So reading "The destruction of Black Civilization" and #hoh come get this L

[Dzali OG]

I'm going attempt to break down some of the points made in the book. The book will almost make you shed a tear at what our ancestors endured.

 

[Dzali OG]

A point it gives, just not in depth enough: Black peoples history goes back before recorded time at least thousands of years.

Our civilization was old and tired of fighting white asians, euro asians, mixed children, each other, and harsh environmental conditions by the time we were beat back.

 

[Gravity]

Don't know where you're going with this but all I can do is interpret what happened historically.

All we can do is observe where it got us.

I don't know what you mean by "don't know where you're going with this". It was a simple question. The title of the thread seems to contradict the conclusion that you've come to. Seems to me that the lesson here is that black men don't "go hard" enough on black women.

 

[Dzali OG]

The myths of backward, cannibalistic, Africans is true. But it's broken down as to why.

Compare it to a nuclear bomb(s) destroying America now. And how the survivors would migrate and forget knowledge they acquired long ago.

That's what happened in Africa. Once we were over run by whites, our people kept retreating and rebuilding. Constantly moving to avoid whites.

Were we afraid of them...no...just so many were coming. Often times not in open aggression, sometimes in "we're brothers" strategy.

Everytime we let them in, they would breed with our royal families, produce mixed children, and take over our societies in that manner.

In the beginning, indeed often, we beat them in war, but we never wiped them out. We always let them breathe to build back up.

They were just how cacs are today, that sickening cowardice they display if you kick that ass. They go belly up like a dog and you let them live. They buddy up to you for a while, at the same time plotting.

 

[Dzali OG]

I don't know what you mean by "don't know where you're going with this". It was a simple question. The title of the thread seems to contradict the conclusion that you've come to. Seems to me that the lesson here is that black men don't "go hard" enough on black women.

Actually what I get from it is our "fukkthatbytch" attitude, slit our own throat.

While we were making them sell ass to whites, the resulting children hated us.

While the white asians wouldn't allow their women out alone after dark...we sent ours to the store for some more newports to go along with our coke at 4am.

Our women getting raped, sold, and used as concubines.

 

[(Lean Ambrose)]

You're correct, there are many who fight for/with us. But there are more who fight against or betray us.

They took ancient Egypt down.

We gave our women away as concubines and slaves and the mixed children, coloureds, done us in.

While we being hoh and gmb, our women having mixed seeds who side with the father.

It's been awhile since I read that book but I remember reading this...
nikkas was feeling so powerful back in day them nikkas was like " Sure you can have our bytches "
shyts wild when you think about it...

 

[Apollo Creed]

Does the book focus on certain societies/groups? Because It seems like only the Moors and Egyptians were on that mixing stuff.

 

[Micron]

Brehs...smash all the pawgs and paags you want!

It is interesting that this is the message that resonates with you after reading TDoBC. Not surprisingly, I have an associate who made a similar statement after reading the book.

Another important messages within that book are that Black people were too inclusive of non-Blacks and that inclusiveness opened them up to vulnerability. The longest lasting groups in Africa were the ones that were not inclusive, and they become vulnerable when they let Europeans in.

It was good that the author mentioned the fact that Africans did not settle around the port areas, was a major factor contributing to European chattel slavery. Had they controlled the ports it would have been for more difficult for them to move inland.

It is worth noting, that the book is meant to encourage members of the African Diaspora to go out and do their own historical research, rather than act as a monolithic historical resource, as the author mentions the numerous limitations he had to deal with in writing the book. The book provides a rough sketch, rather than a comprehensive portrait of what was going on in Africa.

 

[Dzali OG]

It's been awhile since I read that book but I remember reading this...
nikkas was feeling so powerful back in day them nikkas was like " Sure you can have our bytches "
shyts wild when you think about it...

Yep. Sad thing is some of us are no different today.

I have a saying that, "The way things are, isn't too different than how they were".

I grew up in the "bytches ain't shyt but hoes and tricks" era. I lived that for a long time. 3000 years later we had the same motto.

And before some go there...yeah other races may treat their women like shyt, but they react if too much black dikk is being slid to them! The main reason the Moors were rebelled against.

 

[TL15]

It would be VERY appropriate to write one that is only based on American norms, rituals, statistics, etc. It sounds like the book has a lot of lessons to be taught but really we aren't fighting land imperialism anymore...we are fighting intellectual imperialism.

I'd love to see how intermingling/ politics / racism have crumbled our race in America and how we can come together to fix things.

 

[bouncy]

In short, we were so #hoh that we didn't care the whites and asians were smutting our women out AND producing mixed kids.

While at the same time protecting their women from us.

The mixed kids despised their mother's side, and loved the Father's. Resulting in them joining the fight against black.

This is what did Egypt in. The blacks were bred out.

Brehs...smash all the pawgs and paags you want!

The book is a eye opener...

Don't you think maybe that is a game WE should play?

In this system, you are black, especially if you look black, regardless of having white blood. To me, since it's mostly black men that are having biracial children, not black women, if we were to teach them how foul whites were, that would automatically turn the good biracial children to our side. If we were to do this with just 1,000,000 white women, the game would be flipped on its head, because those same children have connections to the white community(which we don't), and may help some of the good whites see how foul things are for blacks. In order for white supremacy to keep going, it has to have its own follow it. Can't do that when you have love for people in your family who are suffering from it!

I look at everything in the past that worked, and see how can I integrate it in my life, and this sounds like a tactic we can use to our advantage

 

[Dzali OG]

Does the book focus on certain societies/groups? Because It seems like only the Moors and Egyptians were on that mixing stuff.

I'm only half way through the book and so far it only focused on the Egyptians and Ethiopians who are the same people.

 

[Ronnie Lott]

In short, we were so #hoh that we didn't care the whites and asians were smutting our women out AND producing mixed kids.

While at the same time protecting their women from us.

The mixed kids despised their mother's side, and loved the Father's. Resulting in them joining the fight against black.

This is what did Egypt in. The blacks were bred out.

Brehs...smash all the pawgs and paags you want!

The book is a eye opener...

What have you done to prevent black women from dating out?
How have you prevented that?

 

[Dzali OG]

It is interesting that this is the message that resonates with you after reading TDoBC. Not surprisingly, I have an associate who made a similar statement after reading the book.

Another important messages within that book are that Black people were too inclusive of non-Blacks and that inclusiveness opened them up to vulnerability. The longest lasting groups in Africa were the ones that were not inclusive, and they become vulnerable when they let Europeans in.

It was good that the author mentioned the fact that Africans did not settle around the port areas, was a major factor contributing to European chattel slavery. Had they controlled the ports it would have been for more difficult for them to move inland.

It is worth noting, that the book is meant to encourage members of the African Diaspora to go out and do their own historical research, rather than act as a monolithic historical resource, as the author mentions the numerous limitations he had to deal with in writing the book. The book provides a rough sketch, rather than a comprehensive portrait of what was going on in Africa.

That message from me was satire and reactionary. As i said in another post, it wouldn't do us any good.

 

[Apollo Creed]

I'm only half way through the book and so far it only focused on the Egyptians and Ethiopians who are the same people.

i usually dont see africans pawging unless they are on some dusty stuff of were brought up around outsiders. Like you rarely see the ones who are super proud of ther tribe/nation on that stuff. Like I said before from a historical standpoint it seems like mainly the egyptians and moors were on that stuff but i guess that could be because of all the trading they did with outsiders or what idk.