We gotta have a discussion on Liberia bruh

[Samori Toure]

The stratification of Tutsi v Hutu in Rwanda is largely a function of German/Belgian colonial rule and not British.

From your post, am I correct in thinking that what you're trying to do is say that Liberia is a poor example of Af-Ams coming back to Africa because Americo-Liberians basically subjugated the Kru, Gola, Mandingo etc?

I was on this too when he mentioned that Liberia was created out of the Berlin Conference.

I was surprised that @CashmereEsquire didn't point out that Liberia existed before the Berlin Conference.

 

[videogamestashbox.com]

Berlin Conference? Wasn't the Berlin Conference in the 1880's?

I ask that because I think that Liberia was founded in the mid 1820's when the American Colonization Society (ACS) got land from tribes in Liberia to relocate freed Black Americans back to Africa. The ACS was formed by influential White Americans to relocate freed Black people back to Africa, because the Southern States in the USA were banning freed Blacks from within their borders due to the freed Blacks assisting runaways slaves and inciting slave rebellions. Initially I think the plan was to send freed Blacks to Sierra Leone, which was another colony founded for/by African Americans that fought with the British in the American Revolution, but the British didn't want anymore Americans in that Colony. So the ACS got land in Liberia after the USA Congress provided the funding.

Liberia declared it's independence in the 1847. From what I recall the USA government never had a colony in Africa and because of the backing of the USA; no European Country ever colonized Liberia. So Ethiopia and Liberia share the distinction of being the only African nations that were never colonized. For obvious reasons there are really close historical ties between the USA and Liberia and they have always been aligned. The USA's assistance to Liberia in development matters is the reason that Liberia granted Firestone and some European nations the right to extract resources from Liberia.

Liberian independence proclaimed - Jul 26, 1847 - HISTORY.com
Liberia–United States relations - Wikipedia

From a historical note England and the USA; especially the USA took many slaves from in and around Sierra Leone and Liberia, which is why White Americans were aware of where many American Slaves were originally from.

Good catch I just got back and got work in a bit will reply later....

THE UNITED STATES AND THE BERLIN CONFERENCE ON THE PARTITION OF AFRICA, 1884 – 1885
G. Macharia Munene
Transafrican Journal of History
Vol. 19 (1990), pp. 73-79
Published by: Gideon Were Publications
Stable URL: THE UNITED STATES AND THE BERLIN CONFERENCE ON THE PARTITION OF AFRICA, 1884 – 1885 on JSTOR
Page Count: 7

Abstract
This paper hopes to help to increase the understanding of American historical involvement in African affairs by focusing on the 1884 – 85 Berlin Conference on Africa. It points out that the United States not only led the way in recognizing King Leopold's claims on the Congo, it also shows that the United States influenced the activities of Chancellor Otto Von Bismarck with regard to events in Africa. The United States became fully involved in the proceedings at Berlin in order to protect its perceived actual and mostly potential interests in Africa. In the effort to protect those interests the United States affected some of the decisions that were taken at Berlin. Although the United States did not ratify the treaty, because of changes in domestic politics, it continued to believe in the viability of the agreements reached at Berlin.


Maybe they went to Berlin to secure the body that would become Liberia. I'll look into the details of the timeline and politics surrounding it when I'm done with work over here.


Edit: I believe I said the Liberia area was secured at the Berlin conference but the land that made up the initial colonies was bought by the colonial society from the local Africans and confined to the coast. I mentioned this in the area of the OP around the maps part I believe(can't check now)

The timeline of purchasing the land maybe before the securing the land from European colonialist via the Berlin conference so that time line maybe were the issue came from. I can't say for sure until I look over everything.

I knew the U.S. participated in the berlin conference but the nature of the participation is assumed to be the same as others given they had interest in the area and no other power claimed Liberia. looking into the nuts and bolts of U.S. involvement in the conference would be a good addition to the thread actually.

 

[Apollo Creed]

I was on this too when he mentioned that Liberia was created out of the Berlin Conference.

I was surprised that @CashmereEsquire didn't point out that Liberia existed before the Berlin Conference.

My people predate the creation of Liberia lol. Most of my research Im doing is more so related to my tribe than the actual Liberian history. As far as what I know about Liberia i placed most of my attention to around the cold war because those were the years that shaped what we see now. That said if the berlin conference thing is true then Im not surprised and it would answer why Liberia was never "colonized" in the manner of the other nations. Seems to me like I said before the US just had some blacks "hold things down" while the US gave the direction for how the nation would run from a high level standpoint

 

[Samori Toure]

Good catch I just got back and got work in a bit will reply later....

THE UNITED STATES AND THE BERLIN CONFERENCE ON THE PARTITION OF AFRICA, 1884 – 1885
G. Macharia Munene
Transafrican Journal of History
Vol. 19 (1990), pp. 73-79
Published by: Gideon Were Publications
Stable URL: THE UNITED STATES AND THE BERLIN CONFERENCE ON THE PARTITION OF AFRICA, 1884 – 1885 on JSTOR
Page Count: 7

Abstract
This paper hopes to help to increase the understanding of American historical involvement in African affairs by focusing on the 1884 – 85 Berlin Conference on Africa. It points out that the United States not only led the way in recognizing King Leopold's claims on the Congo, it also shows that the United States influenced the activities of Chancellor Otto Von Bismarck with regard to events in Africa. The United States became fully involved in the proceedings at Berlin in order to protect its perceived actual and mostly potential interests in Africa. In the effort to protect those interests the United States affected some of the decisions that were taken at Berlin. Although the United States did not ratify the treaty, because of changes in domestic politics, it continued to believe in the viability of the agreements reached at Berlin.


Maybe they went to Berlin to secure the body that would become Liberia. I'll look into the details of the timeline and politics surrounding it when I'm done with work over here.

I don't know what you are referencing in regards to the Berlin Conference, but Liberia was already in existence before that conference and as best as I can remember no claims were made on them by any European powers because the USA had recognized Liberia's independence and had established diplomatic relations with Liberia as far back as 1864 which was nearing the conclusion of the USA's own Civil War.

Liberia

 

[videogamestashbox.com]

I don't know what you are referencing in regards to the Berlin Conference, but Liberia was already in existence before that conference and as best as I can remember no claims were made on them by any European powers because the USA had recognized Liberia's independence and had established diplomatic relations with Liberia as far back as 1864 which was nearing the conclusion of the USA's own Civil War.

Liberia

I think you may be conflating two things ...and I may be doing the same

That said the point of the berlin conference was simply to keep European powers from fighting over plots of land between each other.
1.Just because someone claimed "a slice" doesn't mean they have a colony automatically.
2.The U.S. claiming "a slice" so that Other Europeans do not disturb the area by attempting to clam & colonize it for themselves is distinct from the process of subjugating the locals via force or treaty.
3. The point of the academic article was merely to high light that the U.S. was involved in the B.C.(I got the impression you thought the U.S. never "attended") what that doesn't tell us is the extent or nature.

I think you maybe conflating those 1st two things. ...or again I maybe wrong as well.(Online with tech support now so I can't do much research into the topic you brought up, I'm going off the dome)

 

[Black Haven]

Is there any YouTube video footage of what an americo-liberian looks & sounds like?

their culture is very close to ours(Afro-Americans)

 

[videogamestashbox.com]

OK I got bout an hour and a half free
(Tech support B.S. me)

@Akan I think the best way to get a clear idea of this is for me to attempt to state your position as I understand it. Tell me if I'm correct...

Your position:
Timeline
1. How could the U.S. federal Gov secure land via the B.C. then the A.C.S go buy land from the local Africans, when the land was bought before the B.C. ever occurred?


Berlin conference
1. Liberia declared it's independence in 1847 from the American Colonization Society
2.The Berlin conference occurred in 1884-85
3. (How could / why would) the the U.S. attend the berlin conference when the U.S. federal government never had an African colony?



Is the above a correct or wrong assessment of your issues/questions?

 

[Big Daddy]

 

[bnm8907]

Whats the best documentary on Liberian history

 

[Samori Toure]

I think you may be conflating two things ...and I may be doing the same

That said the point of the berlin conference was simply to keep European powers from fighting over plots of land between each other.
1.Just because someone claimed "a slice" doesn't mean they have a colony automatically.
2.The U.S. claiming "a slice" so that Other Europeans do not disturb the area by attempting to clam & colonize it for themselves is distinct from the process of subjugating the locals via force or treaty.

I think you maybe conflating those two things. ...or again I maybe wrong as well.(Online with tech support now so I can't do much research into the topic you brought up)

I am saying Liberia and Ethiopia remained independent nations during the scramble for Africa and they were not colonized. The USA never colonized Liberia either.

I think that the USA always referred to Liberia as being in the USA's "sphere of influence" or some crap like that, so Liberia was always a defacto protectorate of the USA. Now England and France did threaten to annex the entirety of Liberia and they both actually did annex some of Liberia's land for their colonies (Sierra Leone, Guinea-Conakry and Ivory Coast); but neither Country actually colonized Liberia itself because it would have meant war with the USA.

 

[Samori Toure]

OK I got bout an hour and a half free
(Tech support B.S. me)

@Akan I think the best way to get a clear idea of this is for me to attempt to state your position as I understand it. Tell me if I'm correct...

Your position:
Timeline
1. How could the U.S. federal Gov secure land via the B.C. then the A.C.S go buy land from the local Africans, when the land was bought before the B.C. ever occurred?


Berlin conference
1. Liberia declared it's independence in 1847 from the American Colonization Society
2.The Berlin conference occurred in 1884-85
3. (How could / why would) the the U.S. attend the berlin conference when the U.S. federal government never had an African colony?



Is the above a correct or wrong assessment of your issues/questions?

I think that your assessment is partially correct and partially incorrect. I think that you need to read up on the American Colonization Society (ACS) to understand the origins the Liberia. It is complicated, so I will do my best to sum it up. If I am wrong then hopefully someone will clarify this matter.

Africans in America/Part 3/American Colonization Society

From my understanding of this subject and others can chime in too to correct me, but my understanding was that the USA Government never bought land in Liberia. The USA Government gave money to the ACS (a private organization) to buy the land. So the USA Government never set up a colony Liberia, but the ACS did. Liberia actually got it's independence from the ACS; not the USA, because the USA had never colonized Liberia.

Now it is clear that the USA obviously controlled Liberia and all of the European nations knew that which is why no one colonized Liberia, because to do otherwise would have likely meant war with the USA.

 

[Apollo Creed]

I think that your assessment is partially correct and partially incorrect. I think that you need to read up on the American Colonization Society (ACS) to understand the origins the Liberia. It is complicated, so I will do my best to sum it up. If I am wrong then hopefully someone will clarify this matter.

Africans in America/Part 3/American Colonization Society

From my understanding of this subject and others can chime in too to correct me, but my understanding was that the USA Government never bought land in Liberia. The USA Government gave money to the ACS (a private organization) to buy the land. So the USA Government never set up a colony Liberia, but the ACS did. Liberia actually got it's independence from the ACS; not the USA, because the USA had never colonized Liberia.

Now it is clear that the USA obviously controlled Liberia and all of the European nations knew that which is why no one colonized Liberia, because to do otherwise would have likely meant war with the USA.

I found this interesting.

"Captain Stockton is widely believed to have forced Dei King Peter (Zolu Doma) at gunpoint to sell Cape Mesurado to the ACS. Where did that story come from? Stockton gave a different account, as quoted by Charles S. Johnson in BITTER CANAAN, and in ACS records, the AFRICAN REPOSITORY, and US NAVY official records.

If Stockton reported that he drew his sidearm only to effect his and the ACS agents' safe exit from a very tense meeting with King Peter and other chiefs, and his statement is corroborated by official records, where did the other story come from? It is repeated by reputable news organizations, documentary films and African-American websites, one of which, about African-Americans in Africa, recently featured one African-American/Liberian who is a popular DJ on a Liberian radio station. I was shocked to see "Stockton placed a gun to the head of the Dei King, and forced him to cede Cape Mesurado to the Americans.""

 

[videogamestashbox.com]

I am saying Liberia and Ethiopia remained independent nations during the scramble for Africa and they were not colonized. The USA never colonized Liberia either.

I think that the USA always referred to Liberia as being in the USA's "sphere of influence" or some crap like that, so Liberia was always a defacto protectorate of the USA. Now England and France did threaten to annex the entirety of Liberia and they both actually did annex some of Liberia's land for their colonies (Sierra Leone, Guinea-Conakry and Ivory Coast); but neither Country actually colonized Liberia itself because it would have meant war with the USA.

I think that your assessment is partially correct and partially incorrect. I think that you need to read up on the American Colonization Society (ACS) to understand the origins the Liberia. It is complicated, so I will do my best to sum it up. If I am wrong then hopefully someone will clarify this matter.

Africans in America/Part 3/American Colonization Society

From my understanding of this subject and others can chime in too to correct me, but my understanding was that the USA Government never bought land in Liberia. The USA Government gave money to the ACS (a private organization) to buy the land. So the USA Government never set up a colony Liberia, but the ACS did. Liberia actually got it's independence from the ACS; not the USA, because the USA had never colonized Liberia.

Now it is clear that the USA obviously controlled Liberia and all of the European nations knew that which is why no one colonized Liberia, because to do otherwise would have likely meant war with the USA.

I'm aware of the historical data(I even have old books*pdf* from the A.C.S). The point here is understanding your position & interpretation not the historical data​

I have issues with what you are saying
(to be specific, I think you are misinterpreting what i'm saying).​

But before I give my critique I want to be sure I am clear on just what it is I'm critiquing. So, lets try this again before we get lost in this convo.

Your Position:
(as I currently understand it)

Colonization
1. Liberia was never colonized and remained free of the U.S. federal government and European nations
2. Liberia was aligned with U.S. interests and as a client state the European nations left it largely alone other than adjacent land sized by Britain & France

Timeline
1. How could the U.S. federal Gov secure land via the B.C. then the A.C.S go buy land from the local Africans, when the land was bought before the B.C. ever occurred?

Berlin conference
1. Liberia declared it's independence in 1847 from the American Colonization Society
2.The Berlin conference occurred in 1884-85
3. (How could / why would) the the U.S. attend the berlin conference when the U.S. federal government never had an African colony?



Is the above a correct or wrong assessment of your issues / questions? If so I'll begin my critique. If not we'll go through this again until I'm clear on what your saying and I'm critiquing.

 

[Samori Toure]

I found this interesting.

"Captain Stockton is widely believed to have forced Dei King Peter (Zolu Doma) at gunpoint to sell Cape Mesurado to the ACS. Where did that story come from? Stockton gave a different account, as quoted by Charles S. Johnson in BITTER CANAAN, and in ACS records, the AFRICAN REPOSITORY, and US NAVY official records.

If Stockton reported that he drew his sidearm only to effect his and the ACS agents' safe exit from a very tense meeting with King Peter and other chiefs, and his statement is corroborated by official records, where did the other story come from? It is repeated by reputable news organizations, documentary films and African-American websites, one of which, about African-Americans in Africa, recently featured one African-American/Liberian who is a popular DJ on a Liberian radio station. I was shocked to see "Stockton placed a gun to the head of the Dei King, and forced him to cede Cape Mesurado to the Americans.""

I do not doubt that any of that happened. That sounds about what a White man would do.

 

[Samori Toure]

I'm aware of the historical data(I even have old books*pdf* from the A.C.S). The point here is understanding your position & interpretation not the historical data​

I have issues with what you are saying
(to be specific, I think you are misinterpreting what i'm saying).​

But before I give my critique I want to be sure I am clear on just what it is I'm critiquing. So, lets try this again before we get lost in this convo.

Your Position:
(as I currently understand it)

Colonization
1. Liberia was never colonized and remained free of the U.S. federal government and European nations
2. Liberia was aligned with U.S. interests and as a client state the European nations left it largely alone other than adjacent land sized by Britain & France

Timeline
1. How could the U.S. federal Gov secure land via the B.C. then the A.C.S go buy land from the local Africans, when the land was bought before the B.C. ever occurred?

Berlin conference
1. Liberia declared it's independence in 1847 from the American Colonization Society
2.The Berlin conference occurred in 1884-85
3. (How could / why would) the the U.S. attend the berlin conference when the U.S. federal government never had an African colony?



Is the above a correct or wrong assessment of your issues / questions? If so I'll begin my critique. If not we'll go through this again until I'm clear on what your saying and I'm critiquing.

I don't understand what you don't understand.