Exposing pervasive Arab-on-black racism found in "abeed (slave)" Twitter search

[Swagnificent]

They certainly saw themselves different from African/black people and Anti-black sentiment was high back then. It's a bit silly trying to apply today's standards of race when things were way different back then.

so what? we're seeing that even TODAY in africa, black folks don't see themselves as the same. the hutu and tutsis almost exterminated each other in a genocide. the northern and southern sudanese had to split their country in half because they didn't see each other as the same. in south africa we're seeing south africans killing other africans in brutally henious ways cause they don't see themselves as the same.

are the hutus and tutsis different races because they have strong racist sentiments to one another? are the northern sudanese and southern sudanese different races because they have strong racist feelings toward one another?

you can't have it both ways. very few africans would be considered black today if the measure of blackness is how africans view themselves vis-a-vis other africans.

 

[I.AM.PIFF]

the original berbers were described as black though. http://www.africaresource.com/rasta...ing-to-european-perceptions-by-dana-marniche/

if you read ANY sources before the modern 18th century racist european era, you will find the berbers of north africa being described as BLACK like the ethiopians.



the idea that berbers are different from black africans is a modern idea. in antiquity, they were considered the same as the black ethiopians.

Aight, I can see your point. The further south you go (in North Africa), the "blacker" people get and they tend to be more of a "pure" berber stock with minimal outside influence (generally SSA). Light skinned berbers still retain a majority berber stock but with more outside influence (mostly European) due to them being closer to the coast (and thus Europe) and having sen more outside settlers/influence.

Also, keep in mind that Europeans usually considered someone darker than them as "brown" even if technically they aren't. Kabyle people, for the most part, are lighter than most other berber groups for example.

 

[I.AM.PIFF]

so what? we're seeing that even TODAY in africa, black folks don't see themselves as the same. the hutu and tutsis almost exterminated each other in a genocide. the northern and southern sudanese had to split their country in half because they didn't see each other as the same. in south africa we're seeing south africans killing other africans in brutally henious ways cause they don't see themselves as the same.

are the hutus and tutsis different races because they have strong racist sentiments to one another? are the northern sudanese and southern sudanese different races because they have strong racist feelings toward one another?

you can't have it both ways. very few africans would be considered black today if the measure of blackness is how africans view themselves vis-a-vis other africans.

Both Tutsi and Hutu see themselves as African and black and I'd also say they consider the other as being African, even if they don't see themselves as similar. Tensions and violence between groups of the same "race" have always existed (as Europe's history is full of intra-European violence). Arabs always saw themselves as their own group (regardless of skin color) and different from whites/blacks.

 

[Nomad1]

I wonder how black Muslims feel when they hear this. To hear their fellow religious brehs step on them like this

and you're going to act like there isn't any Christians, Jews, atheists, who are racist?

 

[Swagnificent]

Both Tutsi and Hutu see themselves as African and black and I'd also say they consider the other as being African, even if they don't see themselves as similar. Tensions and violence between groups of the same "race" have always existed (as Europe's history is full of intra-European violence). Arabs always saw themselves as their own group (regardless of skin color) and different from whites/blacks.

FALSE. The hutu/tutsi definitely did not see themselves as black or African. Their hate originates from the colonial era when the Belguims said the tutsis were a different race and not black like the hutus because they had thin noses compared to the broad nosed hutus. This led to the belguims favoring the more european looking tutsis for all the power positions in the government. This led to anti-hutu discrimination by the minority tutisis. After the europeans left, the majority hutu took over the government and began discriminating against the tutsis in revenge. This ultimately led to the tutsi genocide in the 1990s.

The idea that the hutus and tutsis were different races goes back to the "Hamitic Hypothesis" created by racist europeans in the 1800s. It postulated that certain black groups in east africa (such as the ethiopians, somalians, masai, and tutsis) were descended from a race of whites from europe that came into africa in the ancient past and created all the notable african civlizations of antiquity (like Ancient Egypt).

the hutu/tutsis genocide had overt racial overtones in which the hutus were classed as the black/african group and the tutsis were the non-black group of non-african origin. read a book breh.

 

[I.AM.PIFF]

FALSE. The hutu/tutsi definitely did not see themselves as black or African. Their hate originates from the colonial era when the Belguims said the tutsis were a different race and not black like the hutus because they had thin noses compared to the broad nosed hutus. This led to the belguims favoring the more european looking tutsis for all the power positions in the government. This led to anti-hutu discrimination by the minority tutisis. After the europeans left, the majority hutu took over the government and began discriminating against the tutsis in revenge. This ultimately led to the tutsi genocide in the 1990s.

The idea that the hutus and tutsis were different races goes back to the "Hamitic Hypothesis" created by racist europeans in the 1800s. It postulated that certain black groups in east africa (such as the ethiopians, somalians, masai, and tutsis) were descended from a race of whites from europe that came into africa in the ancient past and created all the notable african civlizations of antiquity (like Ancient Egypt).

the hutu/tutsis genocide had overt racial overtones in which the hutus were classed as the black/african group and the tutsis were the non-black group of non-african origin. read a book breh.

It was more of a classism and power issue with the Europeans (as usual) meddling and creating the chaos. Also, didn'te the Euros (Belgians) remove the Tutsi from power to replace them with Hutu, thus worsening an already strained relationship?

The Europeans are a sly kind tbh. Classic divide and conquer strategy they used all over Africa mounting groups against each other and developping animosity.

 

[Swagnificent]

It was more of a classism and power issue with the Europeans (as usual) meddling and creating the chaos. Also, didn'te the Euros (Belgians) remove the Tutsi from power to replace them with Hutu, thus worsening an already strained relationship?

No. After the end of colonialism, Rwanda had elections and the majority hutu elected hutu leaders rather than before when the europeans appointed tutsis to lead. Tutsis only came back to power in the 90s after the end of the civil war and the tutsi minority took the government by force.

My point is this. even though the hutus and tutsis are genetically the same and intermarried for centuries, they still ended up doing henoius acts to one another because they perceived the other as a different race. we can't say that because they thought they were different, that they were different races. we can see them today that they both would be classified as black.

if an arab from the 7th century showed up today in times square, the NYPD would treat him no different than any other nikka in America.

 

[I.AM.PIFF]

No. After the end of colonialism, Rwanda had elections and the majority hutu elected hutu leaders rather than before when the europeans appointed tutsis to lead. Tutsis only came back to power in the 90s after the end of the civil war and the tutsi minority took the government by force.

My point is this. even though the hutus and tutsis are genetically the same and intermarried for centuries, they still ended up doing henoius acts to one another because they perceived the other as a different race. we can't say that because they thought they were different, that they were different races. we can see them today that they both would be classified as black.

if an arab from the 7th century showed up today in times square, the NYPD would treat him no different than any other nikka in America.

Aight, fair points

IDK about the last sentence tho, he'd certainly not get a fair welcome tho :yeshrug

 

[Free White & 21]

@Swagnificent you droppin a lotta knowledge in this thread
My nikka how you end owing rent money in negs?

 

[BlackFruitPunch]

All this arguing can be summed up in two words: nikkas lost

 

[ℒℴѵℯJay ELECTUA]

 

[Metta]

This is pathetic and is smacks off insecurity and weakness, giving relevance and importance to what some teenage imbeciles write in some shytty corner on Twitter.