GoPinheiro
Pro
Lol, I have noticed this here many times, and also in other platforms. By now, is not just coincidence. Always the same pattern...Objectivity and complexity of thought when analyzing non-black history but nothing more than emotionalism and simplification when analyzing black history...
In which states? Let's decompress history, stop grouping all into one, and get into specificity. Many states existed that didn't participate in any slave trade. Many existed that participated in multiple slave trade routes.
Name their(mixed people) specific influences in the largest or wealthiest states...For example, which mixed people played a major role in Bonoman-Denkyira-Ashanti? B-D-Ashanti were the longest ruling dynasties in what is now modern-central and southern Ghana. Lasting for around 1000 years and controlling most of the land. They were also into the slave trade business, although it wasn't a main form of income to them. So, which mixed race people played a major role in Bonoman-Denkyira-Ashanti?
No, my post highlights the reality. And that's why I mentioned the Asian and European mass killings and rapes of each other. And that's why you all are struggling to specifically address my questions as far as them. Why? Because you have a standard for them, where you use more complexity when analyzing their history. But have a lower standard when it comes to analyzing black history, where simplifications and generalizations are now the standard. This is a result of modern western propaganda and dominance of academia.
Kinship is not based on skin color or similar features, is based on similar cultures, values and statehood. You believe in the idea that kinship is based on skin color or similar physical features because you live in an heterogeneous society oriented by race. That has made you believe that all whites have been united and that blacks have never been united, can't unite and won't do that as well. Just cut the bs...And if you want, I can send you black historians and sociologists addressing what I have just mentioned...
Why do you think that Yugoslavia wasn't successful and later led to the Yugoslav wars? Weren't they all just Europeans and kinsmen?
Why do you think Russians and Ukrainians, despite being slavic, sharing a similar language now, have been killing each other for centuries instead of just becoming one? Aren't they kinsmen?
Why do you think Nazi Germans killed 6 million Poles(Polish), same Poles that are Europeans and also have Germanic admixture? Weren't they all just Europeans? Did they see each other as Kinsmen?
I mean, most Jews killed by Nazis looked just like other Germans...In fact, many Jews served as soldiers for Nazi Germani...Did they see each other as Kinsmen?
Your mind struggles to understand and cannot comprehend that some black states were friends to each other and protected each other, while others were enemies to each other. Your mind struggles to understand that some black states cared more about their own citizens than non-citizens who didn't have the same languages and values as them. Because in your mind, race is the only determinant factor in social relationships.
You were programmed to sees "wars" when analyzing ethnic conflicts between non-black ethnic groups. Because in western media, their ethnic conflicts were and are still depicted as heroic moments, of "people" warring for a greater good. "The fascists, the socialists, the pacifists hated each other. These different ideologies led to massacres all over". Completely bamboozled to the fact that everyone in the narrative was just white and applying the same standards to everyone, they shouldn't, at all, mass kill each other because they were all Europeans and kinsmen...
You were programmed to see "tribalism" when analyzing conflicts between black ethnic groups. Because in western media, conflicts between blacks are depicted as events that shouldn't even happen because everybody is just black. Suddenly, the different ideologies are not supposed to be discussed. All that matters is that they are just black, or black looking or African looking.
And on the basis of that, in your mind, they were supposed to be kinsmen and not participate in any slave trade. Why do you only have this standard for black people? It is definitely not because you hold black people to a higher standard...
And no, I am not absolving Africans from their participation in the TAS. It's the opposite, I am telling you that African states that participated in the TAS, were ruled by native people and these were the main actors. If you care more on how Europeans look or not in the narrative, that's on you...
Did you even watch the video? I believe you didn't even bother to watch it lmao. This video doesn't talk about mixed people being a determinant factor. This video discusses 4 events, in 4 different states, out of more than 500s centralized states that existed from 1400s till late 1800s.
It talks about partnerships between African states and European traders. It also talks about how, to Europeans, it was essential to hire and pay African mercenaries to help them invade African states. Because wars between just blacks and whites, wasn't favorable to whites. They kept losing. Plus, most of the events discussed are about Africa in late 19th century, after slave trade wasn't a major factor anymore...
This is what I was trying to say here...Slave trade started in 1400s, and you guys think that a video talking about events that happened in late 1800s(1st event mentioned happened in 1850) supports your points. Events separated by a timeline of 400 years and huge geographical distances. You really don't see anything wrong with this? Black history is one the only ones you can jump and mix timelines, mix geographies and people will eat it up without challenging the timeline and information...
Last edited:
