnic groups).

Also keep in mind Ethnic groups can consist of different Races, or mixed race people (i.e. Arabs and Hispanics which consist of White People, Black People, and Mixed Race people).


So long story short all because I am apart of an Ethnic group doesn't mean I am apart of the Tribe that may have done something. And once again when you introduce Clans, or Kingdoms that spanned across Ethnic groups it makes things very complicated when identifying "who did what".

 

[T'krm]

Breakdown per group?

Sorry, I don't understand.

It states the percentage of each.

I know my non-African dna is from my maternal side via my family tree -- and maternal dna (chromosome) via violation during enslavement and right after.

Area/region, rather. Ex: Cameroon, Nigeria, Senegal ect.

 

[Apollo Creed]

well, some indians look like dark skinned white people and some other's actually look like black people. The asian/mongolid type that looked more like classic "negros" are the ones white people called "negritos"

fair point. But I would say Negritos deviated from Africans too long ago to call them 'Black' in the modern sense. Especially when you factor in many of those people mixed with Neanderthals and the other Human Cousin (for get the name of the group), mean while any Neanderthal DNA an AA for example may have is something that came from a White or Asian person and not their African ancestors.

 

[xoxodede]

So let me break down tribes because I often see AAs get confused about it.

Think of it this way

1.African American is an Ethnic group within the United States.
2.Creole People are a Subgroup (Tribe) within the African American Ethnic group
3.A Community of say 4 families of Creole People (when I say families I mean like literal 4 different Families) that have lived in this community for say 100 years (meaning everyone in this community belongs to one of the 4 families) would be considered a Clan.
4.The Subset of Clan would be the literal family (Say everyone with the last name Smith that is Creole, from the community mentioned in number 3.

Now say the Creole people went to War and enslaved a Tribe of AAs who's region of living was the Midsouth ( lets just call em the Midsouth tribe). Now while this war is going on you still have other AA tribes like say the Gullah Geechie, living their own life and doing their own thing in the Carolinas.

Now in my above example one could say AAs owned Slaves, which would be a true statement.
But the Gullah Geechie may say "yeah I'm AA but idk anything about what happened when it comes to slaves so I don't think I'm in the wrong". And they would correct, because the Creole "tribe" is the tribe who the one who enslaved the Midsouth Tribe not the Gullah Geechie.

Now in the above example replace
1.African American with Akan, because Akan is an Ethnic group.
2.Replace Creole with Ashanti (because Ashanti is a Subgroup of Akan)
3. Replace Midsouth with Fante (another Akan group)
4. Replace Gullah Geechie with Nzema (another Akan group).

So in theory you can say All AAs are the same Ethnic group, share a common history, and have very similar traditions. But if you look closer you will notice there are specific differences (some may be small, some may be big) which are specific to their experiences in their specific regions, thus you notice all 3 sub groups of AA (Creole, Midsouth, Gullah Geeche) may dress a little different, speak different dialects/languages, etc. even though they are all AA.

Make sense?

It is common place to see Tribes within an Ethnic group go to war, Clans within an Ethnic group go to war, or Ethnic groups go to war against other Ethnic groups, or Kingdoms (a Kingdom can consist of numerous Ethnicgroups, in the same manner the USA has numerous ethnic groups).

Also keep in mind Ethnic groups can consist of different Races, or mixed race people (i.e. Arabs and Hispanics which consist of White People, Black People, and Mixed Race people).


So long story short all because I am apart of an Ethnic group doesn't mean I am apart of the Tribe that may have done something. And once again when you introduce Clans, or Kingdoms that spanned across Ethnic groups it makes things very complicated when identifying "who did what".

Confusing as hell..LOL.

Don't get me wrong I understand. I think...

Like for the Akan and Ashanti - they are both Ethnic groups and both had Kingdoms they ruled over. Both were involved in the trade - via selling.

Plus, in Africa - all Africans are apart of a tribe - so that tribe in that Kingdom - though they themselves may not have done anything - but the tribe they belong too has.

Can you explain I how other races can be apart of an ethnic group in Africa? What would be an example of this in Africa?

For instance in America...

I see it as - Southern Whites - would be a "clan" of Whites "ethnic" group - The Confederacy/Confederate States is their Kingdom.

The Southern Whites descendants - whether they owned slaves or not - were apart of the slavocracy - by being employed, benefiting from being able to use slave labor, or even feeling superior - and allowing for it to go on.

 

[xoxodede]

Area/region, rather. Ex: Cameroon, Nigeria, Senegal ect.

39% Cameroon, Congo & Southern Bantu
27% Benin/Togo
10% Mali
7% Ivory Coast/Ghana
<1% Nigeria

 

[Apollo Creed]

Confusing as hell..LOL.

Don't get me wrong I understand. I think...

Like for the Akan and Ashanti - they are both Ethnic groups and both had Kingdoms they ruled over. Both were involved in the trade - via selling.

Plus, in Africa - all Africans are apart of a tribe - so that tribe in that Kingdom - though they themselves may not have done anything - but the tribe they belong too has.

Can you explain I how other races can be apart of an ethnic group in Africa? What would be an example of this in Africa?

For instance in America...

I see it as - Southern Whites - would be a "clan" of Whites "ethnic" group - The Confederacy/Confederate States is their Kingdom.

The Southern Whites descendants - whether they owned slaves or not - were apart of the slavocracy - by being employed, benefiting from being able to use slave labor, or even feeling superior - and allowing for it to go on.

Ashanti is to Akan as Creole is to AA. They are Subgroups or Tribes if you will.
The definition of Ethnic group = Group of people who share similar experiences, traditions, languages, etc.
For example.
A BiRacial Person is Not Black, they are BiRacial.
But a BiRacial person could be AA, they could be Hispanic, they could be Arab, etc.
With the AA ethnic group, a White Person could not be an AA because their history in this country is different than that of the AA group, and they have always been separated. They wouldn't have been a Slave at the same time as an AA, they were not victims of Jim Crow, etc.
A Biracial person on the other hand could have been a Slave, Been a victim of Jim Crow, and has a Black (African) Parent, thus they were cultural brought up in the same culture as other AAs.
The same way AAs could have African ancestry from all over and completely different regions from another AA (i.e one could have predominantly Nigeria ancestry while the other could have Predominantly Senegambian), but both would be considered AAs.

Think about the thread you made about in the Root about Americo Liberians not = AA. Even though both may have ancestors who where victims of Chattel Slavery, they (those who would go on to become Americo Liberians) would 'deviate'/split off from those who would later become what we call AA today, due to both groups going through different experiences and creating new culture after the 'split' happened. If you remember my argument was while Americo Liberians are not what we consider Modern day AAs, they descend from Black people who were slaves in the United States (and other Western nations). So while the Modern groups are difference there is a shared history up to a certain point (until the 'split' occurred).


If you look at the Current state of the USA, the concept of 'Black American' is evolving as Black Immigrants who came in the 60s-70s are now on their 3rd or 4th generation of children. This is why I have said in the past the establishment of AADOS is critical to the preservation of traditions (and of course AADOS making their Case to the USA for Reparations). Establishing official groupings is not to say you hate someone but it is essential to documenting our (Black People as a whole) history so we can never go through what happened in the past (with non Blacks telling us who we are).

For example, my GF is AADOS, and I'm from the Dan Tribe in West Africa. Based on my traditions we are a patrilineal culture, so she would take my family name and my children would take my family. In the same instance it is critical to the development of my children and future generations in understanding where they come from on both sides, because knowledge of self is a critical thing when it comes to developing as a person (so that you dont make the same mistakes or fall for the same traps as our ancestors). I consider myself 'Black American' and if I go to Liberia right now they would too. This is because I am an American National (I was born in America) and Culturally I was brought up in Black American Culture (which we know AADOS laid the foundation of, with other groups contributing later on in recent times, but still AADOS are the creators and dictators of Black American Culture). I understand I'm not AADOS, so I don't make the claim that I have the same case for reparations as they do (I believe every Black Person on earth deserves it from the various Western Powers, but each group has a very different case, so you cant speak of them all in the same instance). I do see the AADOS who came before me as my Ancestors though since we are all Africans/black and I have ancestral cousins who were brought to the Americas AND me being born in the USA means I inherit the issues of all AADOS (they not giving me a pass because of where my parents are from, Black is black to a white supremacist), so with that I honor the AADOS who came before me. AADOS may consider me an 'immigrant' but I'm not really concerned because under a system of White Supremacy I'm black and a victim.

 

[xoxodede]

Ashanti is to Akan as Creole is to AA. They are Subgroups or Tribes if you will.
The definition of Ethnic group = Group of people who share similar experiences, traditions, languages, etc.
For example.
A BiRacial Person is Not Black, they are BiRacial.
But a BiRacial person could be AA, they could be Hispanic, they could be Arab, etc.
With the AA ethnic group, a White Person could not be an AA because their history in this country is different than that of the AA group, and they have always been separated. They wouldn't have been a Slave at the same time as an AA, they were not victims of Jim Crow, etc.
A Biracial person on the other hand could have been a Slave, Been a victim of Jim Crow, and has a Black (African) Parent, thus they were cultural brought up in the same culture as other AAs.
The same way AAs could have African ancestry from all over and completely different regions from another AA (i.e one could have predominantly Nigeria ancestry while the other could have Predominantly Senegambian), but both would be considered AAs.

Think about the thread you made about in the Root about Americo Liberians not = AA. Even though both may have ancestors who where victims of Chattel Slavery, they (those who would go on to become Americo Liberians) would 'deviate'/split off from those who would later become what we call AA today, due to both groups going through different experiences and creating new culture after the 'split' happened. If you remember my argument was while Americo Liberians are not what we consider Modern day AAs, they descend from Black people who were slaves in the United States (and other Western nations). So while the Modern groups are difference there is a shared history up to a certain point (until the 'split' occurred).


If you look at the Current state of the USA, the concept of 'Black American' is evolving as Black Immigrants who came in the 60s-70s are now on their 3rd or 4th generation of children. This is why I have said in the past the establishment of AADOS is critical to the preservation of traditions (and of course AADOS making their Case to the USA for Reparations). Establishing official groupings is not to say you hate someone but it is essential to documenting our (Black People as a whole) history so we can never go through what happened in the past (with non Blacks telling us who we are).

For example, my GF is AADOS, and I'm from the Dan Tribe in West Africa. Based on my traditions we are a patrilineal culture, so she would take my family name and my children would take my family. In the same instance it is critical to the development of my children and future generations in understanding where they come from on both sides, because knowledge of self is a critical thing when it comes to developing as a person (so that you dont make the same mistakes or fall for the same traps as our ancestors). I consider myself 'Black American' and if I go to Liberia right now they would too. This is because I am an American National (I was born in America) and Culturally I was brought up in Black American Culture (which we know AADOS laid the foundation of, with other groups contributing later on in recent times, but still AADOS are the creators and dictators of Black American Culture). I understand I'm not AADOS, so I don't make the claim that I have the same case for reparations as they do (I believe every Black Person on earth deserves it from the various Western Powers, but each group has a very different case, so you cant speak of them all in the same instance). I do see the AADOS who came before me as my Ancestors though since we are all Africans/black and I have ancestral cousins who were brought to the Americas AND me being born in the USA means I inherit the issues of all AADOS (they not giving me a pass because of where my parents are from, Black is black to a white supremacist), so with that I honor the AADOS who came before me. AADOS may consider me an 'immigrant' but I'm not really concerned because under a system of White Supremacy I'm black and a victim.