Is There a Reason for Black People to Celebrate The Royal Wedding?
Note from BW of Brazil: So, one of the big news items of recent days has been the birth of the first child of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle. Perfect timing, I would say. I say this because it’s been almost exactly year since the couple married under the same media hype. It’s also been a year since I put together an opinion piece on that spectacle, the hoopla and a historical perspective. I never got around to publishing it, so this coming of the royal baby actually presents the perfect opportunity to release the same piece I filed in the archives nearly one year ago. What’s cool here is that I don’t really need to alter anything accept this current introduction.
First, in keeping with the original order of last year’s file, I will start first with a piece by Afro-Brazilian leader Douglas Belchior posted around that same time.
Did you feel represented at the wedding of the British royal family?
Posted on May 21, 2018
By Douglas Belchior
The British royal family has not had definitive political power for some time. But its symbolism and tradition are expensive to the British and must be expensive to the rest of the world as well. Especially the descendants of Africans, and especially in countries that are victims of colonization around the world. The groom’s family has a tradition of about a thousand years. It went through, therefore, the before, during and after the almost four centuries of mercantile slavery, which devastated Africa and ravaged the so-called novo mundo (new world).
Trafficking in enslaved people has spread this period and victimized, at the minimum, 12 million African human beings. The wealth generated by slavery brought to England the primitive accumulation of sufficient capital to the advent of the first Industrial Revolution and maintained the country as the great world power in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. That’s right, the blood of the birth of world capitalism is of enslaved Africans, natives and their descendants.
Throughout the twentieth century, England maintained violent colonization in dozens of countries in Africa and other continents, promoted apartheid in South Africa and led, alongside the US, the advance of world capitalism in its neoliberal format through Margaret Thatcher, in the 1970s and 80s, always with the honors of the Crown. Today the royal family still holds, in addition to government/state funding, land and business assets in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and an immense undisclosed fortune.
All the glamor, the elegance and richness of the wedding of the lovebirds, has this origin there … got it?
It’s even beautiful seeing a neo-afro-princess smiling on the screen, a super stylish and thrilled black mother, a super-tuned black choir and a nice black pastor quoting Martin Luther King. But celebrating a royal marriage in an imperialist, colonial, and slav-o-crat country as a gain for the comunidade negra (black community) or the povo negro (black people), it is not. Please! It is worrying the adhesion, especially by the black masses, to the growing discourse of valuing an empty representation of meaning, legitimacy and concern with the collectivity, increasingly liberal and individualistic. Could it be that we didn’t show up right there in the usual place? Serving, caring, singing, praying and beautifying their lives?
Is this the representation we need to feed?
Is there a reason for black people to celebrate the Royal Wedding? Let’s see what history tells us
Note: Just a reminder. I wrote the piece below last year and never ended up publishing it. As such, the material can simply substitute the topic of the Royal Wedding with the recent birth of the couple’s first child almost exactly one year later. As the subject remains the British Empire and the couple in the headlines, there was no neeed to edit the text.
Archived on May 24, 2018, previously unpublished
Courtesy of BW of Brazil
So, obviously the big news of the past few days has been the royal wedding between Prince Harry and Meghan Markle. It was pretty difficult to miss. I hadn’t really been following the hype but when I went upstairs and turned on my television on Saturday morning, Globo TV, as well as Record TV were broadcasting the ceremony live. This was the third time in my memory that I can remember turning on the television and seeing something about the British Royal Family. The first was on July 29, 1981, and the wedding of Prince Charles to Lady Diana Spencer. The second was on Saturday, September 6th, 1997, when I saw bits and pieces of Princess Diana’s funeral. The funny thing about these three events is that they represent three distinct phases of my understanding of the world.
In 1981, as a child, I was simply too young to understand the meaning of the Charles-Diana wedding, but I did know that this was a powerful, dynastic family which explained the reason why this union was being broadcast in the US and the rest of the world. I remember thinking about how much money this family must have but only being introduced to a bit of history at that point, I had no idea how they had amassed such a fortune.
By 1997, with the death (murder?) of Princess Diana, I was beginning to question the history of the world that I had been taught by that time to the extent that I knew something about Diana’s death just didn’t add up. I hadn’t yet begun to put together pieces outside of the mainstream media’s narrative of her death, but I was slowly getting there. And now, 21 years later, with a broader understanding, I am now disgusted at the way in which the world is taught to worship this family.
Of course, as the Royal Family’s “dirty little secrets” are purposely kept out of the public eye, I can see how the world, myself included have/had been deceived for so long. Keeping in mind my own manipulation by history books and the media, I don’t fault the world with being in awe of the spectacle that was the Harry/Meghan wedding. But, being the person that I am today, I have to say, I wasn’t going to waste more than the 15 minutes I devoted to watching the ceremony. The deception was just too revolting. I mean what better way to keep masses of black folks worldwide duped than to present a black choir, a black pastor making a reference to Martin Luther King and a solo by black cellist? All of this on top a black bride.
The symbolism, hope and aspiration here was nearly as big as Barack Obama’s inauguration as US President in 2009. But again, the deception meter rose perhaps just as high. I mean, a black woman being a part of the family that most represents European power, prestige, wealth and dominance. How could you possibly hate on that? Well, before I try to break it down, just let me say, what you may call hate, I simply call history.
I mean, can anyone give me a reason why any black person around the world should be celebrating this wedding? I mean, because of this wedding, are we supposed to just forget that “the British have invaded 90% of the world’s countries”? Are we supposed to forget that between 1815 and 1914, it is estimated that about 13 million square miles, almost 25% of the earth and more than 400 million people, again, between 20- 25% of the global population at the time, were under British control?
If that doesn’t make you pause for a moment, how about considering the massive wealth of the British monarchy that is estimated to be about $35 billion. “Well, why hate on another family’s wealth?”, some clueless slob may ponder, but besides the global poverty that affects billions of people, has anyone ever stopped to question what the Royal Family’s wealth may have to do with black people? It’s called slavery, my dear, SLAVERY, which led to vast amounts of wealth as well as the Industrial Revolution.
Just consider that Britain’s Royal Family sat upon an empire that exploited hundreds of millions in Africa, India and other parts of the world. With Britain dominating the international trade of Africans, during the period of colonization it raped, pillaged and plundered numerous African nations to the degree that by the start of World War I, the two main colonial powers, Britain and France actively controlled 45% of the African continent.
And what happened when slavery came to an end? Did the Royal Family or the British do anything to compensate Africa and its descendants for presiding over centuries of murder, rape, free labor, psychological terrorism and misery? No, but it DID pay 46,000 slave owners an equivalent of US$23 billion in compensation.
Dr. Robert Beckford, a British academic theologian, tells us that Britain owes the Caribbean a total of US$10.1 trillion, including an estimated US$5.4 trillion it stole from the region in unpaid labor, US$3.4 trillion in unjust enrichment to the British economy, and another US$1.3 trillion in pain and suffering. Further still, records from the National Archives reveals that between the mid-17th century and the first decade of the 19th century, Great Britain shipped more than 3 million Africans to its Caribbean colonies, North and South America as well as other countries. Of that total, at least 300,000 didn’t survive.
But surely British actions weren’t all bad, right? I remember a long-time friend often pointing out the fact that it was the British that led the movement for the abolition of the institution of slavery. He would often say, “Remember, without the British, we could still be slaves now.” Well, let’s analyze this. Did the British lead the charge to abolish slavery because they realized the inhumane practice that it was, or did they feel sorry for Africans, or recognize how the practice reduced human beings to objects?
Naw, I doubt any of this.
The fact is, the British took the lead in the anti-slavery movement because, as leaders of the industrial age and what would become modern capitalism, their industry needed international markets that had more purchasing power, which would make them for wage labor. Thus, once one of the leaders in the enslavement industry, the British would then begin to attack nations still practicing slavery.
Britain’s economic and military dominance of the 19th century affected Brazil in numerous ways. Slavery in Brazil wasn’t a factor that lead to a civil war as it had in the US, because anti-slavery forces on Brazil were the British, upon whom the nation’s colonizers, the Portuguese had become dependent for protection and economic support. In the early 1830s, the British Royal Navy commanding the Atlantic Ocean, which carried slave ships to Brazil, would intercept these ships, liberate slaves and even burn ships of slave traders.
In this period, with slavery being the foundation of Brazil’s economy, Britain’s pressure to abolish the institution would have devastated the nation financially. But instead of heeding to British demands, Brazilian elites found back channels to import still another one million slaves. In 1854, the slave trade was officially abolished although slavery itself continued in Brazil, leading to the popular phrase “para inglês ver”, meaning, “for the English to see”. In other words, while the Brazilians declared that they were on the path to abolishing slavery, all the while the the regime continued until 1888, when Brazil became the last nation in the New World to liberate all of their slaves.
But that wasn’t the only manner in which Britain had influence over Brazil. With political independence, Brazil, like other Latin American countries became increasingly dependent on Great Britain economically. In fact, Brazil’s independence would eventually mean that it would, for intents and purposes, become a colony of Great Britain. As E. Bradford Burns put it:
“Brazil fell at once under the economic control of Great Britain from whom the Brazilians bought most of their manufactured goods, but to whom they sold only secondary amounts of their exports, a situation which would prevail for 100 years.”
Historian Emilia Viotti da Costa saw it in similar terms, revealing that: “Brazil as an independent nation would continue to have a colonial economy, but would pass from dependence on Portugal to dependence on Great Britain.”
Another Brazil-British connection would come with the discovery of gold deposits in the state of Minas Gerais in the country’s southeast in the late 17th century. With the British extending its economic activities in Brazil, it wouldn’t be long before the growing empire would get in on the gold rush, channeling the precious metal to London by licit as well as illicit means.
Facilitated by the 1703 Methuen Treaty, a military/commercial treaty signed between England and Portugal, as much as half to three quarters of Brazilian gold would eventually end up in England and lead to the industrialization of England as well as and the opening of the Brazilian market to England.
On the relationship between Brazil and England, Eduardo Galeano tells us that “throughout the 18th century, Brazil’s economy had been orchestrated into the British symphony as imperial supplier of gold.” On the flip side, as its fortunes were in decline, Portugal would actually end up paying its debts to England with the gold discovered in Brazil.
By 1830, the British-controlled Saint John d’El Rey Mining Company opened the largest gold mine in Latin America in the state of Minas Gerais. And lest we forget, who is it that was doing the brutal work of mining this gold? Well, although the British did employ skilled miners from Cornwall, England, it also employed the services of black slaves. Huh? So, let’s get this straight. The same British who were intercepting the transport of slaves on the high seas in 1830s, had no problem using slave labor in their mines in Brazil. What’s going here? I’ll let Matt Child give us a brief summary:
“In 1845 the British-owned St. John d’el Rey Mining Company operating in the Brazilian province of Minas Gerais, reached an agreement with the recently liquidated Cata Branca Brazilian company to rent 385 slaves for fourteen years. The contract signed in London detailing the transaction specified that ‘all of the said Negroes. . . shall at the end of the said term of fourteen years be and become absolutely free and emancipated.’ But in 1859, after fourteen years of service, the St. John d’el Rey Mining Company (hereafter St. John) did not grant the Cata Branca slaves their duly entitled freedom. The breach of the contract and the illegal enslavement of over three hundred individuals went unnoticed for nearly twenty years.”
So, tell me again, why are we celebrating the British Royal Wedding? But wait, we haven’t even looked at how the marriage of Harry and Meghan plays out in a Brazil that has always dreamed of being a white nation.
As I’ve referred to in numerous previous articles, in the 19th century, Brazil’s elites promoted the idea of whitening a majority black country through massive European immigration as well as a eugenics project that would induce the black population into self-annihilation through successive unions between darker-skinned people and whiter-skinned people, which, after 2-3 generations of mixture would eventually lead to whiter children and eventually erase the “black stain” that slavery had left on the nation.
This dream was idealized in the famous Redenção de Cam (Redemption of Ham) painting of 1895. I mean let’s face it; whether you accept Meghan Markle as a black or mixed, one thing is for sure: she is a very fair-skinned woman who will most definitely produce a very white-skinned child, just like in the painting. It is a reality that plays out in Brazil every day. Seriously, the Royal Family would never condone a wedding with a black woman that looks like Pinah, the black passista (Carnaval dancer) that danced with Harry’s father, Prince Charles on his 1978 visit to Brazil. The possibility of a baby with darker skin being born would be too great.
While untold millions of black people no doubt tuned into the Royal Wedding and got swept away by the hype, opulence and deception, viewing this from Brazil, I saw it from another angle: the Royal Wedding certainly fed the dreams of millions of light-to dark-skinned Brazilian women of African descent who dream of being swept away by their charming (rich, white) Prince. In short, the wedding of Harry and Meghan was perhaps more powerful as a promotion of embranquecimento (whitening the dark skin through miscegenation) than 100 Globo TV novelas, in which (it seems) about 90% of the few black characters featured are paired with white partners.
The promotion of whitening blackness through miscegenation is so obvious at Globo TV that, I would venture to say, any black actress who has been featured in at least five Globo TV novelas has had far more white romantic partners on these soap operas than black. After all, Globo contracts actors based purely on talent and availability, right?
So again, we’re celebrating what? I would say an event that rivals perhaps the election/inauguration of Barack Obama as US President in 2008/2009 in terms of manipulation of the black mind. I’ve read how so many black women are celebrating this union as some sort of breakthrough for race relations and the falling of racial barriers. After all, a black woman is marrying into the most celebrated family on earth. But there are certain facts here that people just apparently black out in order to not disturb their dream.
- Meghan Markel’s marriage, like Barack Obama’s presidency, does NOTHING to change the daily reality of black people in their respective countries. It’s not going to stop black youth from being gunned down whether they’re in Rio or California.
- Markle is entering into an entity (the Royal Family) (like Obama in the US gov’t) in which she will have no power and will simply be used as a showpiece and a puppet.
- Markle, like Obama, will not change the centuries long stereotyping and disdain of Africa’s descendants. Simply because the power structure accepts one black person certainly doesn’t mean they change their position on the black masses.
- Markle, like Obama, is not the darkest crayon in the box, and even if one were to deceive themselves into believing this union is some sort of advance in race relations, note how often times when there’s this sort celebration of “racial advances”, the chosen person is often less visibly black.
- Of course, your mainstream media will never tell you this, but if I were Meghan, I would definitely watch my step. Remember Princess Diana? You know, the one that, even with massive attempts of mainstream media sources attempting to paint other narratives of her death as mere “conspiracy theory” but 38% of Brits still believe her death “was not an accident”. I know, I know, let’s not go down conspiracy road here, but….how many of you happened to notice the floor in the wedding photo at the top of this post? Some of you know the deal, for those who don’t, ask somebody.
It’s for all of these reasons that you’ll have to excuse me for not getting excited about the latest edition to the Saxe-Coburg and Gotha/Windsor clan. The wealth and prestige accumulated by this family has a lot to do with the overall social conditions of my community to this day. And neither the Royal Wedding or the birth of their latest beneficiary will do nothing to change that.
Source: Douglas Belchior/Carta Capital, The Grio, Jamaica Observer, African Resource, Algarve History Association, Stephen Haber and Herberts S. Klein. “The Economic Consequences of Brazilian Independence” in How Latin America Fell Behind: Essays on the Economic Histories of Brazil and Mexico, 1800-1914. Edited by Stephen Haber. Stanford University Press, 1997. Galeano, Eduardo. Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent. 1997 Monthly Review Press. December Green and Laura Luehrmann. Contentious Politics in Brazil and China: Beyond Regime. Westview Press, 2016. Matt D. Childs. ‘A Case of “Great Unstableness”: A British Slaveholder and Brazilian Abolition, The Historian, 60 (1998).
NO NOT AT ALL!!!
Individualism
Definition. The thought and practice of individual interests as paramount to and over
and above collective, own-race maintenance interests defines individualism.
Diagnosing. Clinical acumen perhaps buttressed by any of various valid scales
measuring individualism-collectivism and the like not incongruously with Africentric thought
required at this time.
Discussion. Despite vaunted, lodestar status in Western civilization, individualism is the
chancre for personal identity conflict in ADP. Emphasizing one’s uniqueness or difference for
the sake of it, practicing “rugged individualism,” dog in the manger, and looking out for number
one to the detriment of family and race collectives are acutely at variance with mental health
defined Africentrically which is the own-race maintenance human imperative (Azibo, 1991,
1996c; Azibo, Robinson-Kyles, & Johnson, 2013).
It must be pointed out that the individual as such is highly prized in African culture
(Gyekye, 1995, 158-162; Khoapa, 1980; Sutherland, 1997). Africentric individuality is nothing
short of the practice of own-race maintenance idiosyncratically in one’s spheres of operation and
life space. Individuality thus contrasts 180° with individualism. Furthermore, as every
individual has a distinct, idiosyncratically organized peripheral personality structure it can be
seen that collective identification with ADP does not obtund one’s individuality. As Gyekye
puts it “communality does not obliterate individuality” (159). Witness the Dr. Martin Luther
King, Jr.-Malcolm X contrast where both prioritized the pursuit of own-race maintenance and
collective African-U.S. identity inimitably (e.g., Maglangbayan, 1979; Wise, 2002). I query the
reader, Is this individualism or individuality?
Self-Destructive Disorders
Definition. Defined as various negative lifestyles and behaviors that generally grow out
of efforts to survive under oppressive conditions that Eurasian civilization visits on ADP and that
weaken the fabric of the traditional African-centered ethos or set of guiding principles such as
survival and enhancement of the group/collective, collective responsibility or ujima, and so forth,
the self-destructive disorders pose a real danger to a community of ADP and the disordered
individual. Narrowly focused by Akbar (1981), I have elaborated this category of disorders into
two types. As Eurasian civilizations systematically undermine, deny or frustrate ADP’s efforts
to participate in the legitimate world of socio-economics, Type I self-destructive disorders can
result. The common thread shared by Type I self-destructive disorders is that they all respond to
oppression by attempting to destroy or depress their involvement with reality. Eight have been
identified. In contrast, Type II self-destructive disorders reflect an acceleration of involvement
with reality, albeit misguided tragically, by trying to become Caucasian, Arab, or other than
African descent in literal and/or mental ways. There are six Type II disorders identified thus far.
Each type will be presented separately. Whether Type I or Type II, it would seem inhumane,
criminal, reprehensible, and unethical for Eurasian civilizations to deliberately orient ADP in a
manner that alienates them from their indigenous African identity and group heritage and
disorganizes their personalities. As Forman (1981) and Obadele (2003) point out, this practice is
outlawed by the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(ratified by the United States, though not until 1988). For all practical matters, that the self-
destructive disorders terminate the peoplehood of the African-U.S. and probably other diasporan
and continental populations of ADP is a hellish infamy.
Bi-Racial and Multi-Racial Identity Disorder
You have been assigned your place in the universe as Africans
Edward Wilmot Blyden
Definition. This most serious condition is defined as an African descent person’s
constellation of beliefs that by virtue of being racially admixed parent- or grand-parent wise, s/he
is raised in the scale of humanity, s/he is not of African descent or that his or her racial identity is
not defined by Africanity or African heritage primarily, ergo s/he has no inherent obligation to
defend, develop, participate in, or otherwise maintain the life and culture of ADP as a priority,
but might rather see himself or herself as obliged to Eurasian interests or to neutrality on racial
matters and/or as belonging primarily to a “new People” or “new race” that prioritizes its own
maintenance—literally a bi-, mixed-, or multi-racial race maintenance—and which warrants its
own category on census and demographic forms. Again, this is all because his or her parents
and/or grand-parents are comprised of one genetically black and one genetically non-Black
person or any mix of so-called “mixed race” persons.
Diagnosing. Any single belief from this constellation is sufficient to diagnose the
disorder in a so-called “mixed-race” person.
Discussion. Some see no problem with bi- or multi-racial identity as just defined
(Rockquemore & Brunsma, 2002; Spencer, 1997; Thomas, 1993; Wardle, 1987; Washington,
1993; Williamson, 1995) which includes “Creole” identity: “we were in between and betwixt …
We are …. a mixed nationality of people” (Gregory, 2001, 3) with a “heritage … deserving of
attention and preservation” (Creole Heritage, n.d.). The phrase betwixt and between means in a
midway position, neither one thing nor the other (Websters).
Just what is it that so-called mixed-race people want to preserve? is the number 1
question to clarify in therapy as their “heritage” is one of rape—be it bacchantic in the manner of
the infamous practices of Jean LaFitte, the more sneaky and despicable like Thomas Jefferson
and Strom Thurmond, or the typical perpetrated violations of the enslaved (e.g., Warren, 2007).
Is sex between members of powerful groups and those who are subordinate to them with less or
without power ever considered unconditionally consensual? If no, then all present-day Eurasian-
African sex is non-consensual. Thinking about that makes it plausible that present-day Eurasian-
African sex is a continuation of an historical stratagem employed in conquering ADP (Williams,
1976). In Africentric thinking, can sex between an adult and a child ever be consensual?
Apparently not as it contradicts the creation mythos. Cogitating on that calls the question Are
not Eurasians culturally full grown in their culture and ADP immature and barely adolescent in
African-centered culture and thereby not yet up from slavery and colonialism mentally?
110
The Journal of Pan African Studies, vol.7, no.5, November 2014As the child is not deemed competent in making and entering into decisions about having sex, by
statute many governments outlaw any adult-child sex as rape. It follows that any Eurasian-
African sex is likewise tantamount to statutory rape irrespective of the African descent person’s
age and consent. Thus, so-called mixed-race persons who are diagnosable with bi-racial and
multi-racial identity disorder have to be delusional or defensive about their heritage. Otherwise,
that “the colored man [sic] is the only being who boasts of his bastardy” (Council on Black,
2002, 69) is an inexplicable skull cracker.
Etiologically, bi- and multi-racial identity disorder flows as follows: alienating mentacide
→ psychological misorientation → psychological brainwashing → Type II self-destructive
disorder → bi- and multi-racial identity disorder. For some cases psychological brainwashing
will probably be part of the etiological chain. A quintessential example of psychological
misorientation masquerading as functional normalcy using Eurasian standards of adjustment, bi-
and multi-racial identity disorder is grossly pathological in its violation of own-race maintenance
dictates of mental health. It is the result of a classically implemented divide and conquer
stratagem depicted in the Willie Lynch social theory story (The Black Arcade, 1970; Morrow,
2003) which itself is a continuation of historical stratagem for conquering ADP (Williams,
1976).
This disorder likely reinforces a drive for amalgamating and outmarrying. When it does,
it cannot be separated from Eugenics defined as purging biogenetic blackness from the human
gene pool. It becomes part and parcel of the worldwide onslaught on genetic blackness or
“African blood quantum” (Azibo, 2011a, 2011c; Baran, 2007; Glenn, 2008; Hall, 1995; Jones,
1997; Jordon, 2004; Spencer, 2004; Vargas, 2004; Wade, 1993; Whitten & Torres, 1992; Wright,
1990). Directly implicated is the Eurasian mental health field in solidifying White- or Eurasian-
over-African (Azibo, 1993) as it promotes this toxicity, this unhealthy anti-African identification
that bi-racial and multi-racial identity disorder is. For example, research on bi-racials “suggests
the incorporation of both component races … as part of the [biracial person’s] identity” (Lusk, et
al. 2010, 109). Similarly, there is the conclusion that “a validated biracial identity may serve as a
protective factor” (Coleman & Carter, 2007, 103).
Here laid bare is the clash of races in the sense of enemies (Madhubuti, 1978), the clash
of Eurasian versus African-centered cultures (Blaut, 1993; Fagan, 1998) playing out on the
battlefield of ADP’s racial identity and mental health. That is, the positioning of bi-racial and
multi-racial identity (as defined) as a disorder a priori or straight out the gate on the authority of
the Azibo Nosology II in its African-centered stance renders a fortiori invalid Eurasian-centered
identity theory’s contradictory assumption that bi-racial and multi-racial identity as defined
above is in the realm of normalcy and appropriateness. As well, a political science point of
emphasis in this clash of races is that the United Nations genocide treaty explicitly outlaws
taking the children/offspring of the vanquished by the victors in any way that alienates said
offspring from historic psycho-cultural roots and orientation (Forman, 1981; Obadele, 1998,
2003; Patterson, 1971).
Amalgamation/Outmarriage Disorder
Secretly she wanted a mulatto baby, fair with long hair. She pursued
[a Eurasian man because] … the species must be improved. They have
stayed black for too long, and black is not beautiful
Kofi Awoonor (cited in Bengu, 1975, 39)
any group seeking to build upon its unity and cohesion …
will discourage outmariage
Nathan and Julia Hare (1984, 105)
Definition. The first section epigraph speaks to amalgamation which is defined as the
permanent removal of visible racial differences by sexually producing a less and less distinct
black racial population (Crawford, 2000, 119). The second epigraph is a conservatively stated,
obvious observation about outmarriage. A significant number of ADP may use marriage with
Eurasians or other non-ADP (i.e., outmarriage) to achieve amalgamation.
Diagnosing.
Outmarriage and attempting to procreate with Eurasians seem
straightforward. This disorder may share many of the symptoms of other Type II self-destructive
disorders, including a peacocky attitude toward the offspring or Eurasian partner. Additionally,
the client may fiercely and with violence defend his or her outmarriage professing the strongest
love for the spouse/other person.
Discussion. Marcus Garvey (1986) taught plainly that outmarriage was for ADP “a
crime or sin for which he [or she] should never be pardoned by his [or her] race” (cited in Jones,
1996, 135). It shall be shown that this is such a devastating behavior that Mr. Garvey’s strong
position is warranted. In 2008, 10.7% of African-U.S. marrying in the past year married
Caucasians. The figure was 3% in 1980 (Nasser, 2011). The rate of outmarriage would
probably be higher but for the downtick in marriages.
120
The Journal of Pan African Studies, vol.7, no.5, November 2014Apparently, many are living together and amalgamating without marrying. When added to these
numbers are persons who amalgamate outside of a “family” context, on their own if you will,
and added to that are male and female homosexuals, and people who refuse to procreate, ADP’s
ability to physically/biologically reproduce the race is red-flagged. This smacks of genocidal
eugenics and therefore is trumping of individual choice in marriage and procreation behavior
with non-ADP.
Perhaps the mental health worker need not query the client Why would you want to make
offspring with human mutations? (It was pointed out earlier that Eurasians qualify as mutations
in the biogenetic sense as the monogenetic thesis of human origins has triumphed over the
polygenetic, Diop, 1978, 1991; Wobogo, 1976.) Part of the answer seems to be that
“successfully oppressed people desperately seek the love of their oppressors” (Crawford, 2000,
119) a fact that follows from Paulo Freire’s observation that oppressive reality absorbs those
within it and is domesticating (Fresia, 1988, 135). Thus, amalgamation/outmarriage is
improperly motivated, one reason it qualifies as psychologically inappropriate abnormal
behavior in otherwise normal persons. Azibo (2002) and Crawford (2002) argue the near
impossibility of legitimacy of the “we met and [just] happened to fall in love” notion under
conditions of Eurasian supremacy.
Yet, amalgamation/outmarriage is on the rise (Nasser, 2011), pushed hard by mass media
and has lodged in the popular culture: “it’s so the 2000s” (a relative apprised the author at a 2013
family reunion). Some find it a positive indicator of race relations as Eurocentric social theory
now starts to articulate that mixed marriage is the ultimate indicator of vaunted integration (e.g.,
Nasser, 2011). This push by European-centered societies, however, is bogus as its timing has
been perfect to interdict own-race centering by ADP brought on by the popularizing of
Africentric orientation as social theory that occurred over the 1980s and 1990s. It appears a
social programming designed to contain ADP’s orientation in spheres the European descended
population can manage. There is neither mystery nor great revelation here as this is what
societies do via social engineering of constituent populations. According to Obadele (1998) the
United States, for instance, has majorly morphed its society on the basis of
controlling/containing its African-U.S. population a minimum of three times in its history each
time on the side of Caucasian national interests alone. The great political scientist Ronald
Walters (2003) has informed that White nationalism still runs the country.
Good article, but in no way are we to celebrate their baby. Prince Harry knows he is a white man, but Meghan has some identity crisis going on. Nothing for us to talk about.
“Meghan Markel’s marriage, like Barack Obama’s presidency, does NOTHING to change the daily reality of black people in their respective countries.”
Shut up and please stop the idiotic comparisons. Furthermore Obama’s presidency did MUCH to change the reality of Black people in the US. cut the crap.
Second of all, Meghan Markle is NOT BLACK.
you are the seed of your father genetically…………so she is white.
furthermore, she has NEVER identified as BLACK
nor has she given any indication whatsoever of any kind that she sees herself racially or even identifies with BLACK issues. Her previous husband was White as were all her known boyfriends.
1. ObamaCare:
the Affordable Care Act, an estimated 20 million people have gained health insurance. For the first time ever, more than 9 in 10 Americans now have health insurance.
Among African American adults, the uninsured rate declined by 53 percent (11.8 percentage points) since 2013, resulting in 3 million people gaining coverage. ……this is nothing ?
2.Supreme Court:
on the U.S. Supreme Court: Nominated and obtained confirmation for Sonia Sotomayor, the first Hispanic and third woman to serve, in 2009; and Elena Kagan, the fourth woman to serve, in 2010. They replaced David Souter and John Paul Stevens, respectively.
–“Ricci v. DeStefano, 530 F.3d 87 (2008) – In what is considered to be the judge’s most high-profile case, Sotomayor joined a finding in favor of the city of New Haven rejecting a lawsuit filed by 17 white firefighters and one Hispanic firefighter claiming race discrimination when the city of New Haven denied promotions following a promotion examination that yielded no black candidates eligible for advancement.” ….(immediate impact on BLACK)
3. Passed Fair Sentencing Act: Signed 2010 legislation that reduces sentencing disparity between crack versus powder cocaine possession from 100 to 1 to 18 to 1. (BLACK MEN)
4. Expanded Hate Crimes Protections: Signed Hate Crimes Prevention Act (2009), which expands existing hate crime protections to include crimes based on a victim’s sexual orientation, gender, or disability, in addition to RACE, color, religion, or national origin.
5. Provided Payment to Wronged Minority (BLACK) Farmers: In 2009, signed Claims Resolution Act, which provided $4.6 billion in funding for a legal settlement with black and Native American farmers who the government cheated out of loans and natural resource royalties in years past.
6. Obama is the third-best job-creating president in U.S. history. His policies put 16 million people to work from the depths of the recession in December 2009 to the end of his term.
—-” unemployment for African Americans has fallen to all-time lows,the trend began under Mr. Obama, the black unemployment rate has been in a years-long downward trend that continued under Trump”
7. Authorized a $789 billion economic stimulus plan (2009) * Note: 1/3 in tax cuts for working-class families; 1/3 to states for infrastructure projects; 1/3 to states to prevent the layoff of police officers, teachers, etc. at risk of losing their jobs because of state budget shortfalls.
Please stop listening to mainstream (racist) media propaganda. Obama was one of the best presidents the country has ever had and did much for Blacks. But he could not openly say he was doing that and he had to craft policy that was for the general population but had disproportionate positive impact on blacks. The main one was ObamaCare……………..
large amounts of the uninsured were Blacks who are discriminated against in the formal workforce and hence unable to access workplace insurance. It also make being an entrepreneur easier due to be able to access affordable health insurance ……..this is HUGE for black men whose only tru way of improving is by entrepreneurship and business formation.
.
None of your arguments make any sense. You have clearly decided to jump on the anti Obama brigade while not addressing any of the facts i gave you.
1. Black home equity destroyed?? Obama had NOTHING to do with that…..its Clinton and Bush bank deregulation that caused the housing crisis and it was Obama who stopped it with his stimulus package and reforms. (You are entitled to your own opinion but not ur own lies or delusions)
2. ObamaCare: I wont even address what you said there. So what some people’s premiums increased……..”For the first time ever, more than 9 in 10 Americans now have health insurance.’
Do you have any idea of the savings to the economy overall that this creates ??
3. Again, you are being dishonest. The spike in any unemployment was a result of the banking and housing crisis CAUSED by Clinton policies and Bush’s disastrous war and deregulation….the very result of which led to Obama’s election. He was elected to fix it all which he largely did. His policies cause the declines in unemployment and continue to this very day. Dont bash ground level retail jobs. These are typically the first kinds of jobs that get lower income folks and many BLACKS on the start of the employment ladder and into the formal workplace.
4. SBA loans ???? Hahahah Blacks never got those in any appreciable amount anyway since the entire process is rigged by racists top to bottom. Obama decided to circumvent that entire boondoggle by empowering blacl entrepreneurs by giving them the main impediment to entrepreneurial activity……access to affordable health insurance outside the control of racist companies that dont hire blacks.
5. Fair Sentencing Act: So you blame Obama for damage done prior to him even tho he made the move to stop future damage and set the tone for criminal reform with his record number of clemencies ???ummm O.K.
6. Tax break: you clearly dont understand economics. First if you are poor, ANY money you get makes you better off. Second, if you are are poor any extra money you get pays for basics such as cell phone usage (Obamafones) which allows you to start and do your own hustle and side hustles. Third, that small amount of money is spent into the economy closest to the spender and boosts small and medium enterprises…….the largest source of private sector employment.
7. Hate Crimes Protection Act. There have already been prosecutions and convictions under it and its passage has changes the tone of the legal system towards racist violence especially cops. So you expect Obama to fix a 400 year old problem in 8 years ??? Why do u put all that burden on him ?? He got the law passed give him his credit.
8. Kagan and Sotomayor are not black, but they are the next best thing considering…..liberal and not openly racist white men nor they self hating coons like Thomas. The appointments paid dividends immediately….a brilliant stroke by Obama. Give him his credit.
Its clear that you hatred of Obama is fueled by your own self loathing or your readiness to believe racist lies about him. The facts are clear. He was one of the best presidents the country ever had and did plenty for blacks…..only FDR maybe or Johnson perhaps did more. Cut the crap.
How dare you ask him to undo in 8 years damage and positioning of Blacks done over a period of a few hundred years ?? He was not elected to be President of the Blacks. He is not a magician, he is a politician who must operate within the confines of the Constitution…..if you knew anything about it, you would know that the dominant part of goverment is not the president but the legislature. They pass all laws and control all budgets.
I cant figure out if you are:
1. A troll or
2. that naive and uninformed