WHY did Eurpean/White people do this to the world?

[Oshun_Auset]

"WHY did European/White people do this to the world?"

I would like everyone's ideas on this because although I am a Pan-Africanist, and socialism says that racism was created as an excuse to exploit other peoples...I have a hard time reconciling that with the OBVIOUS racism that took place in the Nicean conference which was far prior to the colonial period and the Aryan invasion of the origional Dravidian/Dalit population of the Indus valley(and the subsequent caste system established). Also there is the fact that only European/white people subjugated the entire world(some say that anyone would do this if they had the same technological/tricknological advancement)

....Basically, the dates of European/White agression do not match up with the idea racism/caste systems were born out of the colonial era as an excuse and justification for colonial exploitation....

Do you go with the Isis Papers Keys to the Colours theory,  the  Ice Man Inheritance theory, or the socialist theory...what explains European/White people's global and historical hostility towards people with melanin?....If there are other theories out there please explain...(I know of a few more about genetic grafting and alien stuff, that I didn't want to go into because I think they are a little far fetched and reactionary, there is also a book "Yurugu" I haven't read yet) I'm looking for a logical reason.

For those that haven't read the books...

"The Isis papers" says...Albino's leaving/being kicked out of Africa, therefore having a inferiority complex because of the lack of melanin(being allergic to the sun is not natural or man's origional state of being and is also only a conditions suffered by the minority), and therefore, like a bully who feels bad about himself, subjugates others to feel better, and sets up a superirity system,to combat internal inferiority because of lack of melanin... Also removes the female principle in spirituality because of the "origional sin"/birth defect of albonism.

"The Ice Man Inheritance says...European agression derives  from the harsh conditions of survival in Europe...that the lack of melanin is from environmental conditions. Where there is little sun(Europe), man's melanin content had to deplete to be able to get the propper amount of vitamin A.  Where as in Africa(and other parts of the world) Melanin was needed to protect us from the sun's harmful UV rays, and life in Africa was not as hostile because of the tropical conditions(more food, more temperate climate, easier life, minimized hostility)...Also the removalof the female principle in spirituality was due to the domminant physical male being revered becuase he was necessary to combat harsh conditions and survive. The female was weaker(physically) and therefore not deserving of spiritual reverence...

Basically I am asking the big question...
"WHY did Eurpean/White people do this to the world?"

I havn't came to a conclusion yet and would very much appreciate other people's opinions and input on what they think...

Thanks

[gman]

Interesting topic!
I may have to continue this later cos I'll have to run out soon.
First I should say that my dad is white (from the ghetto area in Caerdydd, Cymru- Cardiff, Wales). I mention that cos it might make me biased, since I think my dad's a good guy with no genetic predisposition to oppress people.
 With that said-
 The Isis Papers: I find this theory a bit fanciful, cos albinism is totally distinct from race. An African albino could pass it on in his genes, but his kids would look like Yellow Man, not like a caucasian.
  The Iceman- sounds plausible at first, but think about it a little deeper- people like the Inuit live in one of the harshest environments in the world, but they've never oppressed anybody (except maybe one another in minor ways through small-scale wars, etc). And some of the European groups that were most involved in oppressive empire-building and slavery lived in lush, semi-tropical environments (Romans, Spanish, etc)
  Also look how the English have treated the Welsh, Scots and especially the Irish- they looked exactly the same, but were definitely considered inferior races. By the same token, various African and Asian kingdoms have oppressed and enslaved one another historically, and often considered each other inferior 'races' although there was nothing external to distinguish them. True, this oppression never reached the extent it did under white rule.
  I think the answer lies in forms of social organization/culture, not race. Societies with little hierarchy or class distinctions tend not to make wars of conquest on other societies, those that have extreme class/caste differences do, in order to acquire more of the surplus that the kings, chiefs etc. have grown used to for their luxurious lifestyles.
 I have a bit more to say on this but I'll have to save that later.
  Happy Earthday Bob Marley!
 

[Oshun_Auset]

I wasn't asking the question on racial terms alone....actually the "development" that different theories propose as explanations of the behavior would insinuate a "culture" was being formed. One was blaming genetics, another environment...You have debunked both in a very logical manner(thanks) but given no actual explanation.

Why would European/White "culture" develop in such a way of caste and social stratification and oppression of the entire world? It is the same question put a different way...

Is it the advanced technology of weaponry attained or something else more culture based?

The WHY is what is confusing me. I'll look forward to further posts.  

[c-spot_rasta]

"Why would European/White "culture" develop in such a way of caste and social stratification and oppression of the entire world? It is the same question put a different way... "

I don't really comprehend what else you were sayin but I think I get the jist of it. I just wanna talk about this part. So your not even talkin about white people opressin black people and every other people on earth, but your also talkin about different culture's opressin each other, so like with the Tutsi and Hutu? First off European is not really a culture, there is Dutch culture, Irish culture, French culture, Scottish culture. A long time ago there were even more though, I'll talk about Scotland because I am predominantly Scottish so I've done alot of research on it. Way back there were the Highland Picts and the Lowland Britons, then a bit later came the Scots ( where the country got its name even though they were from Ireland) even more down the line Viking settlers came and then the Normans. Most Normans went to England but some went to Scotland. So then there were 5 ethnicities/cultures, and then the whole tribal system in Europe was basicly gotten rid of, everyone was intermarried, none of it was kept track of and your ethnicity/culture basicly became the same as your nationality, with some exceptions of course. So if you wanna know which Europeans are to blame, in my opinion and all honesty, I think the English started a chian reaction, I'll explain. First they weren't to nice to my Scottish ancestors, they banned our culture ( tartans, bagpipes ect.) and slaughtered a bunch of clans that tried to resist them. Then the English (and I'll admit, some Scottish, but they were the English wannabees) went out around the world exploring and everyone they met they were of course better than, then they started up the African slave trade, and the rest of Europe followed. Back in the old world the English still thought they were better than the Scottish and the French thought they were better than the English and visa versa ect. but all europeans thought they were better than non europeans and those thoughts carried over to the new world, where people weren't recognized as much by nationalities, other than the English and French in Canada,but there were white Americans and black Americans. That's how I think it was started.

[Bantu_Kelani]

The answer to your question is no mystery Oshun_Auset.

First you should know that the melanin is high forms of vibration crystallized or sophisticated psychochemical computer engines that can absorb and process high rates of vibrations. I like to think of melanin as quartz. Just as quartz was used in the ancient times in the pyramids and temples, and are used today in computer chips and watches. The majority of people today are ignorant that they have quartz right in their own bodies in the form of Melanin, for chemical as well as alchemical researches have shown that 90% of human melanin does reside within the brain. Thus IMHO, the destructive anti-life behavior of white people does not result from a color deficiency. Blacks and Whites just evolved in their unique ways. The Arabs and European descent people evil behavior happens to be vital to the survival of their economies. They steal, corrupt and manipulate the darker people of the world for their sole benefit! This certainly sounds like the socialist theory.

Furthermore, nobody from the African population, whether they are African, West Indian or African-American has been instrumental in worldwide terrorist endeavors. It is just not the societal attitude consistent with Africans, unless the latter come in constant contact with racism in education, religion, justice and all areas manufactured by foreign nations for the sole white supremacy agenda.
IMHO again, it is not a coincidence that ancient Africans found a way of sustaining millenniums of wonderful liberal economies and technology without relentless theft of what belongs to other people of varying cultures. Before the invasions, when Africa was at her zenith, ancient Africans were much more spiritual and had much more INTEGRITY. They transcended white  societal ideology of individualism.

Thus we see, without the positive guidance of the Creator Source and the noble principles of integrity, the true power of Melanin (the power of mental rebirth) ultimately leaves us.  Without this mental and spiritual power we are really ignorant and ultimate preys to our corruptible lower nature.


Bantu Kelani.

[gman]

Oshun_Auset
   I think it's a combination of technology and cultural type. The type of culture would determine how you used whatever technology you had developed. Eg. the Chinese had gunpowder long before Europeans but they used it for fireworks, not weapons.
  As to why cultures develop in the different ways that they do, I don't know. But if you check it 'hunter-gatherer' societies and suchlike cultures which are termed as so-called 'primitive' tend to display less hierarchy and aggressive behavior to others, than more so-called 'advanced' societies which are settled, have agriculture and animal husbandry, etc. I think this is not only because the latter can produce a surplus which can be used by their greedy leaders for luxuries that become addictive to them, but also because the so-called 'advanced' societies thrive by dominating nature in some way, whereas 'primitive' societies thrive by existing in harmony with nature, not dominating or being dominated, but knowing their place within the natural scheme of things and behaving accordingly. I think when societies begin to dominate and manipulate the natural world, this attitude carries over into other areas- dominating women, one another, and other societies.
   As to why some European cultures developed this behavior to a greater extent than anyone else in history, I'm really not sure. Could it have been anyone who happened to have that particular type of culture in that particular type of environment and then happened to develop advanced technology, or was there something specific to Europeans? I lean towards the former explanation, but I'm not sure.
   Bantu-Kelani: I don't know enough about the science behind melanin to really comment on that theory, I would have to do more research. I will say though that colonial European powers have not only made their riches off the blood of Africans, Asians, etc, but off the blood of their own people and other Europeans as well... eg, the model for subsequent English imperialism was their subjugation of the Irish next door, then they took that behavior and expanded it worldwide... and those English lords had almost as much contempt for poor English people as they did for people of color.
  This stupid computer is about to kick me off the internet so I'll go now... we could discuss more later

[Bantu_Kelani]

Bantu-Kelani: I don't know enough about the science behind melanin to really comment on that theory, I would have to do more research.

Well I encourage you to do some research, for this information is universally known.  The prime function of the melanin in the human body is analogous to chlorophyll in plants. The melanin is not only the pigment on the external surface of the body, but 90% of the melanin that our bodies contain exists in our brain in the pineal gland which is a tiny little thing, somewhere between the size of a grain of rice and a pea. There is clear and strong evidence that the melanin is dark in color at the same rate in whites as it is in blacks similar to the black quartz. This leaves the door open for people to maintain whatever belief they want, if they possibly may convert their belief positively... The melanin essential role is physiological and acts as a semiconductor to transform energy. You cannot plug the human body like an electrical machine, but it does get electricity from another source: the diet, as well as the cosmic energy in the form of natural sources like the sun, air, water and earth. This living melanin (quartz) is able to absorb the energy of earth, sound (music and waves), light (sun, planets and stars), air (Chi, Prana, Ra etc.), water (sea, lake and river), vibrations etc...
Today, we can see how our ancestors, the indigenous people of this planet, have been able to reuse these energies in the past for the benefit of man in the expression of advanced civilizations we see today pyramid, temples, mathematics, architecture, cosmology and more. Read "The Science & Myth of the Melanin" and "Dark Matter, Dark Secrets" by T.Owens Moore, M.D.  Dr. Moore's two books are great work, they show how the functional role for melanin lies beyond skin pigmentation and the material-spiritual relationship of melanin!

I will say though that colonial European powers have not only made their riches off the blood of Africans, Asians, etc, but off the blood of their own people and other Europeans as well... eg, the model for subsequent English imperialism was their subjugation of the Irish next door, then they took that behavior and expanded it worldwide... and those English lords had almost as much contempt for poor English people as they did for people of color.

Indeed, the anti-life behaviour is prevalent among western populations right from prehistoric times until after the Second World War. This has been due to the energy and resource interests against each other. This was especially so during the European colonial times, such traces could be found in history.
In the modern times too, this cultural stereotyping of violence and racism has occurred, especially in the 1940s with the neo-Nazi massacres of European Jews, even in the 1990's and 21th century. For instance, in Yugoslavia the Milosevic regime inflicted terrible atrocities on the Kosovars and KLA. Yet, the mainstream media ignored NATO's own propaganda and gross violations of international humanitarian law and basic rights to Milosevic and members of his regime.... Russia complained at NATO's human rights violations while some NATO members (e.g the US CIA which had long trained the KLA against Yugoslavia and other Islamic terrorist groups operating in Chechnya) have accused Russia of doing the same thing. A major oil pipeline carries oil from fields in Baku on the Caspian Sea and Chechnya toward the Ukraine. For Russia it is important that the oil pipelines and routes they take to be sold to the western markets meet their needs. As with most other conflicts involved Europeans, the crisis in Chechnya is trade and access related reasons for the control of Caspian Sea oil...Also, the Anglo-Irish struggle against Britain's but also the US's interfere in the internal affairs of the Irish people etc.

The Northern, Western and Eastern European history of power struggles, however, didn't fragment the white race but rather bring about UNITY. Divide and conquer techniques are only used against the darker people throughout the world and throughtout history.

Bantu Kelani.

[Oshun_Auset]

The Northern, Western and Eastern European history of power struggles, however, didn't fragment the white race but rather bring about UNITY. Divide and conquer techniques are only used against the darker people throughout the world and throughtout history.

Bantu Kelani.

Thank you for everyone's input. I am aware of the pineal gland and the functions of melanin, as I am with the internal oppression of European power towards weeker European powers.

This is an interesting conversation but it still doesn't really answer the "why" clearly.

Bantu_Kelani, you stating the paradox I have come across. Why did only European people develop(and unify) under such an aggressive cuture towards the rest of the planets melenated people? Are you stating is their lack of melanin that keeps their culture out of balance? Or are you saying because the pineal gland has melanin reguardless of actual skin colour, that they are no more out of touch with the "All" than anyone else. You stated that there is no mystery but to say that all people have the melanin in their pineal gland...actually debunks the "melanin" theory...so the mystery remains.  

The fact that it has been going on since far prior to the colonial period debunks the socialist theory that racism developed out of the need for an excuse/justification for colonialism.

I appreciate all the information,...but your information, which I am aware of, contradicts the socialist theory rather than supports it. I may have misunerstood the direction you were taking your explanation of "why" in...if that is the case please clarify it for me.

The "why" might be an unaswerable question since it might be something that developed in undocumented European history....but it will always confound me.  

c-spot_rasta, the Tutsi and Hutu didn't oppress the entire world...There has always been localized oppression and battles between all people of the world...but you can't compare the scale that colonialization took to that of localized conflicts. The colonial states that were created by the division of Africa at the Berlin conference led to much of the tension between different ethnic groups because the lines drawn did not respect any traditional homelands, and this exasperated the ethnic tension(this was the strategy of divide conquer). So your point is mute considering the Tutsi and Hutu once the origions of the tension are explored.

It also was not the English who first colonized Africa...First it was the Arabs, then the first European powers were the Portuguese...and like Bantu Kelani stated so eliquently, the internal struggles and colonial exploitation UNIFIED European powers. They did fight like cats and dogs over who had control of the colonies...but such battles only determined who would get the most financial/economic benefit. All of this does little to shed light on WHY only European powers colonized the entire world...I'm wondering WHY greed was developed to such an exponential degree? I have a hard time believing it was just "happenstance". I know that Europe has historically looked at Africa as the "breadbasket"(ie. Imperial Greeco-Roman dominance of KMT) so does anyone think it could be related to Europe's historical lack of natural resources? I'm grasping at straws now.

[c-spot_rasta]

"c-spot_rasta, the Tutsi and Hutu didn't oppress the entire world"

That's not what I was gettin at, I was giving an example of one culture opressin another, and I understand that because of colonization it changed the borders of the tribes and made ones that didn't like each other too much be in the same country. But even before colonization there were still tribal wars, and the Tutsi and Hutu conflict was basicly that, just on larger terms and with ethnic cleansing, even though colonization making 2 diferent peoples share a common nationality didn't help, it may still have happened had there never been colonization, and then it would have been like a war between 2 countries. And I know the Arabs colonized it first but I don't think I said they didn't and if I did, that's the least important part of what I said.

[Bantu_Kelani]

Bantu_Kelani, you stating the paradox I have come across. Why did only European people develop(and unify) under such an aggressive cuture towards the rest of the planets melenated people? Are you stating is their lack of melanin that keeps their culture out of balance? Or are you saying because the pineal gland has melanin reguardless of actual skin colour, that they are no more out of touch with the "All" than anyone else. You stated that there is no mystery but to say that all people have the melanin in their pineal gland...actually debunks the "melanin" theory...so the mystery remains.  

The fact that it has been going on since far prior to the colonial period debunks the socialist theory that racism developed out of the need for an excuse/justification for colonialism.

I appreciate all the information,...but your information, which I am aware of, contradicts the socialist theory rather than supports it. I may have misunerstood the direction you were taking your explanation of "why" in...if that is the case please clarify it for me.

The "why" might be an unaswerable question since it might be something that developed in undocumented European history....but it will always confound me.  

I thought I have given you a logical explanation why white peoples partake in continuous anti-life behavior. It seems that I have done so ambiguously, so I am going to rephrase simpler if I can.

Although the melanin is somewhat higher in Black folks due to the darker pigment in Black people's skin, I recur that 90% of it reside within our brain in the pineal gland. Hence, to me, there is no biological theory that justifies the premise that the collective genocidal behavior of white people is due to a LACK of melanin. The inclusive melanin is the neuromelanin. Its location, look, size and level of function are the same in all races. It calcifies at the same rate. Its function therefore is reduced at the same rate in whites as it is in blacks.

Moreover, I repeat that the imperialism, chattel enslavement, conquest, brutality, lying etc. are important factors in securing white people prosperity. This terrorism bring political power, influence and the chance to acquire land, minerals and oil. As early as 2,000 years ago the overseas expansion made Caucasian peoples rich. As a result more of their colonialists entrepreneurs were increasingly eager to conquer new provinces and plunder their riches.
I thus concur with the socialist premise. It is well-known that white peoples imperialism is driven by political necessity to control the world from a mental state that is egotistical oriented. And certainly, at various times in their history they wage wars solely for economic and geopolitical gains.

To end, I say that I do not believe that this self-seeking attitude is developed as a result of a "limited environment". As one observes various peoples around the world (people we would judge "primitive" and "wretched") live simply in a peaceful way, guilty free, relatively in harmony with self and nature. IMHO what happens with the Caucasian case is that these peoples have just stored the most irrational fears born of cultural biases, primarily based on ignorance of wisdom and the Universal Laws.  

I truly hope I helped you gained a bit of insight on this subject.

Bantu Kelani.

[seshatasefekht7]

peace and hotep,

bantu kelani, may i only add, firstly, that welsing elaborated on the inadequacies and overcompensations of people that classify themselves as 'white' , who place themselves outside of the hue-man family values. and secondly, the fate of the abandoned oedipus rex or the prodical son.

freedomisahapislave  

[Bantu_Kelani]

"But even before colonization there were still tribal wars, and the Tutsi and Hutu conflict was basicly that, just on larger terms and with ethnic cleansing, even though colonization making 2 diferent peoples share a common nationality didn't help, it may still have happened had there never been colonization, and then it would have been like a war between 2 countries.

This statement stems from misinformation. Colonialism in Africa exacerbated the existing tribal conflicts. Tribal conflicts in Africa were not nearly as ferocious and frequent as nowadays and in other parts of the world. During pre-colonial times, tribalism was very minor and usually not more than a dozen person died as a result.  It is imperialism that has caused sharp divisions between many tribes in Africa. The Hutus and Tutsis themselves attest that intense hatred between them emerged after being colonized. The Europeans, in order to divide Africans and make them weaker, established one group over the other making them think that some of them are better than others. After the Europeans left the ill feelings between the Hutus and Tutsis remained that's how the Rwanda genocide came about. It is imperative white Africanists learn the truth of history and abandons biased old programmed beliefs if they wish to bring themselves into harmony with the social and political issues of the African people. This imperative is also valid for Black folks who are asleep and dreaming in western worlds.

Bantu Kelani.

[hailiniemperor]

Greetings. I will try to offer as much as I am able at this present time to this subject. I believe that all wickedness stems from selfishness. I believe selfishness is the root. I will try to use biblical allegory to represent this. Why did Adam and Eve disobey the Lord and eat from the tree of knowledge? Because instead of obeying the Father, they chose instead to think for "Themselves" in a selfish manner. Adam and Eve did not think of the benifit for anything else but themselves. So I believe selfishness is the first sin, and thus the root of evil. I will attempt to use another biblical concept. Satan rebelled against JAH not for anyone else's benifit, but only for the benifit of "Himself" out of jealousy.

Now this Selfishness has been around for an antedeluvian period of time. All conquest of another people is based on selfishness. If there is an example of conquest that is not based on a selfish exposition then please inform me. The reason conquest takes place is that a power either wants to  spread a certain theology, which is based on selfishness because it is not allowing people to think and believe according to their free will. The other reason for conquest is that a power wants what another power has, which is characteristic of a selfish nature that is explanatory in itself. Now I have established that conquest is of a selfish nature, and thus evil in nature. I am not positive but I believe that conquest has been a policy of nearly every culture and power. Please inform me if I remain Ignorant. The muslim arabs, as well as the African Moors conquered much of Northern Africa as well as Spain and Eastern Europe. Conquest was a policy of Mohammed. The European/white nations colonized Africa and displayed such evil obviously because they could. They had the power to, which has been established. Now what these Nations did was horrible, and they did it because they were selfish and they had the power to do it.  I am in no way defending these White people, because what they did is of the utmost mallicious nature. To answer the main question of Oshu (sorry if I spellt ur name wrong), I do not think there is some kind of special scientific theory that is going to answer the question, but what I believe is that the European/White nations did what they did simply because they were selfish and they could get away with it. They obviously had the power and they used it.  Now to say that this Anti-Life behavior originated with the White Man, that may be true I do not know. But it is my belief that Black Man and Woman were the first people of the earth, and that they existed for many years before white people. I am not trying to say that I believe that Black Man and Woman were the first people to kill someone. What I am saying is that the Anti-Life behavior originated with the first person that did kill someone. Murder is anti-life, and murder exists within all races. I believe selfishness is anti-life. There are Righteous People and there are wicked people.

[c-spot_rasta]

"This statement stems from misinformation. Colonialism in Africa exacerbated the existing tribal conflicts. Tribal conflicts in Africa were not nearly as ferocious and frequent as nowadays and in other parts of the world. During pre-colonial times, tribalism was very minor and usually not more than a dozen person died as a result.  It is imperialism that has caused sharp divisions between many tribes in Africa. The Hutus and Tutsis themselves attest that intense hatred between them emerged after being colonized. The Europeans, in order to divide Africans and make them weaker, established one group over the other making them think that some of them are better than others. After the Europeans left the ill feelings between the Hutus and Tutsis remained that's how the Rwanda genocide came about. It is imperative white Africanists learn the truth of history and abandons biased old programmed beliefs if they wish to bring themselves into harmony with the social and political issues of the African people. This imperative is also valid for Black folks who are asleep and dreaming in western worlds."


I see what you're sayin, but, correct me if I'm wrong, what you're getting at is tribal war, pre colonialism. So that would involve only a few small villages and traditional weapons. Had there been no colinization, but for some reason the 2 tribes got mad at each other, let's just say land for now, with modern technology every tribal village or city in the country would know about it, so it would be all the members of one tribe against all the members of another and they would have modern technology. There would be ome differences though like since they wouldn't both be the same country, one tribe wouldn't have all the power and weapons, so instead of half a million deaths on one side there might be half a million on both sides. I had already figured that it was the Europeans who had sort of appointed the one ehtnicity as the "superior" one, but I still feel that this or somethin similiar to it would have happened any ways......

[Bantu_Kelani]

I am not positive but I believe that conquest has been a policy of nearly every culture and power. Please inform me if I remain Ignorant. The muslim arabs, as well as the African Moors conquered much of Northern Africa as well as Spain and Eastern Europe. Conquest was a policy of Mohammed.

Now to say that this Anti-Life behavior originated with the White Man, that may be true I do not know. But it is my belief that Black Man and Woman were the first people of the earth, and that they existed for many years before white people. I am not trying to say that I believe that Black Man and Woman were the first people to kill someone. What I am saying is that the Anti-Life behavior originated with the first person that did kill someone. Murder is anti-life, and murder exists within all races. I believe selfishness is anti-life. There are Righteous People and there are wicked people.

On what basis do you declare that cultural genocide originates from the indigenous people of this planet? Can you refer me to an authentic record that confirm your statement? Or do you base this uninformed declaration from your ego defense system? Know that as early as 6000 B.C when high culture begun in Africa and when the indigenous Africans extended their authority across the Middle East around 1532-1070 BC they never plundered or enslaved the Caucasian people they found. Their civilizations were following the principles of Universal Law, guided by humanist principles. Our ancient ancestors placed the conquered with equality and intermarried with them. These races were the Sumerians, Akkadiens, Greek Ionians etc. It was after the Caucasian colonization that tribal conflicts started occurring, and this to me means that the European colonization is largely responsible for tribalism turmoil in Africa. All countries have had their issues, and African nations are no exception. But the Europeans, in order to weaken our people, used divide and conquer tactics they are also using TODAY.

And don't confuse everything. The African Moors first entered Spain from 400 AD and where the last to leave in 711 AD. Much later the Asian Arab Moors followed them in Spain in 680 AD after they conquered the whole Iberian Peninsula. (See Black Man of the Nile and his family by Dr. Yosef Ben-Jochannan). History relates that these Black Moor were great learning and advanced people, they reintroduced science, technology and education and raised the Europeans form the Dark Ages.

On the other hand the European and Arab colonialism, rape and enslavement of Blacks worlwide are so profound that the indigenous African way of life never recovered! Our civilizations cruelly started to decline by 671 AD when the Assyrian Semites conquered Africa. You lack any historical or contemporary knowledge of European imperialism and Africa's pre-colonial period, for African people never stole land for large-scale imperialism and enslavement along with brainwashing conspiracies. Despite slavery among white peoples, they are united for better development! Your ignorance Hailiniemperor accelerate misery, pain and disharmony. To face historical and contemporary truth expands awareness and truly can be a catalyst to self-healing.

I had already figured that it was the Europeans who had sort of appointed the one ehtnicity as the "superior" one, but I still feel that this or somethin similiar to it would have happened any ways......

If it did I wish to read some literature or any documentary inscription relating to these chronic tribal conflicts in pre-colonial Africa you speak of.


Bantu Kelani.