Million of subscribers this dude has and decides to make a skit like this
All that is definitely plausible but we would still need to unearth and show some physical remnants of this. African people's remains and traces pre slavery so that we can let it stand as factual knowledge.Black people been traveled on this side of the world before cacs Europeans use to take Africans with them as their navigators.
Estevanico - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
This is just one example. But i'm not about to push the narrative that we all was over here and there was no slave ships
Lets pretend we have no prior knowledge of anything and pulled up on America and saw that North/South/Central America and the Carribeans had black people on the land. After that dip to West Africa and check it out. You're saying its more logical to believe that all the people that populate North/South/Central America and the Caribbean Islands came from West Africa over believing that there were those taken to West Africa? And that's not even denying that there were Africans taken from Africa and transported elsewhere, but pretending as if every black person in North/South/Central America (including the Carribbeans) are there because of slavery? Im calling that an all capitals CAP. And that's without even bringing up how they try pushing that same CAP anytime a black person pops up in Europe or Asia too..
What I never understood is the reason for lying about this.
There is plenty of proof. There are damn near more Pyramids on this side of the earth as the other side. A lot of hebrew inscriptions too
Every race was enslaved at one point, you're just an uneducated moron playing semantics and etymologyYup lets get on the cacs tv stations and make a mockery of educated black people that stand for their people.
Oh and of course lets post memes like teenage girls instead of addressing how the original "wight" person was black and the original "slaves" were the cacs called Slavs. Lets post a gif and giggle instead of questioning how these words ended up being switched around. That way we can always remind our future descendants that they were slaves
I can't pity pathetic people
More semantics that are a waste to even address. If a black person pops up anywhere that isn't Africa, all cacs have to say is its a slave and you'll parrot "So what, that's a slave". Even if they' have a have jewels on, colourful clothes, or a crown, if cacs say that's a slave, then they are a slave.. You automatically accept their reasoning when it comes to history, and in this case with a Euro king being called "the African"yet will turn around and mock those who think they might have a hidden agenda pushing it that way. A conquerer will say "Im the king of (enter conquered land)" but they won't be defined by a conquered land
1. I’ve never called a black person a slave in my entirelife. If I saw a black person with “jewels, colorful clothes, or a crown” I would not call them a slave. Wtf are you talking about?
I knew you would go here with it.i knew you'd want to make an argument over when it was put on paper over questioning why this part of history isn't really openly referenced. Kinda like the moors not really being openly referenced.
More semantics that are a waste to even address. If a black person pops up anywhere that isn't Africa, all cacs have to say is its a slave and you'll parrot "So what, that's a slave". Even if they' have a have jewels on, colourful clothes, or a crown, if cacs say that's a slave, then they are a slave.. You automatically accept their reasoning when it comes to history, and in this case with a Euro king being called "the African"yet will turn around and mock those who think they might have a hidden agenda pushing it that way. A conquerer will say "Im the king of (enter conquered land)" but they won't be defined by a conquered land
But this thread is about "slaves". And that word comes from the root word "slav" that references cac slavs from Eastern Europe. I wonder how the word "slav" as well as the word "black" went referencing them to referencing (modern day)"black" and "black" people in America. Same ones that get taught their own history starting from that slavery onwards...
Meanwhile, in 1870, 5 years after the "abolishment of slavery", somehow someway the "first" black senator was already being elected. Where? Of all places, the SOUTHERN STATE OF MISSISSIPPI. His name? Hiram (sounds like a moor) Revels. Your understanding of history is straight out of a textbook which is pathetic since public schools aren't about actually educating the public but ensuring the public become competent workers for society. And again, when anyone questions the narrative out of the textbook, you mock them. Like I said I can't pity, the pathetic people
So cacs went from being black (meant pale in old English) slaves to white (when wight meant human in old English). And (modern day) blacks became the ones synonymous with being slaves while somehow notching the "black" title. To pretend that a flip in the way people are viewed and labeled means nothing is just you covering your eyes to maintain a weak narrative.
