KingFreeman
Barely-Known Member
Read the got damn thread fool. I've already answered every single question you just asked and posted PICTURES to support my points.
Here are pictures of the Sultans of Zanzibar so folks can see how these "Arabs" enslaving "Africans" looked:
Here's a picture of the LAST Sultan of Zanzibar who fled to Oman after the revolution:
He looks like he could pass as Elijah Muhammad's brother.
And here are some "Arab" females so ya'll can see how the ladies looked:
Here is a picture of the Sultan of Zanzibar's kids:
And here are a group of Arab men from Zanzibar:
If you think the SULTANS of Zanzibar weren't black after looking at those pictures I've already posted, then nobody in America is black.
Both sides of the Zanzibar conflict were phenotypically black according to the American construct on race. Both the Arabs and the Africans. No different than the North Sudanese war with the South Sudanese being between two black groups despite one being "Arab" and the other "non-Arab". White supremacy just loves putting the label of Arabs vs Africans so that we can be brainwashed into thinking black people have always been nothing but slaves.
We'll agree to disagree and I'll drop it.
I understand that both groups are 'Africans' by basic definition. I concede that there was heavy mixture with the people in the region having varying levels of Arab and native African genetics but both would be considered 'Africans'. Its pointless to split hairs on genetics because people will disregard mixed race blood to fit their own ideas of what 'black' is. What I'm trying to say is however, the people in that area didn't follow the one-drop rule.
\When the guns and swords came out, both groups were able to distinguish who was in that ruling class and who wasn't. If you want to attach labels to people who didn't consider themselves that, do you. Just know it can be disingenuous to a lot of people.