Quest to learn about roots drives "slave tourism" in Ghana

First topic message reminder :

African-American poet Maya Angelou once wrote: "Africa is a historical truth ... no man can know where he's going unless he knows exactly where he's been and exactly how he arrived at his present place."

This search for" historical truth" has led thousands of visitors to Cape Coast, in Ghana, a picturesque seaside town with stunning blue sea, serene beaches and pastel-colored fishing boats.

Instead of idyllic days under the sun, they are looking for a glimpse into their dark ancestral past -- the harrowing experience of their African forebears who were sold as slaves.

Roots tourism has brought more and more people of African descent, like Monique Ross and Jacques Wallace, to the sleepy fishing port.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/12/world/africa/on-the-road-ghana-roots-tourism/index.html?hpt=iaf_c2

There are a lot of black people in the U.S. curious to know what their ancestry is with a bit more detail than the 30 million square km known as "Africa" ...

Original Quill wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

Their ancestry??

Their ancestry is the same as yours unless they see themselves as Americans apart.

This whole "African American" fabrication simply shows how insecure black Americans are of their identity and how big a chip they have on their shoulder

Hahahaha....owwww, bitter old man.  Take your meds, nasty, or the nurse will have to come in and give you a shot...right in the arse.

Ancestry the same??  Smelly, when you were a slave did you work tobacco or cotton?  Tell us about your common ancestry with the African.

Actually, according to sociologists and other survey researchers, the Africans among all American immigrants most wanted assimilation...recognition as Americans.  Take a real look at American history.  Most immigrants wanted to recreate their homeland, coming up with names like New Amsterdam, New York or New England.  The Dutch came along and kept to themselves.  The Germans, Swedes, Norse and Danes have come along and kept to themselves, forming enclaves.  The Italians have come along and kept to themselves, forming whole neighborhoods known as little Italy, as in the Village in NYC.  The Irish have come along and formed neighborhoods and, indeed, whole cities, as for example South Boston.

Africans??  All they ever wanted--all they want today--is to be seen and treated as whole Americans, something folks like you, smelly, will twist heaven and earth to deny them.  Why?...because you don't want it.  But today it has become too unpopular to express that notion, so you twist the whole thing around to say they don't want it.  You are frightened, aren't you smelly?  You smell of that fear.  It is the smell of cowardice and lack of self-esteem...run to the rock, rock won't you hide me, run to the tree, tree won't you hide me, Ah...sinnerman, where you gonna run to?

Of course, African Americans now know about people like you Smelly, and have come to realize that Conservatives and Republicans are inherently racist.  In the 1960,s African separatism came along in the form of the Black Muslims and Black Panthers.  Even in the thick of that, their cry for assimilation was paramount.  As one great American said:

The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. And they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom.

Their hope is not that separatism, but...

Rev. Dr. Martin Luthur King wrote:And when this happens, and when we allow freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual:

               Free at last! Free at last!

               Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!

Lose the mark there, smelly?

twist heaven and earth to deny them??

quite the opposite

i wish the god that they would hurry up and get over the slave era and embrace their freedom that they apparently keep banging on about

the notion that they are somehow "African" despite being born and bred in America and like a lot of yanks probably cannot point to Africa on a map,is ridiculous, its a crutch and a club to portray themselves as some kind of special case deserving of special treatment, because of what the bad white man did to them ages ago.

they DON'T want it, because once they take what millions of white Americas died in a civil war to give them??? once they accept that THEY are not slaves and haven't been for generations??? they become just like anyone else and goodbye special gold plated racist card goodbye special protected status

suddenly they become responsible for their own failings and flaws

white Americans don't call themselves "European Americans" so why do black Americans need to legal themselves as something they are not??

Don't we have the same issues in the UK when it comes to the census? There are loads of options to choose from when it comes to ethnic groups - Black African, black Caribbean, etc.

There were complaints because white English people were lumped in with white Scottish and Welsh people.   

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Why can't poor people tell their children it's important to get an education? You don't need to be rich to say that. In fact, it's even more important if there's less money. Those children have the opportunity to decide they're going to do well at school, with or without a good teacher. I went to a primary school which was considered a bit "lax" really, but that didn't stop me. I don't buy this theory that children are incapable of being ambitious or thinking for themselves.

Why would they advocate that their children actively engage in a system that failed them in every way?

You think they should tell their children not to bother at school?

No wonder they don't get anywhere. I daresay they tell them to not bother getting a job either then.

Is that what I said? I said, why would they advocate a system that failed them? What exactly is your big problem understanding plain English?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You think they should tell their children not to bother at school?

No wonder they don't get anywhere. I daresay they tell them to not bother getting a job either then.

Is that what I said? I said, why would they advocate a system that failed them? What exactly is your big problem understanding plain English?

Well yes, it is pretty much what you said actually. How can a system that provides free schooling have failed them anyway?

smelly wrote:twist heaven and earth to deny them??

quite the opposite

i wish the god that they would hurry up and get over the slave era and embrace their freedom that they apparently keep banging on about

Yes, that's the typical talk of the not-so-innocent person. Make it go away. I'm innocent. Nothing happened. How many times have we heard that from a criminal? I have been a law enforcement officer, smelly...I've heard it all before. It ain't gonna fly. Tell it to the judge.

smelly_bandit wrote:the notion that they are somehow "African" despite being born and bred in America and like a lot of yanks probably cannot point to Africa on a map,is ridiculous, its a crutch and a club to portray themselves as some kind of special case deserving of special treatment, because of what the bad white man did to them ages ago.

they DON'T want it, because once they take what millions of white Americas died in a civil war to give them??? once they accept that THEY are not slaves and haven't been for generations??? they become just like anyone else and goodbye special gold plated racist card goodbye special protected status

Those white Americans are me and mine. Don't you have the fuckin' nerve to tell me what I want!! I want an America like King wanted: "Great god almighty. We're free at last."

smelly_bandit wrote:suddenly they become responsible for their own failings and flaws

white Americans don't call themselves "European Americans" so why do black Americans need to legal themselves as something they are not??

You lie, smelly. I call myself a Scot; I am two degrees of sanguinity away from citizenship. With a swipe of a pen, I could take back my British citizenship. I didn't give up my heritage; why do you think the African American should? Again...a bit of racism?

Smelly, it's you who needs freedom. First, you need freedom from your own sins...I am convinced you only believe in what you do, because you despise yourself. The bottom line is, you don't believe your own racist rant. You know you are wrong. You know you wouldn't want to be sentenced to the same sentence you wish for the African man. You want to avoid that like the plague.

So you run sinner man!

Second, your weak excuses, like Black Americans wanting to find their own heritage as a way to say that there is something nefarious about their wish for identity, are meritless. You are the white slave masser, so to speak. Why do they want their heritage, because the heritage you offer is cruel and unrewarding. That is you, smelly, you offer nothing. You just want to deny, deny, deny.

Nothing you say make sense. That is because you are a whole bucket full of contradictions. You want to deny the Black man his heritage because you, or your thinking, took it away from him. Now, when he wants it back, you feel you are being hurt?

Fook off with your weak-ass excuses. I'm tired of your racist rant.

Smelly sort of has a point.

Technically there were no Aussies till 1901, African Americans were not slaves by 1865.
Therefore if Aussies are Not Englishmen, Descendants of the US slaves are not African. An African American would be someone that has come from Africa in the the past 2 or 3 generations. But after 150 years of freedom in the USA, I think you should just be called 'American' Regardless of skin colour. really they have been Free citizens for longer than many other families that call themselves American without qualification, I don't see why Black skin makes you any less American.

smelly really does smell rancid around here. He reminds me of CArnold. They are cut from the same cloth, aren't they Ben?

veya_victaous wrote:Smelly sort of has a point.

Technically there were no Aussies till 1901, African Americans were not slaves by 1865.
Therefore if Aussies are Not Englishmen, Descendants of the US slaves are not African. An African American would be someone that has come from Africa in the the past 2 or 3 generations. But after 150 years of freedom in the USA, I think you should just be called 'American' Regardless of skin colour. really they have been Free citizens for longer than many other families that call themselves American without qualification, I don't see why Black skin makes you any less American.

Look, veya, it is all a semantic issue that smelly is laying on us. We invent language as it goes along. We are Americans...we are Scottish Americans, Irish Americans, Italian Americans, Polish Americans, German Americans, Swedish Americans, Mexican Americans, Cuban Americans, Puerto-Rican Americans...and even Canadian Americans. The list goes on.

African Americans have been here as slaves at least since the 16th century. Really, that pre-dates even the French and Dutch. If anybody is entitled to call themselves Americans, it is African Americans.

Quill I would not even concern yourself over smelly he has little knowledge and was again the by-product of apartheid indoctrination.

His argument falls flat because many Americans of which I have been arguing on the multiculturalism thread do see themselves as Americans but are also their ethnic roots. For example we had St Patrick's day this week with many Americans identifying their Irish ethnic roots, of which many call themselves Irish Americans, of which they are very proud of their heritage. The fact is you find the same with Italian Americans, the same with English Americans, and Scots, Chinese to many ethnic groups which negates any argument smelly makes, because he is thus denying all Irish Americans the right to identify themselves of their Irish roots, yet they would tell him quite rightly what an idiot he is.

Lurker wrote:smelly really does smell rancid around here. He reminds me of CArnold. They are cut from the same cloth, aren't they Ben?

The only thing was that Carnold would occasionally have a laugh and joke around with other people, even if he disagreed with them politically. I don't think I've ever seen smelly post something other than to fight with others or be hateful.

Didge wrote:Quill I would not even concern yourself over smelly he has little knowledge and was again the by-product of apartheid indoctrination.

His argument falls flat because many Americans of which I have been arguing on the multiculturalism thread do see themselves as Americans but are also their ethnic roots. For example we had St Patrick's day this week with many Americans identifying their Irish ethnic roots, of which many call themselves Irish Americans, of which they are very proud of their heritage. The fact is you find the same with Italian Americans, the same with English Americans, and Scots, Chinese to many ethnic groups which negates any argument smelly makes, because he is thus denying all Irish Americans the right to identify themselves of their Irish roots, yet they would tell him quite rightly what an idiot he is.  

Exactly; I think everyone deserves the freedom to take pride in where they came from and what their ancestors experienced, and this can mean a lot more in multicultural "immigrant countries" where only a small percent of the population originated from there. In America, a lot of first-generation Americans decided they were just "American" and didn't preserve a lot of their family history prior to coming here, leaving their distant descendants frustrated in their quest to satisfy their curiosity about their ancestors.

I for one have tried to trace my ancestry and have only gotten as far back as a man who was the love child of an Irish guy who cheated on his wife with an Apache lady ...  ::D::

Original Quill wrote:

smelly wrote:twist heaven and earth to deny them??

quite the opposite

i wish the god that they would hurry up and get over the slave era and embrace their freedom that they apparently keep banging on about

Yes, that's the typical talk of the not-so-innocent person.  Make it go away.  I'm innocent.  Nothing happened.  How many times have we heard that from a criminal?  I have been a law enforcement officer, smelly...I've heard it all before.  It ain't gonna fly.  Tell it to the judge.

smelly_bandit wrote:the notion that they are somehow "African" despite being born and bred in America and like a lot of yanks probably cannot point to Africa on a map,is ridiculous, its a crutch and a club to portray themselves as some kind of special case deserving of special treatment, because of what the bad white man did to them ages ago.

they DON'T want it, because once they take what millions of white Americas died in a civil war to give them??? once they accept that THEY are not slaves and haven't been for generations??? they become just like anyone else and goodbye special gold plated racist card goodbye special protected status

Those white Americans are me and mine.  Don't you have the fuckin' nerve to tell me what I want!!  I want an America like King wanted: "Great god almighty.  We're free at last."

smelly_bandit wrote:suddenly they become responsible for their own failings and flaws

white Americans don't call themselves "European Americans" so why do black Americans need to legal themselves as something they are not??

You lie, smelly.  I call myself a Scot; I am two degrees of sanguinity away from citizenship. With a swipe of a pen, I could take back my British citizenship.  I didn't give up my heritage; why do you think the African American should?  Again...a bit of racism?

Smelly, it's you who needs freedom.  First, you need freedom from your own sins...I am convinced you only believe in what you do, because you despise yourself.  The bottom line is, you don't believe your own racist rant.  You know you are wrong.  You know you wouldn't want to be sentenced to the same sentence you wish for the African man.  You want to avoid that like the plague.  

So you run sinner man!

Second, your weak excuses, like Black Americans wanting to find their own heritage as a way to say that there is something nefarious about their wish for identity, are meritless.  You are the white slave masser, so to speak.  Why do they want their heritage, because the heritage you offer is cruel and unrewarding.  That is you, smelly, you offer nothing.  You just want to deny, deny, deny.

Nothing you say make sense.  That is because you are a whole bucket full of contradictions.  You want to deny the Black man his heritage because you, or your thinking, took it away from him.  Now, when he wants it back, you feel you are being hurt?  

Fook off with your weak-ass excuses.  I'm tired of your racist rant.

Uh yes the final refuge of the intellectual cripple

Declare the opposition to be racist then declare their point of view to be invalid against your own holier-than-thou standards

Your is a projection of your own views and inherent racism

The days of slavery are long gone and yet you're the one still acting like it's an ongoing scenario

The Black Americans who choose to hang onto the past will stay mired in the past,if they choose to see themselves as slaves they will feel like slaves

the whites gave them their physical freedom it is up to them to embrace the emotional and psychological freedom that comes with it

But freedom comes with responsibilities and those blacks who still see themselves as "slaves" don't want that responsibility because they won't have anyone or anything to blame for their failings and weaknesses

You're perpetuating that mindset by blaming their inability to better themselves on events several generations gone

I mean if we really want to go into it, then blacks should really blame themselves since it was black slavers in Africa who sold black slaves to white slavers

It's like the pot calling the kettle black(no pun intended)

Anyway it's good to see at least one African country is benefiting from slavery perhaps with all the revenue generated by slave tourism we can scratch Ghana of the list of beggar nations we feel me need to feed

What do you say??

FYI quill

(You're really not going to enjoy THIS)

I'm more African than any black born in America

And I'm WHITE

Original Quill wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:Smelly sort of has a point.

Technically there were no Aussies till 1901, African Americans were not slaves by 1865.  
Therefore if Aussies are Not Englishmen, Descendants of the US slaves are not African. An African American would be someone that has come from Africa in the the past 2 or 3 generations. But after 150 years of freedom in the USA, I think you should just be called 'American' Regardless of skin colour. really they have been Free citizens for longer than many other families that call themselves American without qualification, I don't see why Black skin makes you any less American.

Look, veya, it is all a semantic issue that smelly is laying on us.  We invent language as it goes along.  We are Americans...we are Scottish Americans, Irish Americans, Italian Americans, Polish Americans, German Americans, Swedish Americans, Mexican Americans, Cuban Americans, Puerto-Rican Americans...and even Canadian Americans.  The list goes on.

African Americans have been here as slaves at least since the 16th century.  Really, that pre-dates even the French and Dutch.  If anybody is entitled to call themselves Americans, it is African Americans.

Every right to call themselves Americans

No right or need to call themselves African

smelly_bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Look, veya, it is all a semantic issue that smelly is laying on us.  We invent language as it goes along.  We are Americans...we are Scottish Americans, Irish Americans, Italian Americans, Polish Americans, German Americans, Swedish Americans, Mexican Americans, Cuban Americans, Puerto-Rican Americans...and even Canadian Americans.  The list goes on.

African Americans have been here as slaves at least since the 16th century.  Really, that pre-dates even the French and Dutch.  If anybody is entitled to call themselves Americans, it is African Americans.

Every right to call themselves Americans

No right or need to call themselves African

Some of them agree with you though Smelly. Some black Americans think it's stupid to be called African American.

Raggamuffin wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

Every right to call themselves Americans

No right or need to call themselves African

Some of them agree with you though Smelly. Some black Americans think it's stupid to be called African American.

And I take my hat off to them

They have moved beyond what they were forced to be.

More absurdity from Smelly, he is now denying anyone a right to define themselves, thus again no Irish American can claim to be of Irish ethnicity, only American, even though his genetics will say he is of Irish ethnicity.


DOH


So smelly is white an African,but he has European ethnicity, is he going to argue with his own genes?


DOH


So basically smelly wants to tell people how they should identify themselves because he just does not like that because again he is so utterly Dim

Didge, it's not his colour, any way. It's his racism. The topic here has become racism...he says the label of racism is the last refuge of the "intellectual cripple." And maybe so. Um, but he raised it. What does that tell you?

What he is doing is the same thing as before. He's the classic RW elitist, who presumes to tell others what they can and cannot think. "No right or need to call themselves African," indeed. The RWers don't like government intrusion, but they sure wallow in their own ideas of social management.

Is that duplicity, or what?

Lurker wrote:smelly really does smell rancid around here. He reminds me of CArnold. They are cut from the same cloth, aren't they Ben?

That's what I like to see - unbiased admin.   

Original Quill wrote:Didge, it's not his colour, any way.  It's his racism.  The topic here has become racism...he says the label of racism is the last refuge of the "intellectual cripple."  And maybe so.  Um, but he raised it.  What does that tell you?

What he is doing is the same thing as before.  He's the classic RW elitist, who presumes to tell others what they can and cannot think.  "No right or need to call themselves African," indeed.  The RWers don't like government intrusion, but they sure relish in their own ideas of social management.

Is that duplicity, or what?

Hi Quill

All points very true, he slips up loads of times in his own answers and never can see why.

Original Quill wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:Smelly sort of has a point.

Technically there were no Aussies till 1901, African Americans were not slaves by 1865.  
Therefore if Aussies are Not Englishmen, Descendants of the US slaves are not African. An African American would be someone that has come from Africa in the the past 2 or 3 generations. But after 150 years of freedom in the USA, I think you should just be called 'American' Regardless of skin colour. really they have been Free citizens for longer than many other families that call themselves American without qualification, I don't see why Black skin makes you any less American.

Look, veya, it is all a semantic issue that smelly is laying on us.  We invent language as it goes along.  We are Americans...we are Scottish Americans, Irish Americans, Italian Americans, Polish Americans, German Americans, Swedish Americans, Mexican Americans, Cuban Americans, Puerto-Rican Americans...and even Canadian Americans.  The list goes on.

African Americans have been here as slaves at least since the 16th century.  Really, that pre-dates even the French and Dutch.  If anybody is entitled to call themselves Americans, it is African Americans.

yes we have similar here (replacing American with Australian) but we generally apply the rule if your great grand parents were born here you are Just Aussie. keep in mind about 40% of our citizens are either Immigrants or First Generation on at least one side.

Original Quill wrote:Didge, it's not his colour, any way.  It's his racism.  The topic here has become racism...he says the label of racism is the last refuge of the "intellectual cripple."  And maybe so.  Um, but he raised it.  What does that tell you?

What he is doing is the same thing as before.  He's the classic RW elitist, who presumes to tell others what they can and cannot think.  "No right or need to call themselves African," indeed.  The RWers don't like government intrusion, but they sure wallow in their own ideas of social management.

Is that duplicity, or what?

well here is some news that you really wont like quill

im white AND im MORE African than many of those blacks born in America who call themselves "African American"

what do you think of that?

veya_victaous wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Look, veya, it is all a semantic issue that smelly is laying on us.  We invent language as it goes along.  We are Americans...we are Scottish Americans, Irish Americans, Italian Americans, Polish Americans, German Americans, Swedish Americans, Mexican Americans, Cuban Americans, Puerto-Rican Americans...and even Canadian Americans.  The list goes on.

African Americans have been here as slaves at least since the 16th century.  Really, that pre-dates even the French and Dutch.  If anybody is entitled to call themselves Americans, it is African Americans.

yes we have similar here (replacing American with Australian) but we generally apply the rule if your great grand parents were born here you are Just Aussie. keep in mind about 40% of our citizens are either Immigrants or First Generation on at least one side.

There is no such limitation to language, veya. No litmus test. No semantic relevance. The terms African American--or indeed Scottish American or Asian American--are solely terms meaning "American," with a modifier before it. The grammatical rules of the English language say nothing about requiring an Australian to have a great grand parent of any particular class. English language rules couldn't give a damn...the rulemakers probably never heard of Australia when they started.

smelly_bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Didge, it's not his colour, any way.  It's his racism.  The topic here has become racism...he says the label of racism is the last refuge of the "intellectual cripple."  And maybe so.  Um, but he raised it.  What does that tell you?

What he is doing is the same thing as before.  He's the classic RW elitist, who presumes to tell others what they can and cannot think.  "No right or need to call themselves African," indeed.  The RWers don't like government intrusion, but they sure wallow in their own ideas of social management.

Is that duplicity, or what?

well here is some news that you really wont like quill

im white AND im MORE African than many of those blacks born in America who call themselves "African American"

what do you think of that?

I think we are not having a discussion about you, so STFU about yourself...don't change the subject.

The discussion is about how stupid are your notions about race...your crazy and irrelevant rules regarding how one may define themself, and your attempt, once again, to impose your rules upon African Americans.

Original Quill wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

well here is some news that you really wont like quill

im white AND im MORE African than many of those blacks born in America who call themselves "African American"

what do you think of that?

I think we are not having a discussion about you, so STFU about yourself...don't change the subject.

The discussion is about how stupid are your notions about race...your crazy and irrelevant rules regarding how one may define themself, and your attempt, once again, to impose your rules upon African Americans.

its about heritage and ancestry isn't it??

some blacks born in America believe that their ancestry and heritage is African to the degree they give themselves the title of "African" to highlight their black roots, they are in effect being hugely racist by appropriating the term "African" for themselves and associating it with blacks only

this strikes me as a little more than an act when a white man is more "African" than a black American

bottom line is that ive got more right to call myself an "African European" than they have to call themselves "African American" don't you agree??

P.S you're getting emotional, i would have thought a person who was what you were would be a bit more mature in character and emotionally stable

No, it's about a simple adjective. Your obligation, as a listener of another person's expression, is to accept what you hear, in the manner in which it was intended.

It is the speaker's prerogative to define his terms. It is your obligation as a listener to try to understand.

You are trying to turn the rules upside down, in order to maintain your racist rant.

PS, don't confuse strict for emotional. For 15-years I taught at university and one of the tactics I had to use is to push ideologues off their self-serving perch. People come to class with all kinds of preconceptions. Many, like you, with oblique goals. Grades are only one motivator. A little psychoanalysis about what a student is doing, also helps. You are trying to carry a thinly disguised racist ideology--if we can dignify it as such--into an otherwise simple discussion on the meaning of language.

Original Quill wrote:No, it's about a simple adjective.  Your obligation, as a listener of another person's expression, is to accept what you hear, in the manner in which it was intended.

It is the speaker's prerogative to define his terms.  It is your obligation as a listener to try to understand.

You are trying to turn the rules upside down, in order to maintain your racist rant.

PS, don't confuse strict for emotional.  For 15-years I taught at university and one of the tactics I had to use is to push ideologues off their self-serving perch.  People come to class with all kinds of preconceptions.  Many, like you, with oblique goals.  Grades are only one motivator.  A little psychoanalysis about what a student is doing, also helps.  You are trying to carry a thinly disguised racist ideology--if we can dignify it as such--into an otherwise simple discussion on the meaning of language.

i think you're getting confused

if its about language than you have simply demonstrated that you do not understand language at all

how can my racist ideology be thinly disguised if im ranting about it, the two ideas contradict each other

secondly, the conversation isn't about language its about the black American and his obsession with his identity from an era long past

you don't seem to want to accept that the "African" American identity is fabricated to generate discord in national cohesion and create racial division and resentment by constantly reminding everyone how bad slavery was under the white man hundreds of years ago, cementing an us VS them mentality, and its all about maintaining the status of "persecuted victim" to secure unearned privileges

P.S you should take your own advice

"Your obligation, as a listener of another person's expression, is to accept what you hear, in the manner in which it was intended."

because you are failing to listen to my arguments and instead are retreating to the last refuge of the intellectual cripple, the default setting for a person who is too intellectually immature to respond to the message without shooting the messenger

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_American

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_American

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_American

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_American

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_American

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_American

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_American

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_American

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_American

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_American

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_American

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_American

The list is endless how people identify with both America and their ethnicity, yet smelly makes no comment onto this, which is odd, but again everyone had the right to identify by both, there is nothing wrong with that 

and even one for you smelly

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_American

Now smelly are you part of any South African organisations over here that also have those born here but claim also to be of South African ethnicity?

smelly_bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:No, it's about a simple adjective.  Your obligation, as a listener of another person's expression, is to accept what you hear, in the manner in which it was intended.

It is the speaker's prerogative to define his terms.  It is your obligation as a listener to try to understand.

You are trying to turn the rules upside down, in order to maintain your racist rant.

PS, don't confuse strict for emotional.  For 15-years I taught at university and one of the tactics I had to use is to push ideologues off their self-serving perch.  People come to class with all kinds of preconceptions.  Many, like you, with oblique goals.  Grades are only one motivator.  A little psychoanalysis about what a student is doing, also helps.  You are trying to carry a thinly disguised racist ideology--if we can dignify it as such--into an otherwise simple discussion on the meaning of language.

i think you're getting confused

if its about language than you have simply demonstrated that you do not understand language at all

how can my racist ideology be thinly disguised if im ranting about it, the two ideas contradict each other

secondly, the conversation isn't about language its about the black American and his obsession with his identity from an era long past  

you don't seem to want to accept that the "African" American identity is fabricated to generate discord in national cohesion and create racial division and resentment by constantly reminding everyone how bad slavery was under the white man hundreds of years ago, cementing an us VS them mentality, and its all about maintaining the status of "persecuted victim" to secure unearned privileges

P.S you should take your own advice

"Your obligation, as a listener of another person's expression, is to accept what you hear, in the manner in which it was intended."

because you are failing to listen to my arguments and instead are retreating to the last refuge of the intellectual cripple, the default setting for a person who is too intellectually immature to respond to the message without shooting the messenger

Smelly, any communication is about language. In any discussion you might hear: "What do you mean by that?" That is a tacit acquiescence in the speaker's right to define his own words.

I am listening quite well to your words, and there is no question about your meaning. There is a real difference between getting to define your words, and being free of comment or criticism over what you say.

An "era long past" my ass. As I've pointed out before, Nick Fury:



... was in his teens and 20s when the laws ending legal apartheid in the U.S. were passed.

Ben_Reilly wrote:An "era long past" my ass. As I've pointed out before, Nick Fury:



... was in his teens and 20s when the laws ending legal apartheid in the U.S. were passed.

apartheid is not slavery dickhead

smelly_bandit wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:An "era long past" my ass. As I've pointed out before, Nick Fury:



... was in his teens and 20s when the laws ending legal apartheid in the U.S. were passed.

apartheid is not slavery dickhead

Slavery and apartheid by another name


“IN SOUTH AFRICA COLONIAL SLAVERY CONTRIBUTED TO A SOCIETY BASED ON RACIAL OPPRESSION... In the later 1800s the demand for cheap labor by the mining industry entrenched segregation and promoted a low-wage society which greatly benefited ‘white’ South Africans.”
“POWERFUL GLOBAL ECONOMIES THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE MADE PROFITS AND ACCUMULATED WEALTH THROUGH THE SLAVE TRADE.”
“Slaves living at the Cape were emancipated on 1 December 1834,” a third display said, before adding: “BUT THEY WERE NOT FREED.”
Such were the words I read on three displays in the foyer of the Iziko Slave Lodge Museum in Cape Town two weeks ago.




http://www.stanforddaily.com/2013/02/06/slavery-and-apartheid-by-another-name/

Lol

Cannot even get the country right

smelly_bandit wrote:Lol

Cannot even get the country right

Really how is that, we are talking about Apartheid, which country did that happen in?

DOH

WE weren't talking about anything

YOU have barged in halfway with your usual bull in a china shop approach

smelly_bandit wrote:WE weren't talking about anything

YOU have barged in halfway with your usual bull in a china shop approach

Really?

Smelly says:


apartheid is not slavery dickhead


Busted again


Night

smelly_bandit wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:An "era long past" my ass. As I've pointed out before, Nick Fury:



... was in his teens and 20s when the laws ending legal apartheid in the U.S. were passed.

apartheid is not slavery dickhead

In the U.S. apartheid is commonly referred to as segregation. Jackson was born in 1948; it would be decades before laws ending segregation, or apartheid, were passed.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

apartheid is not slavery dickhead

In the U.S. apartheid is commonly referred to as segregation. Jackson was born in 1948; it would be decades before laws ending segregation, or apartheid, were passed.

And segregation means that although not officially a slave, you are not free either, you are governed by rules that don't govern other people, simply because of the colour of your skin.

Original Quill wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:


yes we have similar here (replacing American with Australian) but we generally apply the rule if your great grand parents were born here you are Just Aussie. keep in mind about 40% of our citizens are either Immigrants or First Generation on at least one side.

There is no such limitation to language, veya.  No litmus test.  No semantic relevance.  The terms African American--or indeed Scottish American or Asian American--are solely terms meaning "American," with a modifier before it.  The grammatical rules of the English language say nothing about requiring an Australian to  have a great grand parent of any particular class.  English language rules couldn't give a damn...the rulemakers probably never heard of Australia when they started.

Then we are all Africans.         
You have to have a point where you accept you are now from the place where you and the last 3 generations of your family lived.

Your logic is faulty Quill You cannot claim something forever (you can, but people will think you are a wanker    )
EXAMPLE
Hi Ben, how is it going my African American buddy    Your ancestors were from Africa once upon a time and you're American now so you are African American.

Afro American was the name of a newspaper published in Baltimore in the beginning of 1892, it intended to recall the fact that most black people in America had African origins. Although the term 'negroes' was still used well into the 1950s, the term African American was about at the end of the 1800s. Afro American then became used by the Civil Rights Movement in 1960/70s, who objected to the term Negroes and Coloured. African American Studies became a subject in universities.

So says Wiki.

It was also in a poem by Johnny Duncan - Afr-I-CAN Amer-I-CAN in 1986

An African American Can do what his mind tells him to.
I Can, so Can you.
An African American Can streak like a Rocket through the Sky.
An African American Can plunge to the Earth and die.
An African American Can run and win any Race,
From Inner Self to Outer Space.
All I want you to understand
Is that my Country and Heritage spell "I CAN!"

An African American Can try.
An African American Can cry.
An African American Can lead.
An African American Can succeed.
An African American Can trail.
An African American Can fail.
An African American Can fight.
An African American Can Unite.
An African American Can adopt.
An African American Can Stop.
An African American Cannot hide,
Nor Can Apartheid!
An African American Can write.
An African American Can incite.
An African American Can bleed for his Country’s Creed.
An African American Can defend,
An African American Can pretend.
An African American Can hate,
Yet, an African American Can adjudicate!
An African American Can give,
But an African American Can also live.
An African American Can contrive,
And oh yeah, an African American Can survive!

An African American Can do This,
An African American Can do That.
All an African American needs is a Turn at Bat.
I speak of my Abilities not by Chance.
Nor is it your Opinion of me that I seek to Enhance!
"The last four letters of my AFR-I-CAN Heritage
And my AMER-I-CAN Creed spell "I CAN!"
I CAN do Anything as well as "Everyman!"
"An African American Can! An African American Can!
An African American Can!"
YOU DAMN RIGHT AN AFRICAN AMERICAN CAN!

http://poetrypoem.com/cgi-bin/index.pl?sitename=johnnyduncan&displaypoem=t&item=poetry&poemnumber=1033577

veya_victaous wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:


yes we have similar here (replacing American with Australian) but we generally apply the rule if your great grand parents were born here you are Just Aussie. keep in mind about 40% of our citizens are either Immigrants or First Generation on at least one side.

There is no such limitation to language, veya.  No litmus test.  No semantic relevance.  The terms African American--or indeed Scottish American or Asian American--are solely terms meaning "American," with a modifier before it.  The grammatical rules of the English language say nothing about requiring an Australian to  have a great grand parent of any particular class.  English language rules couldn't give a damn...the rulemakers probably never heard of Australia when they started.

Then we are all Africans.         
You have to have a point where you accept you are now from the place where you and the last 3 generations of your family lived.

Your logic is faulty Quill You cannot claim something forever (you can, but people will think you are a wanker    )
EXAMPLE
Hi Ben, how is it going my African American buddy    Your ancestors were from Africa once upon a time and you're American now so you are African American.

I prefer "Earthican" or good old-fashioned Earthling, but I'll take African or African-American too, my fellow African!

Oh, and how bullshit is it to have a problem with what people want to call themselves?

veya_victaous wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

There is no such limitation to language, veya.  No litmus test.  No semantic relevance.  The terms African American--or indeed Scottish American or Asian American--are solely terms meaning "American," with a modifier before it.  The grammatical rules of the English language say nothing about requiring an Australian to  have a great grand parent of any particular class.  English language rules couldn't give a damn...the rulemakers probably never heard of Australia when they started.

Then we are all Africans.         
You have to have a point where you accept you are now from the place where you and the last 3 generations of your family lived.

Your logic is faulty Quill You cannot claim something forever (you can, but people will think you are a wanker    )
EXAMPLE
Hi Ben, how is it going my African American buddy    Your ancestors were from Africa once upon a time and you're American now so you are African American.

I think the fault is with your understanding of what language is, veya. The purpose of language is to communicate thoughts, originally about common experiences, later about abstract thoughts. The actual words are mere symbols, as evidenced by the many languages found in even as small a space as Europe. The word for young one is child, in English, lad or lass in Scottish, niño in Spanish and kind in German. Therefore, it does not matter what symbol you choose; the purpose is to convey the idea behind the symbol.

What smelly is doing (and you are following right in step with him) is saying the symbol is inseparable from the meaning of a specific term. If that were the case there could be no inter-linguistic communication. Thus, he claims, that African must designate a person from Africa, and America must designate a person from America. But what if you wish to designate a person who is born in Africa, but now lives in America? Isn't that an African America? Now, take it one step further: suppose we wish to designate a race...we call it, say, African. Why, because that is the race that predominates on the African continent. Now, suppose we wish to designate an African (race), who is born in America. Is it not legitimate to call him African American?

There's a complication in this discussion, in addition. Smelly wishes to deprive Black people of any individuality or self-identification. Removing an African person's self-identification is one step closer to interposing smelly's own definition of that genus or classification. Now, smelly brings his own linguistic designation in, and calls that person jazzbo, or stepenfetchit or some more derogatory term. He will deny it, but of course, history shows us what is afoot. It's happened so often before.

So, in sum, smelly's argument is faulty logic, brought in to support a nefarious motive. And indeed, that is what we have been talking about: (1) contort the character of language, and (2) deny an African person his self-identification. We know smelly's purpose; I don't believe your purposes are the same. Yet, you are following him into his confusing logic of language, so that needs to be clarified first. I recommend you consider this: language is just the symbol; it is distinguishable from the message taken from stringing words into a sentence.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:
What about when what happened to your ancestors has a demonstrable effect on your own socio-economic status?



http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/27/news/economy/wealth-whites-blacks/

I don't believe it has. It's their own attitude which is holding them back IMO.

  

AND RAGGS' still wonders why nobody takes her juvenile and ill-considered opinions seriously !

 ://?roflmao?/: 

Sassy wrote:Afro American was the name of a newspaper published in Baltimore in the beginning of 1892, it intended to recall the fact that most black people in America had African origins.   Although the term 'negroes' was still used well into the 1950s, the term African American was about at the end of the 1800s.   Afro American then became used by the Civil Rights Movement in 1960/70s,  who objected to the term Negroes and Coloured.   African American Studies became a subject in universities.

So says Wiki.

It was also in a poem by Johnny Duncan - Afr-I-CAN Amer-I-CAN in 1986

An African American Can do what his mind tells him to.
I Can, so Can you.
An African American Can streak like a Rocket through the Sky.
An African American Can plunge to the Earth and die.
An African American Can run and win any Race,
From Inner Self to Outer Space.
All I want you to understand
Is that my Country and Heritage spell "I CAN!"

An African American Can try.
An African American Can cry.
An African American Can lead.
An African American Can succeed.
An African American Can trail.
An African American Can fail.
An African American Can fight.
An African American Can Unite.
An African American Can adopt.
An African American Can Stop.
An African American Cannot hide,
Nor Can Apartheid!
An African American Can write.
An African American Can incite.
An African American Can bleed for his Country’s Creed.
An African American Can defend,
An African American Can pretend.
An African American Can hate,
Yet, an African American Can adjudicate!
An African American Can give,
But an African American Can also live.
An African American Can contrive,
And oh yeah, an African American Can survive!

An African American Can do This,
An African American Can do That.
All an African American needs is a Turn at Bat.
I speak of my Abilities not by Chance.
Nor is it your Opinion of me that I seek to Enhance!
"The last four letters of my AFR-I-CAN Heritage
And my AMER-I-CAN Creed spell "I CAN!"
I CAN do Anything as well as "Everyman!"
"An African American Can! An African American Can!
An African American Can!"
YOU DAMN RIGHT AN AFRICAN AMERICAN CAN!

http://poetrypoem.com/cgi-bin/index.pl?sitename=johnnyduncan&displaypoem=t&item=poetry&poemnumber=1033577

sounds like a group of people perfectly comfortable in their own skin

Ben_Reilly wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

apartheid is not slavery dickhead

In the U.S. apartheid is commonly referred to as segregation. Jackson was born in 1948; it would be decades before laws ending segregation, or apartheid, were passed.

segregation/apartheid are not slavery

are they??

smelly_bandit wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

apartheid is not slavery dickhead

In the U.S. apartheid is commonly referred to as segregation. Jackson was born in 1948; it would be decades before laws ending segregation, or apartheid, were passed.

segregation/apartheid are not slavery

are they??

They're still oppression; why don't you learn a bit about what black people went through before you try to act like it was no big deal?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

segregation/apartheid are not slavery

are they??

They're still oppression; why don't you learn a bit about what black people went through before you try to act like it was no big deal?

Hi Ben

Smelly is beyond any compression, he has been indoctrinated from birth and through school to be anti Black being as he is a White South African, though many I know are nothing like him, which is evident that he thinks he is not racist or that it is not racist to claim blacks are inferior. He seriously believes that is not racist. He is a near enough lost cause, but I live in hope one day he may see the light and realise his views on this were utterly absurd. The fact he never wins such a debate on his claim to blacks being inferior and he has tried many times, shows how stupidly he believes he is right. Even though it took him forever to understand we are biologically all one race he still sees them as inferior, even though he himself just like the vast people of this world, know very little an we all have to be taught, only those who are genius go way beyond this, but all have the capability to learn and understand. He never provides any science to back his claims, just daft assumptions and arguing on periods of time, which with his logic within 50 years if China is technologically more advance as they no doubt will be with their money and he would have to claim they are superior to whites, showing how absurd his view is

Ben_Reilly wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

segregation/apartheid are not slavery

are they??

They're still oppression; why don't you learn a bit about what black people went through before you try to act like it was no big deal?

Like being hung for no reason and they genitals cut off and stuffed in their mouths? He's quite used to that Ben, happened in S.Africa as well and he thinks they shouldn't have fought back. It's no good talking to Smelly like he's a normal human being or expecting a normal human reaction.