Prior to contact with the Portuguese, Negro Africa knew no writing, and it’s forms of agriculture, were limited to subsistence horticulture and pisciculture. As a result, what passes for “Negro” society lacked urbanism, and specialization- and the very label of “society” is wanting.
Science has yet to establish reliable population estimates for Sub-Saharan Africa prior to contact with the outside world – and while what could be termed as “Victim Historiography” maintains the negative population impacts of slavery, such a narrative is logically untenable. Research points to a heavy Bantu ingredient in Sub-Saharan populations, which could only be explained by a radical transformation of society propelling Bantu expansion at some stage in the historical record. Until an Axial Age is identified for Sub-Saharan Africa preceding contact with the Portuguese, a tenable hypothesis for the source and date of such a transformation – and subsequent Bantu expansion – must look to the 16th century.
It is not the intent here, to rewrite history or delve into revisionism, but the importance of backwardness of the Delta Valley on modern Africa and Negroes, cannot be overstressed.
Not one civilisational social development took place in Negro Africa endogenously- and the historic vector of acculturation is from North and North-East, to West and South. A millennial process of influence from Ethiopia, and the Sahel, dominated by Semito-Hamitic linguistic groups, is evident, but still minimal. The impact of Ethiopian and Sahelian bronze-working, of domestication, and of writing on the Niger Delta, remains to be documented – but is hardly disputable. The evidence of endogenous development, has never been presented. History books point to the Niger Delta as one of sedentary farming 4000 BP, but convincing scholarship cannot be found. A recent UN report purporting the endogenous origin of Iron making in Sub-Saharan Africa, reveals the depth to which unbiased research on Negro Africa, is verboten.
It is not apologetic to speak of Negro Africa’s backwardness, in reference to Slavery, and Exploitation. Widening the picture of such exploitation, to include not only the French, Portuguese, British, Spanish, and Dutch, but also Arabs, Jews, Indians, Turks, and Negroes – in no way minimizes the moral responsibility of Whites for their role in the Atlantic Slave Trade, and the exploitation of Negroes in the New World – exclusively carried out by Whites Catholics and Protestants, and Jewish Ladinos and Conversos.
For the purposes of the Clash of Race’s thesis, an accurate understanding of Race, and Racial Relations, serves to better predict, and counteract, the future development of Racial animosity. An understanding which
1) Denies Africans their proper agency in history
2) Makes Racism an exclusively “white” malady,
3) and uses Racism as the one-and-only explanation for the lower socio-economic status of non-whites in white societies
-is a recipe for the most violent, and dangerous global confrontation of the 21st century.
Africans simply must accept, the importance of underdevelopment – above all social and cultural, to their inability to integrate in economic processes propelling the world into the future. Accepting agency, even if negative, is Africa’s only access to constructive power on the world stage. This applies for Negroes everywhere, in Harlem, in Lagos, in Paris, and Sao Paolo.
“Racism” may indeed, be an exclusively White problem – because historically, blacks have zero history with non-whites and non-blacks. Arab racism, the single exception – while at times complex, ultimately stands out for its brutality when considering the castration procedure applied to Negro slaves following the fall of the Fatimids in Egypt.
Racism, as a political concept, indeed developed in the relationship between Whites and Blacks in North America, following the Abolition of Slavery. It flowered with the Civil Rights act, when it became the term used to describe the attempts by White Supremacists, to prevent Negro integration into White society.
Etymologically, “Racism” was first and foremost the reaction of Southern Whites, to sharing space with Negroes. “Separate but Equal” was not Racist in as much as it was mutually accepted by Blacks and Whites, and respected the right of each to sovereign territory. The attempt to socially engineer a multicultural society, where such a space would no longer be respected, led to the creation of a new term – Racism – to describe White reactions to policies looking to open up “White Space” to Blacks.
Pointing out the recent origin of such a term as “Racism” does not abolish the basic fact that Race-based animosity is primordial, in as much as it is a variant of ethnocentrism. What observers fail to grasp is that the term remains contentious. Because such contentions do not take the form of open debate or discussion, they are observed in conflict, not exchanged.
The characteristic conflict about “Racism” is whether the term can only apply to Whites, in that Racism is the institutionalized form White Supremacy over non-Whites, or is a general term applicable to Racial Animosity.
For the proponents of the former, Racism isn’t about one Race hating another, but about White complicity in creating an economic and social system where Negro advancement is impossible. It’s not that Black bile isn’t bile, it’s that it is legitimatized by the very reality of a system which oppresses Blacks, while the bile of a White man, serves to further that oppression and can have no legitimacy.
Racism, in other words, is the exercise of power. In as much as Race based violence is not an exercise in supremacy, those who make Racism an exclusively White mindset, see no Racism in a Black man mugging exclusively White grannies. Its an act of Marxist struggle – because mugging black ladies, brings no economic benefit.
Such a reading of “Racism” produces radically opposite reactions in audiences, depending on their political orientation, and Race. It is not a debatable question of language – it is an unapproachable topic, because it is emotionally explosive. That the term “Racism” is contentious – is taken for granted in order to avoid potential physical conflict.
The continued reliance on a contentious term, to explain all the ills and failures of Negroes in America, and other White societies, amounts to the exercise of ideological hegemony. While a few intellectuals propose to universalize Racism as a form of ethnocentrism, mainstream society explains each and every statistical discrepancy between Blacks and Whites, with a term that singles out one specific group, for the failure of another, without so much as room for objection. If this smacks of totalitarianism – then we will know the tree by its fruit.
In order to avoid the bitterness of such a fruit, the situation of Races must be addressed in a way which allows everyone agency. The notion of “Racism” as an exclusive White phenomenon, must go. The importance of culture and adaptation, must take center stage.
This will require a spate of sacrifices, from our present political language. Not only is it advisable to relegate “Racism” to the past, but to toss minority/majority distinctions, along with it. It did not take Whites to institute Slavery among Negroes, and to impoverish Negro society. Both Slavery and poverty, preceded, and were largely responsible, for the aggravation of Black Plight in White societies. Blacks lack a culture that facilitates adaptation to productive society, and revising history with the lens of “Racism” only serves to keep Black culture from ever developing the values required of such a culture.
That Black leaders worldwide view such a cultural evolution as a potential White invasion of their identity, is revelatory. The ignorance, and when not ignorance then denial of self-induced backwardness, reveals the ludicrousness of considering Racism an exclusively White phenomenon, and exposes the actual culprit behind Black economic status worldwide.