Dear White People

Quick reply: Kingdom of Kongo back in the 1300's was supposedly founded by the natives, and then the Portuguese established a state, here is a link for you to READ... This is long before Leopold. Again you using "contemporary records", when I clearly said was it not recorded. Of course what you read and can comprehend now will be because of Europeans. Like my post above made point, reason you know about it is because Europeans made it easier to understand for Westernized civilzations, including anglicizing even native words for you to be able to pronounce easier.

Point remains that for those same Europeans, who's occupation is to record and distribute this information for the masses, they got their information and records from native records, be it oral history or written accounts by those natives. Or do you think they went into said area, dug around, found shards of pots, and suddenly had the enlightenment and understanding of those people including their history?

Just because YOU do not understand my point or post doesn't mean I don't, again just because English isn't my first language doesn't mean I don't understand something just because you do not understand it. You say Egyptians are insular, dismissed Nubians as recording history and I gave you a breakdown, including people you can read on, who recorded African history. Might not fit into your conformist view of only recording "contemporary history", while African history spans way further than contemporary history and was recorded, whether you wish to dismiss it or not!

A painting on a rock face in the Drakensberg is a recording of some event. But it isn't a clinical and objective recording that is understood by all who see it. And that is true of pretty much the world prior to the 1940's.

There is no objective and complete recorded history of any nation, much less every nation.

Do you understand what contemporary recording of history is? When was Mapungubwe founded? Is that date based on those archeologists digging in the sand or from a newspaper article heralding the event?

Some people do believe that it is their life's ambition to be as thorough as possible in everything that they do. They will figure out the names and places of some events but there an awful lot of circas in history books.

You seem to have this fixation about names being anglicized. Give a couple of examples there would you? Because you seem to think it is there to help with my pronunciation whereas it probably had more to do with missionaries and some lofty notion of noble savages, or with cartographers demarcating boundaries between various tribes.
 
Quick reply: Kingdom of Kongo back in the 1300's was supposedly founded by the natives, and then the Portuguese established a state, here is a link for you to READ...

Afaik the Portuguese didn't go mucking about until the 15th Century. And then it was supposedly exploration, the conquest of paradise was later and the grab for Africa later still.

And you say that this was recorded by the Egyptians? The Nubians? The Persians?

Either way we have a record created after the event by a third party.
 
Either way we have a record created after the event by a third party.

Most historical records are written after something happened by a third party because the people making history couldn't be bothered to write it down.


So anyway, why are we talking about Portuguese and Egyptians in a White people thread? Actually, WTF is this thread about?

/scrolls to first post


EDIT: oh, angry black chick wrote a letter. Dilligaf? /bails
 
Last edited:
Afaik the Portuguese didn't go mucking about until the 15th Century. And then it was supposedly exploration, the conquest of paradise was later and the grab for Africa later still.

Sigh...

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

And you say that this was recorded by the Egyptians? The Nubians? The Persians?

History was recorded by different cultures was my point, I even included Europeans in my answer to your original question, in which you responded by dismissing every other culture but Europeans, and now arguing contemporary history, and thus why we here! Clearly to you Europeans recorded all conceivable history and if this makes you sleep better at night, lol Good for you *pats head* :whistle:
 
Most historical records are written after something happened by a third party because the people making history couldn't be bothered to write it down.


So anyway, why are we talking about Portuguese and Egyptians in a White people thread? Actually, WTF is this thread about?

/scrolls to first post


EDIT: oh, angry black chick wrote a letter. Dilligaf? /bails

correction an angry white chick wrote a letter.
 
A painting on a rock face in the Drakensberg is a recording of some event. But it isn't a clinical and objective recording that is understood by all who see it. And that is true of pretty much the world prior to the 1940's.

There is no objective and complete recorded history of any nation, much less every nation.

Do you understand what contemporary recording of history is? When was Mapungubwe founded? Is that date based on those archeologists digging in the sand or from a newspaper article heralding the event?

Some people do believe that it is their life's ambition to be as thorough as possible in everything that they do. They will figure out the names and places of some events but there an awful lot of circas in history books.

You seem to have this fixation about names being anglicized. Give a couple of examples there would you? Because you seem to think it is there to help with my pronunciation whereas it probably had more to do with missionaries and some lofty notion of noble savages, or with cartographers demarcating boundaries between various tribes.

Lol I won't even dignify this with an answer, especially with what I've argued already. Hate repeating myself because someone might be a tad thicker than normal:whistle:
 
This is one thread were I do not want to participate in on the level it is currently on.

Just an interesting fact is that Gillian Schutte is married to a black husband, Sipho Singiswa. Her husband is a previous political prisoner on Robben Island, an executive ANC member and co-ordinator of its PWV.

Just saying… The view of her blog article is very biased. Today is most definitely not the past.
 
Most historical records are written after something happened by a third party because the people making history couldn't be bothered to write it down.


So anyway, why are we talking about Portuguese and Egyptians in a White people thread? Actually, WTF is this thread about?

/scrolls to first post


EDIT: oh, angry black chick wrote a letter. Dilligaf? /bails

Exactly the point. A point missed by purplewhatshisface.

But he'll carry on trying, with his chips on his shoulders, to claim it was all some racist conspiracy to subjugate the man.

I am sure there is a story in there about Portuguese traders at Mapungubwe dealing with Egyptians. More Wilbur Smith than real history.
 
Lol @ still arguing chips on shoulders. I have given you references that are not even my own to READ up on. Is the fact that some culture's recorded history beside Europeans a racist conspiracy theory? LMFAO You are a joke Albereth. As funny as your attempt at talking down on me earlier, and yet failing to grasp ALL the links I have given you to read in your own time. Sad really! :p

Let's all agree with you. Europeans discovered history, recorded it all by themselves and screw every other culture that has recorded any other form of history, from antiquity to modern, Europeans recorded EVERYTHING that's the end all and be all:whistle:

Oh and nepotism can exist, sexism can exist, but lo and behold the idea that discrimination and bias due to skin colour can exist, must be preposterous and a conspiracy right? Lol, I say discrimination doesn't exist at all! How you like them chipped apples? :D
 
Last edited:
Most historical records are written after something happened by a third party because the people making history couldn't be bothered to write it down.

Agreed, then again different cultures recorded history, like Europeans recorded history, I gave links and names. Even when mentioning who recorded history Europeans were included because they did their part, just like Arabs did their part, and natives did their part. Just because it's not comprehensible to Europeans or Western cultures doesn't mean it wasn't recorded is it?

Reason why I argue this so much is because of the clear dismissal of other records just because it doesn't fit into Albereth's conformist ideas of how to record history. In Europe, there was a time Franks/Barbarians also couldn't write (Europeans), but recorded their culture and history in their own forms, which more "educated" civilizations like the Romans translated and made it widely known to their own people, except with their own texts and languages. We have seen plenty of times even modern and contemporary history has been recanted, so again, one cannot say history recorded by other civilizations doesn't count because one feels personally that there were no civilizations before the "Great White Hope" came along.

I have been lucky enough to have been exposed to many cultures, including giving credit to Arabs, Natives, Europeans etc were credit due. Just because Western culture's do not understand arabic or hieroglyphic records, doesn't mean it's not recorded. It is and translation only makes it comprehensible to a new audience does it not.
 
Last edited:
Lol @ still arguing chips on shoulders. I have given you references that are not even my own to READ up on. Is the fact that some culture's recorded history beside Europeans a racist conspiracy theory? LMFAO You are a joke Albereth. As funny as your attempt at talking down on me earlier, and yet failing to grasp ALL the links I have given you to read in your own time. Sad really! :p

Let's all agree with you. Europeans discovered history, recorded it all by themselves and screw every other culture that has recorded any other form of history, from antiquity to modern, Europeans recorded EVERYTHING that's the end all and be all:whistle:

Oh and nepotism can exist, sexism can exist, but lo and behold the idea that discrimination and bias due to skin colour can exist, must be preposterous and a conspiracy right? Lol, I say discrimination doesn't exist at all! How you like them chipped apples? :D

Good lord but just how many shoulders do you need?

Oh, and I am supposed to have attempted to take you down? For what purpose? I never attempt to take anyone down, you can't win the Internet.

But seeing as you do struggle with some aspects of the Internet, here is a tip: you aren't the boss of anyone. Just because you post links does not mean that anyone has to follow them no matter how interesting they may be. They aren't the only source of information in the world. If you have to support your arguments with links or pictures, so be it but I very rarely follow any link, even those of people who are genuinely interesting.

I am not sure how you are going to agree with me on something I've never said. No doubt you'll have a link for that. But have a biscuit while you figure that out.
 
A response from black consciousness activists:

There's no unlearning whiteness, despite what 'anti-racists' say

Gillian Schutte's 'Dear White People' letter has caused a little national furore. Most whites have reacted with predictable irritation.

It's the tragic black celebration of her "acknowledgment" of her white privileges that calls for critical reflection on the new "anti-racism" industry by white liberals such as Professor Samantha Vice, Michelle Booth and now Schutte. Basically, they are struggling to live with the legacy of brutality and racism that brought them about and positions them as privileged. They want to be ethical, that is to say be good people of good conscience, so as to properly enjoy their good white lives alongside their black lovers and children.

It would be amiss for black people to ride this wave towards rescuing whiteness when a long history and present of white supremacy prove whiteness to be unethical and beyond restructuring.

This appeal that white people again admit guilt, ask forgiveness and we can simply move on on the basis of "common humanity" is consistent with the post-1994

reconciliation without justice exemplified by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's impulse of getting some perpetrators of racism to repent, reveal and ask forgiveness, and thus gain moral vindication for the white race. We saw former death squad leader Eugene de Kock going to jail and former police minister Adriaan Vlok washing the feet of Reverend Frank Chikane in a macabre performance of remorse that leaves the anti-black status quo intact.

Essentially this "anti-racism" industry appeals to whites to be nice about their whiteness and white supremacy, and not rub it in black people's faces after black people have been nice enough to let whites stay and prosper on land stolen from them. Schutte wants whites to relax because blacks have no ill intention towards them despite all that has happened in the past. The paternalism and racism of this empty acknowledgment of history but not redress gives blacks a false sense of justice and it is growing fast, expressed in some whites boldly wearing T-shirts with the words: "I benefited from apartheid."

This individualisation of racism has immediate benefits for the "anti-racists" who accuse other whites of racism – miraculously, by this act, she or he transcends racism and its benefits, and becomes the national spokesperson on race matters and a fêted darling of the media. Blacks are hungry for any acknowledgement of white guilt, even if it's given half-heartedly or as an act of bad faith for both commercial and psychological benefit for the white "confessor". The "anti-racist" activists have seen an opening in the market and are moving in on it. It makes better sense if one married a black man and had "mixed" children, who are mentioned in between as if it mattered.

Critical race studies

Tragically, South Africa has not even moved past the first-generation "critical race studies" that populated North America at one point. It has gone through the "race traitor" period, where whites were seriously trying to come to terms with what it means to be white in a world that is structured on the permanent exclusion and oppression of blacks. Such studies and campaigns soon came to a cul-de-sac when it was discovered that there was no rescuing whiteness that is not based on continued black oppression.

Anti-racism by whites became exposed as sophisticated racism. The only solution was the expulsion of whites from black affairs. This is a major test, because white anti-racism activities will have to take Malcolm X's injunction that the best help that whites can give blacks is to do "nothing". Some black supporters of Schutte have distorted Steve Biko's injunction that whites who want to help blacks must work among their own community. But this couldn't possibly mean rescuing whiteness under the guise of working against it. Schutte's biggest sin is the distortion of what racism is: she reduces it to personal misunderstanding and mere bad orientation that can be cured by changed behaviour and admission of guilt.

To end racism, actually, would be to realise the Armageddon that those whites Schutte derides for being paranoid know awaits in some historical corner. It can't be otherwise, given the magnitude of historical transgression against blacks. The coming apocalypse was best described in JM Coetzee's Disgrace.

To his credit Coetzee left the country because he knows, like Lucy in the novel, that whites have to start from the beginning with nothing – like dogs. This kind of thinking offends liberals like Schutte, who just want a little bit of acknowledgment.

Because Schutte and Co can go through life innocent until proven guilty, get intuitive access to property and land, and escape police harassment, they cannot isolate that privilege to being the burden of good whites as though it does not translate to black oppression and marginalisation. In this regard there's no unlearning whiteness. Schutte's "each one teach one" training on whites resolving racism for blacks is unintelligible and disingenuous. The essence of white being, its intrinsic link to domination and privilege, is what needs to be destroyed and the possibility of its structural superiority is what must be ended. Some may think it is unreasonable to ask white people to tutor each other towards this goal - but for black people there can be no lesser demand if white supremacy is to end.

It is a demand we know won't be met. Whenever white privilege has been questioned in South Africa it has felt victimised and retaliated with its power to take up space. Nonetheless, this is a demand we should put into effect by any means necessary. Black political interest cannot bow to the moral persuasion of "white angels" like Schutte. They won't resolve racism, but will only reposition whites to a place where they can think of themselves as ethical. This does not include them ending their white world so we can be human.

Blacks are a majority and we must use our numeral strength and sense of injustice to end white supremacy. The ANC has served us badly and left us to the whims of all sorts of white paternalism.
 
you aren't the boss of anyone. Just because you post links does not mean that anyone has to follow them no matter how interesting they may be.

Lol Why you mad though? You argued something, I gave you something to help enlighten you on the subject matter, not from my own word or opinion but from references you can also go and read on. Now you saying I'm tryna boss you around? ROFL why you mad though?

1350415172544.jpg
 
Lol Why you mad though? You argued something, I gave you something to help enlighten you on the subject matter, not from my own word or opinion but from references you can also go and read on. Now you saying I'm tryna boss you around? ROFL why you mad though?

View attachment 35302

LOL at you - me mad? By that I assume meaning angry? Like that will happen - sorry, I don't get mad.

If you mean 'insane'. Not much I can do about that because levels of sanity are most often determined by the observer. Call me mad if you will. It doesn't change anything about what you claim that I have said. I guess you are just looking for company.

So back to this whol internet thing, because you seem to have misunderstood again. And because I really don't mind feeding you cookies all day long. It's just a little thing but a lot of folk do like to insist on others providing links to support some claim or other. And then there are those like you who post a whole bunch of links 'to enlighten' or for whatever reason. I could care less. If you don't like something I say, or don't agree with something, well, so what? This is the internet where we can share (or not) thoughts and opinions. Yeah, sometimes we are wrong, sometimes we are just plain misunderstood. But if you feel that strongly about it, then you can do your own research, draw your own conclusions, change your own mind, etc. And providing a whole bunch of links may well be an exercise in futility - I just don't care enough about you to bother to tap a link. This may well be sad because maybe some of those links could be interesting. But, to repeat, I don't care enough. Apart from feeding you.

To remind you about the gist of the conversation that we've been having. I asked who did the recording of events. You trotted out a list and asked if you should go on to which I responded yes because none of those you provided have either individually or collectively provided a comprehensive history of Africa. Now, as much as you'd like to think that I've said that only Europeans have written the history of Africa, I have said that the problem with a European written history is that it has been post the event - i.e. not contemporary (or an eyewitness account) - in the main.

Now, that has been the gist with quite a lot of rambling from you as well as an plethora of capital letters.
 
LOL at you - me mad? By that I assume meaning angry? Like that will happen - sorry, I don't get mad.

If you mean 'insane'. Not much I can do about that because levels of sanity are most often determined by the observer. Call me mad if you will. It doesn't change anything about what you claim that I have said. I guess you are just looking for company.

So back to this whol internet thing, because you seem to have misunderstood again. And because I really don't mind feeding you cookies all day long. It's just a little thing but a lot of folk do like to insist on others providing links to support some claim or other. And then there are those like you who post a whole bunch of links 'to enlighten' or for whatever reason. I could care less. If you don't like something I say, or don't agree with something, well, so what? This is the internet where we can share (or not) thoughts and opinions. Yeah, sometimes we are wrong, sometimes we are just plain misunderstood. But if you feel that strongly about it, then you can do your own research, draw your own conclusions, change your own mind, etc. And providing a whole bunch of links may well be an exercise in futility - I just don't care enough about you to bother to tap a link. This may well be sad because maybe some of those links could be interesting. But, to repeat, I don't care enough. Apart from feeding you.

To remind you about the gist of the conversation that we've been having. I asked who did the recording of events. You trotted out a list and asked if you should go on to which I responded yes because none of those you provided have either individually or collectively provided a comprehensive history of Africa. Now, as much as you'd like to think that I've said that only Europeans have written the history of Africa, I have said that the problem with a European written history is that it has been post the event - i.e. not contemporary (or an eyewitness account) - in the main.

Now, that has been the gist with quite a lot of rambling from you as well as an plethora of capital letters.

Lol Yup you mad you mad, the whole tone of this post tried to remain calm, but you mad, you don't care yet try to emphasize another point which has been discussed thoroughly in this thread.

obamam-lol-y-u-mad-tho.jpg

you mad bro?

A saying used to make someone who is mad, even madder. Also intending that you are tired of them complaining and you want them to chill out.
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X