Black Native Americans -  Black Men, Black Masters (104 views) Notify me whenever anyone posts in this discussion.Subscribe
 
From: ROSETTA3216/7/06 9:13 PM 
To: blackgold51 unread  (8 of 31) 
 629.8 in reply to 629.1 

from Black Men, Black Masters by
Published September 29 2002
http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/hc-black_masters.artsep29,0,5217662.story?coll=stam-main-utility

"In his doctoral dissertation on the lives of black people in Colonial-era Connecticut, Guocun Yang says this demonstrates that "slave-ownership was not exclusively a white privilege, and that free blacks could accumulate material wealth."

"In his authoritative 1942 survey "The Negro in Colonial New England," Lorenzo J. Greene says that despite the many legal and social sanctions against black people in late 18th-century Connecticut, they were permitted to own property, though sometimes the permission of the town was required.     Greene's research also shows that freed black men usually tried to reassemble their families in freedom, and would, as soon as they were able, buy their wives and children. "

What this article by Farrow and all the sources from Yang, Green and Stampp that she cites in her article do is to omit one crucial fact ... and FACT is that these blacks they are referring to are immigrant Negroes who were brought into the USA colonies as indentured servants from the West Indies.  These immigrant Negroes or Celts originally from western europe who migrated to Africa the West Indies during early western colonial expansion were hired as indentured servants first by the Dutch who brought them to their colony called New Netherlands and their posts (1620-1630) in New York (including NYC or New Amsterdam), Conneticut, Delaware and New Jersey. 

These hired indentured servants worked by contract for a set number of years in exchange from the cost of passage and board to the USA and were paid freedom fees$$ at the end of their years of service and some were even given our indigenous American lands as payment.  It is these immigrant Negroes who were NEVER slaves ... who would then work and proceed to buy the freedom of the rest of their family under contract as indentured servants.  I've noticed that every immigrant Negro and white who write propaganda on the subject of slavery in the USA, always falsely equate these immigrant Negro indentured servants with being slaves.  

  •  Only inidigenous Native Americans were made slaves by the invading europeans. 

It is also reported that whites as immigrants from the West Indies also moved to the USA with immigrant Negroes as slaves -- which had nothing to do with whites invading the USA and importing immigrant Negroes as indentured servants while kidnapping and forcing indigenous Americans into slavery.  Slaves were considered property under USA and no rights, .. while immigrant Negroes as indentured servants had legal rights upheld under colonial law and were never enslaved for life without pay... unlike slaves.  Only indigenous Native Americans of Shemite (includings the Yamases who were Yisraelites/Jews) and Cush/Khush ancestry were slaves in the USA.

"In the South in 1830, more than 3,600 free blacks or mixed-race people owned slaves, according to Kenneth Stampp, author of the 1956 landmark study "The Peculiar Institution." "

I remember being assigned to read this book called The Peculiar Institution as supplemental reading for a "black" history course we were required to take.  The book didn't make any sense to me at all ... nor did the course.  The only thing I can remember from the entire course was a comment by the BF elderly instructor who told us that under slave and Jim Crow laws in SC, black women couldn't be raped by a WM.  I can't even remember if we were also assigned to read "Before the Mayflower" by Bennette ... which appears  to be an update of George Washington Willimans "A History of the Negro in American from 1619 - 1887." 

And when one takes a close look at the so-called statistics about "blacks" owning slaves ... we see that there is no break down between the immigrant Negroes the British imported as indentured servants into the South or the mulattoes, as there was no classification called "mixed race" in the US Census until recent times.  Until the US Census of 1870 there were only the categories of white, black, mulatto and slaves.  Aftere 1870 the categories of Indian and Chinese were added. In the US Census of 1950, the category of Negro was added ... and if you don't know already, the USA government refuse to count any indigenous Native American not living on a reservation as a Native American ... which means the USA refuses to count the tens of millions of descendants of Native American who were enslaved (kidnapped or war captives) as Native Americans.  As Black Indian Native Americans we have falsely been mislabeled as immigrant Negroes and now African Americans or black, as the USA government in 1997 legally changed the meaning of black for racial classification to mean Negro, African American, African and Haitian ... which excludes our entire indigenous Black Indian Native American race.

  • Edited 6/7/2006 9:17 pm ET by Rosetta321
 
 Reply   Options 

 
From: stormshaddow6/11/06 12:12 AM 
To: ROSETTA321  (9 of 31) 
 629.9 in reply to 629.8 

>>the USA government refuse to count any indigenous Native American not living on a reservation as a Native American ... which means the USA refuses to count the tens of millions of descendants of Native American who were enslaved (kidnapped or war captives) as Native Americans.<<

That is true! It didn't matter which box you checked on the census!

 

 
From: ctj5276/11/06 3:23 PM 
To: Semmaster  (10 of 31) 
 629.10 in reply to 629.5 


Good afternoon, poster...

And, a unique heritage your share, though I also urge you to check out Sister Angela's AFRICAN/NATIVE AMERICAN GENEOLOGY FORUM,
if you need or want help to pursue any further inquiries...

FYI...

Peace...

 

 
From: ROSETTA3216/12/06 10:17 PM 
To: stormshaddow  (11 of 31) 
 629.11 in reply to 629.9 
  • That is true! It didn't matter which box you checked on the census!

The wording to define Native American for racial classification for USA government purposes is "tribal affiliation".  Since our indigenous ancestors were those Native Americans who were kidnapped or war captives and held as slaves until 1865 ... how could we as their descendants have any tribal affiliation ... when our ancestors were considered property and not human beings?

 

And as you know ... the federal government does not recognize all tribes of Native Americans in the first place... so there can be no claims for restoration of ancestral homelands and reparations.

 

  • Edited 6/12/2006 10:19 pm ET by Rosetta321
 

 
From: stormshaddow6/13/06 6:55 PM 
To: ROSETTA321  (12 of 31) 
 629.12 in reply to 629.11 
The US determines who is and who isn't Native American not the Tribes
 

 
From: ROSETTA3216/15/06 9:49 PM 
To: stormshaddow  (13 of 31) 
 629.13 in reply to 629.12 
  • The US determines who is and who isn't Native American not the Tribes.

This is what I said ... the federal goverment does not recognize all indigenous Native Americans so there can be no claims for restoration of ancestral lands and reparations by ALL indigneous Shemite and #### Native Americans.

As it stands now ... out the alleged 500 Native American nations (not tribes) that were here prior to the western european colonial occupation  ... only a fraction of these tribes are recognized as Native Americans by this same colonial western government now called USA.

 

 

 
From: ctj5276/16/06 9:30 AM 
To: ROSETTA321  (14 of 31) 
 629.14 in reply to 629.11 

Good morning,  Rosetta...

And welcome to our awfully small social circle...

But what an irony the source of the article we're discussing/debating here:

I. e.,   THE ADVOCATE is a publication I usually associate with gays and gay issues/problems,  etc.

So this does prove that ole saying to be true:

It takes all kinds...

(Smile)...

Onward...

No...

I didn't and don't advocate the solution to the aftermath of our particular ancestors and/or others who are black indigenous folk coming exclusively and solely from reparations via this or that heir of some mixed blood who got rich at our or somebody else's expense...

But...

I also do have strong feelings about what was and is-- three times over-- the meddling in our ancestors and their indigenous relations business--by the minions and the mainstays of the white settler refounded nation on this continent...

Y'see,  what  some whites and their peoples'  historians chose to believe is whatever went on or down,  i. e.,   be it during the forced removal of indigenous and indigenous related folk from east to west of the Mississippi,    way back during the 1830's,   and/or the seizing of some lands from their descendants,   i. e.,   via a hoped for bid to appease land hungry whites and/or to usher in a new state,   during the Land Rush during the last part of the 19th century,  was just the unfortunate aftermath of ignorant white paper pushers in a hurry to get their jobs done,  et al...

Instead?

I believe those acts--which included the abritrary reclassification of some indigenous folks as 'negroes'--as in as being black--  exclusively and solely--were self serving/biased/deliberately divisive and blatantly racist...

The reality was and is that african and indigenous folk on these three continents had already been mingling and intermating long before the first white colonists built homes et al on the land they managed to settle on near or among either people in this part of the Americas...

It's just that-- long after those earlier events took place--some illusions get hyped by the way of also very one side and biased accounts  in U. S. history books etc.  or the writers/publishers/etc.  choose to delete that part of the history of this part of the continent...

While way back in the day the minions and the mainstays of the white colonists  left no doubt in either the brown or black peoples minds how they felt and thought about the majority of them:

As in?

"The only good indian is a dead indian..."

"A black man has no rights a white man is bound to respect..."

Ahem...

Not to digress...

Moving right along...

The illusion as regards the second scenario,   i. e.,   the making of new treaties with the so called five 'civilized'  tribes,    e. g.,   labelled so by the whites because their mainstays adapted and adopted the ways of the white setttlers,   a few up to and including being plantation owners and slave holders,  etc.,  is that the Union side 'forced' the five tribes to both free their enslaved african indigenous folk and make them tribal members et al...

What self justfying b. s.!

Of course that's far from the truth!

Instead?

The Cherokees had already ended the enslavement of their black indigenous enslaved folk at the same time Abe Lincoln issued his Emancipation Proclamation  (which is yet another irony since Abe's  'grand'  scheme didn't free one slave in any state which hadn't already seceded from the union)!

Ditto the ongoing issues/problems affecting our present black indigenous descendants is two or three of the other tribes have been ducking and dodging resolving their ex-slave descendants status et al for generations?

The flip side (which characterizes the present crisis in the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma)  is how the present mainstays of both the recent mainstays of the white settler refounded nation  (Bureau of Indian Affairs)  and the present CNO's  (Chief and his council cronies)  refuse to truly honor and respect (among other things)  the stipulation of the very treaty the past mainstays of both sides agreed to over a century ago...

Adding injury to insult:

The very thing(s)  all tribes agree to another era's white paper pushers  (and for some of the same aformentioned reasons)  resorted to in order to lower the number of black indigenous folk who could get their 'forty acres and a mule' --  aka land allotments--via an act which was meant to eliminate collective land ownership--and terminate tribal existence in the process!

It was and is called the Dawes Act:

And,   based on the double standard those white lackeys were also operating on the basis of,   that's why there are no blood quantum numbers listed on the tribal cards,for those they had also listed as 'Freedmen'!

But-- it is on the basis of whose ancestors are listed--one way or the other--which some tribes continue to use to determine if we or other black indigenous folk have our right to join their tribes--via the here and now?!?

Yeah,  right!

Simply put:

Some tribes were and are like colonies and the white settler nation the mother country...

Though 'mommie'  exibits her own personal biases,   now and then,    too?

Hence is why I pay close attention to what certain folks are doing:

Not simply what some are saying!

And more than white men speak with forked tongues...

Chuck has spoken...

Now he'll hush...

Ditto more smoke signals from you (or anybody else) on this particular subject (thread)   would be both appreciated and quite welcomed...

Take care...

Later...

Peace...

 

 

 

 

 
From: ROSETTA3216/18/06 10:03 PM 
To: ctj527  (15 of 31) 
 629.15 in reply to 629.14 
  • I. e.,   THE ADVOCATE is a publication I usually associate with gays and gay issues/problems,  etc. >> So this does prove that ole saying to be true: >> It takes all kinds...

I don't know what THE ACVOCATE you are thinking about, but the article posted on this topic is from the STAMFORD ADVOCATE in Conneticut.  It is owned by The Tribune Company and has never been to my knowledge associated with gays and and issue/problems, etc..  The Stamford Advocate covers "general news."  Check if out for yourself by reading  the business of the Stamford Advocate  at http://www.mondotimes.com/1/world/us/7/462/1300 .

  • The reality was and is that african and indigenous folk on these three continents had already been mingling and intermating long before the first white colonists built homes et al on the land they managed to settle on near or among either people in this part of the Americas...

Post your sources for this statement.  I know that there have been claims by Negroes that their ancestors as fake Africans (children of Cham) traded with Native Americans, this is the first time I ever heard about Africans and Native Americans intermating.  I've even read a paper where this "scholar"  or that has claimed that the Muslims were also in and out the Americas but this paper never went as far as to claim that Muslims and Native Americans intermated.

  • ... is that the Union side 'forced' the five tribes to both free their enslaved african indigenous folk and make them tribal members et al...

All historical records show that only indigenous Americans were slaved by western europeans throughout all their colonies  around the world as they illegal expanded to take away lands of the Shemites and Khametic peoples.  There were no "african indigneous folk" as slaves in the USA.  Immigrant Negroes of western european Yaphetite ancestry from the west indies were hired as indentured servants and now their descendants have re-written American history along with their white european cousins to falsely claim that indentured servants and slaves were the same thing.  This is not true.  Indentured servants had legal rights and were paid freedom fees at the end of their contracted years of labor and sometimes given lands.  Indentured servants were also allowed to  buy the contracts of other indentured servants.  While on the other hands indigneous American slaves had no legal rights because they were considered by law to be property and not human beings.  And some states even passed laws forbidding any slave to be given their freedom.

  • Edited 6/18/2006 10:14 pm ET by Rosetta321
 

 
From: stormshaddow6/18/06 11:58 PM 
To: ctj527  (16 of 31) 
 629.16 in reply to 629.14 

>>I believe those acts--which included the abritrary reclassification of some indigenous folks as 'negroes'--as in as being black--  exclusively and solely--were self serving/biased/deliberately divisive and blatantly racist...<<

So true. We're not just making an argument about who's Indian now.

Its about the original classifications nearly two centuries ago.

 

 
From: stormshaddow6/19/06 12:19 AM 
To: ctj527  (17 of 31) 
 629.17 in reply to 629.14 

>>The illusion as regards the second scenario,   i. e.,   the making of new treaties with the so called five 'civilized'  tribes,    e. g.,   labelled so by the whites because their mainstays adapted and adopted the ways of the white setttlers,   a few up to and including being plantation owners and slave holders,  etc.,  is that the Union side 'forced' the five tribes to both free their enslaved african indigenous folk and make them tribal members et al...<<

Maybe they simply enslaved former members of their respective Tribes?

 

 
Navigate this discussion: 1-7 8-17 18-27 28-31
Adjust text size:
Using a mobile device? Switch to the Mobile Site.

Welcome, guest! Get more out of Delphi Forums by logging in.

New to Delphi Forums? You can log in with your Facebook, Twitter, or Google account or use the New Member Login option and log in with any email address.

Home | Help | Forums | Chat | Blogs | Advertising | Membership Plans
© Delphi Forums LLC All rights reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Service.