AntiBlackness is Embedded Deeply in Judeo Christian Thought

Apr 13, 2021 19:00 · 5581 words · 27 minute read

This is going to be a discussion about how Anti-Blackness is deeply embedded in Judeo-Christianity. My argument is going to be in this conversation - this survey - that rather than being something that was invented in the 17-1800s or something to justify the enslavement of African people, Anti-Blackness goes back deep, goes way way back throughout Judeo-Christian thought and actually has some roots in the Ancient Greeks. So that’s going to be my thesis and that’s what i’m going to touch on in this conversation - so I hope you enjoy it! I really look forward to hearing your feedback on this as well so hit me up at africansarise@hotmail.

co. uk and yeah we can get into this. So the first thing I want to talk about is the Ancient Greeks and the Ethiopians. I’m going to be quoting in this video from various academics who have looked in great detail at some of these topics. And the first one I’m going to quote from is a historian called Tom Meisenhelder, from his paper which is on the screen here “African Bodies: “Othering” the African in PreColonial Europe. “ And Meisenhelder has the following to say: “By the sixth century B.

C. economic and military contact between Africa and Greece was fairly common and several Greeks, most famously Herodotus, prepared “traveler’s reports” that included discussion of Africa. Herodotus’s reports, which intermingled experience and myth, are perhaps the most consequential of all the ancient writings about Africa. Herodotus reported the presence of “dog-eared men” and headless men with eyes in their chests. Herodotus also provided both physical and cultural “descriptions” of the so-called “Ethiopians” who were fully human and whom he praised as noble and pious.

He further described a variety of other African peoples, some tall, brave, and handsome and others living in caves whose language was like the squeaking of bats. While other Greek authors did not even give Africans human form, Herodotus described a broad range of human beings in Africa running from the noble to the beastly, influencing much of what followed in the Ancients’ construction of the African other. “ So there’s this two-fold picture of Ethiopians - from the “noble” Ethiopians to the “savage” ones.

And this is something that you see also in the writings of Diodorus Siculus. Again, Diodorus Siculus is someone who Pan-Africanists often quote because he had some very positive things to say with regard to the Ethiopians for sure, but he also had some other things to say which i’m going to quote now. This is from his book “Histories. ” And the positives here’s what he said in “Histories” chapter 3. He said “Now the Ethiopians, as historians relate, were the first of all men and the proofs of this statement, they say, are manifest.

For that they did not come into their land as immigrants from abroad but were natives of it and so justly bear the name of “autochthones” is, they maintain, conceded by practically all men; furthermore, that those who dwell beneath the noon-day sun were, in all likelihood, the first to be generated by the earth, is clear to all; since, inasmuch as it was the warmth of the sun which, at the generation of the universe, dried up the earth when it was still wet and impregnated it with life, it is reasonable to suppose that the region which was nearest the sun was the first to bring forth living creatures.

And they say that they were the first to be taught to honour the gods and to hold sacrifices and processions and festivals and the other rites by which men honour the deity; and that in consequence their piety has been published abroad among all men, and it is generally held that the sacrifices practised among the Ethiopians are those which are the most pleasing to heaven. So this is extremely gushing isn’t it? Really positive from Diodorus Siculus. He’s a Greek historian who wrote in the first century BCE.

He’s saying that these Ethiopians were the first of all men, that they were the first to worship the gods, and also that their worship of the gods is the most pleasing to the gods, most pleasing to heaven. So. very, very positive stuff and I think what we’re seeing there is, and I haven’t got time to really go into it here, but I think what we see in there is a recognition of the fact that the people of Kemet and the other people of Ta Seti, Kush and you know - the Kemetians said that they came from the source of the river Nile , the “Mountains of the Moon” - so looking down at either Ethiopia or the Uganda area… Asar (Osiris) was the Lord of the Perfect Black. Kham means “black. ” So there’s a recognition of that ancient blackness being the source of humanity. So that important to know and it’s important to note as well that Diodorus was recounting what historians of that time held in regard to the Ethiopians. So these were widely held beliefs amongst the Greeks that these Ethiopians were the original humans, pioneers of spirituality and religion and the most pleasing in the eyes of the divine.

But later on in the same book, like Herodotus, Diodorus speaks in much less flattering terms about the other Ethiopians so this is in chapter eight He wrote: “But there are also a great many other tribes of the Ethiopians, some of them dwelling in the land lying on both banks of the Nile and on the islands in the river, others inhabiting the neighbouring country of Arabia, and still others residing in the interior of Libya. The majority of them, and especially those who dwell along the river, are black in colour and have flat noses and woolly hair [you can’t mistake who he was talking about here].

As for their spirit they are entirely savage and display the nature of a wild beast, not so much, however, in their temper as in their ways of living; for they are squalid all over their bodies, they keep their nails very long like the wild beasts, and are as far removed as possible from human kindness to one another; and speaking as they do with a shrill voice and cultivating none of the practices of civilized life as these are found among the rest of mankind, they present a striking contrast when considered in the light of our own customs.

” So there’s that two-fold picture there are these “noble” Ethiopians and there are these “savage” Ethiopians. What’s going on here? Often Panafricanists don’t talk about the the negatives, Afrocentric scholars talk about the positive stuff and say “you see look the Greeks loved the Africans, the Ethiopians. ” But there’s this negative side. Now according to Tom Meisenhelder again Pliny the Elder who is a Roman historian led Roman writers to make a similar distinction between the human and radically non-human humans native to Africa.

So something was going on and what we actually see is that by the time we get to the early Christian era what we find is that the positive depictions of the Ethiopians, the Blacks, had faded away. The Christians continued though with the negative associations of blackness and the negative associations with Ethiopians. And they started to associate these people, these Ethiopians (meaning blacks) with metaphysical evil and sin.

09:10 - so let’s have a look at this so i’ll just share the screen here/ So we’ve looked at Diodorus Siculus that’s that’s all done. we’ve gone through these quotes. Now…

09:28 - Another academic I’m gonna quote from here is…

09:37 - (just give us a second) Here we are. Okay so this is a new testament scholar called Claire K Rothschild and she she wrote this paper on the Epistle of Barnabus called “Ethiopianizing the Devil: The Melas [or the Black] in Barnabas 4. “ So melas is a term, a Greek term which means black.

10:07 - Rothschild has the following to say and I’ll quote here from the abstract to her paper. She says “Although interpreters refer to the association between blackness and evil in ancient texts as essentially universal, specific reference by Christians to the counter-divine with the colour epithet ὁ μέλας is new with the Epistle of Barnabas. ” [Now the Epistle of Barnabus was written very very early in Christian history - probably between 70 CE and 130 CE. So during the lifetime of some of the apostles of Yashua, possibly during the lifetime of the apostle John, for example.

] Now, back to Rothschild’s article “Black is applied as an honorific to certain Egyptian deities, but it is never used in Egyptian religion with reference to the counter-divine. Furthermore, black demons proliferate in late third- and fourth-century Egyptian monastic texts, but these witnesses postdate Barnabas. The first explicit reference to the devil as black after Barnabas is in Didymus the Blind, who interprets the reference as ‘Ethiopian’. ” So the Epistle of Barnabas, to cut a long story short, the Epistle of Barnabas is the first time that the Devil actually becomes, is called Black in Christian writings.

Now what we see there, as she mentioned there is that you start to see more and more references to demons and the underworld being Black. Some of the most influential so-called “early church fathers” associated blackness with sin and vice and explicitly associated this blackness and sin and vice with black skinned people i. e the Ethiopians. Now Origen who was a so-called “early church father” based in the Egyptian city of Alexandria. He lived in about the 200’s AD, and according to Rothschild that same article from Rothschild: this Rothschild’s words: ““Although he traces all creation to God and considers all humanity ‘equal and alike’ (Princ.

), demographic groups have distinguishing characteristics: Ethiopians (according to Origen) are cannibalistic, Scythians (this is central Asians) legally sanction parricide, and so forth. Origen associates the black skin colour of sub-Saharan people with sin and vice. Therefore, he demonstrates real concern in the Song of Solomon [there’s a text in the Song of Solomon where it’s got a qualification of Black skin as beautiful “I am Black and comely”] Christians, he argues, can view blackness as a recoverable condition: ‘If you have repented, however, your soul will indeed be black because of your old sins, but your penitence will give it something of what I may call an Ethiopian beauty.

’ But from the length at which he discusses blackness in this commentary – even acknowledging that his argument is slightly obsessive – we infer that Origen was aware of the threat posed by blackness even as he understands it as an impermanent state for those who repent. “ Now the historian Frank Snowden gives the following quote from the heavyweight of early Christian theology Augustine of Hippo. Now Augustine of Hippo I think he wrote in around about the fourth fifth century or thereabouts.

Yeah fourth century. And this is this what he said. This is a quote from this paper from Edward Snowden entitled “Some Greek and Roman observations on the Ethiopian - Frank Snowden Jr. And to quote from from Augustine ““How do I understand ‘Ethiopian peoples’? [this is a quote from the Bible that Augustine was elaborating on, and expounding on, doing a Midrash on] How else than by them, all nations? And properly by black men (for Ethiopians are black).

Those called to the faith who were before black, just they, so that it may be said to them ‘ye were sometimes darkness but now are ye light in the Lord’. They are indeed called black but let them not remain black, for out of these is made the Church, to whom it is said: ‘ Who is she that cometh up having been made white?’ (that’s a quote form the Scriptures) For what has been made out of the black maiden but what is said in am black and comely’? So the point in those two quotes, one from Origie and one from Augustine is to show that you know this disassociation between blackness and evil, blackness and sin, and blackness with Africans, with Ethiopians was early on in Christian thought, in the first two, three hundred years of Christian thought.

They’ve taken what… a lot of scholars are saying that in antiquity in the Greek antiquity and so forth - blackness was associated with evil, just as, kind of, as metaphysical concepts. The symbology of blackness was dark evil negative and so forth. And then what you see developing - you saw it in the Greeks when we talked about - Herodotus and Diodorus Siculus - you see that they’re starting to have this kind of view of Ethiopians as being evil and savage and so forth.

What we’re seeing now here later on is that the Christians are now starting to explicitly identify the Ethiopians with evil, with the metaphysical evil.

16:20 - So this all develops, and then we get to the real turbo charge of anti-blackness which is the so-called Curse of Ham. This the Curse of Ham was originated with the Rabbis of the Talmud era. And they have a story - this Curse of Ham basically comes from from a story in the Bible in Genesis, Genesis chapter nine. And the story goes to give a real quick overview: Noah has three sons, Shem, Ham Japhet. And they’re the last survivors of the flood and while they’re in the flood HAM falls asleep and sees NOAH naked because NOAH had been drinking.

Ham goes and tells his brothers Shem and Japhet. When Noah wakes up he’s really angry with Ham and he places a curse on Ham’s son Canaan. And the curse is here, I’ll quote directly from the Bible here. So it says in Genesis 9 verse 24, “Noah awoke from his wine and knew that what his son, younger son, had done to him then he said “cursed be canaan” [so canaan is one of the children of Ham, the fourth child of Ham. That’s going to be important in a minute] “cursed be Canaan a servant of servants he shall be to his brethren.

And he said ‘blessed be Yahweh the God of Shem and may Canaan be his servant, and may God enlarge Japhet and may he dwell in the tents of Shem and may Canaan be his servant. “ So from this the Rabbis of the Talmud era - the talmud was compiled I believe in around about the third century so 200’s 300’s thereabout - and they go to town with all of this. So I’m going to quote a couple of bits as to how the Rabbis dealt with it. This is from the Talmud. this is from Sanhedrin 70a which is part of the Talmud, the mishnah.

which is which is part of the Talmud and… I’ll quote just from my notes here. This is from Sanhedrin 70a verse 18. It says “having cited the passage discussing Noah, the Gemara [which is another part of the Talmud] enters into a discussion about what was actually done to him by his younger son Ham.

18:58 - “Rav and Shemuel disagreed. One says Ham castrated Noah and the other says that Ham sodomized him. ” So when you when you look at the Mishnah and the rabbis of that era, you see there were a lot of debates and and discussions between all these different rabbis interpreting different bits of the scripture. And so you see a lot of this kind of thing where different rabbis will give their own opinions. But what I’m showing you here is that look how they start to introduce these things about hand castrating Noah and sodomizing Noah! In another tractate in the same section of Sanhedrin, we see the Rabbis’ ideas on what happened to Noah, sorry what happened to Canaan as a result of this curse and this is where it gets really… you know. So tractate 108b verse 14-15 it says “the sages taught three violated that directive the directive being not to have sexual intercourse in the ark” [they said that this was a directive that God, that Yahweh had given to Noah. It’s not in the scripture but this is what they do, they have this “Oral Torah” which they say has got lots more information that was handed down orally but wasn’t actually written in the actual text. So “three violated this directive and had intercourse while in the ark and all of them were punished for doing so.

They are the dog, the raven and Ham son of Noah. The dog was punished in that it is bound, the raven was punished in that it spits and Ham was afflicted in that his turn his skin turned black. “ So you see there… somehow we’re going from from Noah cursing Ham… from Noah cursing Canaan I should say (because Noah didn’t curse Ham, Noah cursed Canaan according to the literal reading of the text. ) But the Rabbis take it from that to Ham was cursed, Ham was sexually depraved, he sexually assaulted his father and as a result Ham was cursed with black skin.

The anti-blackness there. That’s where it really, really takes off. Another example is that in Bereshit Rabbah which is a midrash on Bereshit which is Genesis, probably written somewhere between 300 and 500 CE so a little bit later. We read the following in 36 verse 7, “Rabbi Huna said in Rabbi Yosef’s name that Noah declared “you have prevented me” [that is Noah speaking to Ham] “you have prevented me from begetting a fourth son therefore I curse your fourth son [which is Canaan].

Rabbi Huna also said in Rabbi Yosef’s name “you have prevented me from doing something that is done in the dark therefore your deed will be ugly. . “. sorry “your SEED will be ugly and dark-skinned. And again “Rabbit Hiya said Ham and the dog copulated in the ark therefore Ham came forth black-skinned while the dog public publicly exposes in copulation. ” So again you see the combination there: Ham is said to be sexually depraved, wild, and he’s also said to be black-skinned - cursed with black skin allegedly.

And what happens is that this rabbinical “Curse of Ham” absolutely reverberates throughout Christian history. And I’m going to give you some quotes here from an excellent, an excellent paper by a scholar called Tamara Elizabeth Lewis. And this is from this is actually from her doctoral thesis which has got a lot of really valuable information, really valuable insights with regard to anti-blackness in the early… well throughout Christian history, frankly.

So let me just share my screen here just so you can see it there - I recommend you get hold of all of these texts and check them out yourself.

23:23 - And i’m going to quote from some sections from here, she gives a lot of various different examples of this “Curse of Ham” reverberating through Christian history. So, quote: “”[S]everal Syriac texts associate the biblical curse of Canaan with blackness. For example, “Mar Ephrem the Syrian said: ‘When Noah awoke and was told what Canaan did…Noah said, ‘Cursed be Canaan and may God make his face black,’ and immediately the face of Canaan changed; so did of his father Ham, and their white faces became black and dark and their color changed… . ” Ishodad of Merv (Syrian Christian bishop of Hedhatha, ninth century): When Noah cursed Canaan, “instantly, by the force of the curse…his face and entire body became black. This is the black color which has persisted in his descendents. ” Ibn al-Tayyib Arabic Christian scholar in Baghdad who died in 1043 writes: “The curse of Noah affected the posterity of Canaan who were killed by Joshua son of Nun. At the moment of the curse, Canaan’s body became black and the blackness spread out among them… ” [i. e. his descendants]. And also in the 13th century a mystical text, the Zohar (this is a jewish text). Just listen to this text: “Ham represents the refuse and dross of the gold, the stirring and rousing of the unclean spirit of the ancient serpent. Ham, the father of Canaan, is also known as “the notorious world darkener…The descendants of Ham through Canaan therefore have red eyes, because Ham looked upon the nakedness of his father; they have miss-shapen lips, because Ham spoke with his lips about the unseemly condition of his father; they have twisted curly hair, because Ham turned and twisted his head around to see the nakedness of his father; and they go about naked, because Ham did not cover the nakedness of his father…” The “Curse of Ham” reverberates through Christian thought.

Now I was going to talk about Islam and the tradition of the “Curse of Ham” in Islam but i think that deserves its own separate discussion actually. Because obviously islam is a massively important particularly when you’re talking about the trans-saharan Arab enslavement of African people, I think that deserves a separate conversation but suffice to say that they also took this on board and ran with it and added it to their own anti-blackness which has kind of been developing for around about that same time from the four, five hundreds onwards.

So again just to emphasize there are these two pillars of this anti-blackness which are noteworthy - the blackness, focusing on the blackness of our people and the alleged sexual depravity and nakedness. The two pillars throughout history reverberate. Now… moving forward in time. As I said we’re not going to talk about Islam because that needs its own full discussion. But when we come into late medieval medieval England, so going into the 1500s, we see the “Curse of Ham” had massive importance for the early modern Europeans as they started to have contact with Africans.

And according to Tamara Lewis again ““Winthrop Jordan’s landmark study “White Over Black: American Attitudes Toward the Negro” holds that blackness as a concept is already firmly embedded in medieval English epistemology and associated with dirt, evil, sin, and the devil.

27:16 - For example, according to the Oxford English Dictionary [of the time]: “Black is deeply stained with dirt; soiled, dirty, foul…Having dark or deadly purposes, malignant, pertaining to or involving death, deadly; baneful, disastrous, sinister…Foul, iniquitous, atrocious, horrible, wicked……Indicating disgrace, censure, liability to punishment, etc. ” “In each [European] language the word for “black” carried a host of disparaging connotations. In Spanish, for example, “negro” also meant gloomy, dismal, unfit, and wretched; in French, “noir” also connoted foul, dirty, base, and wicked; in Dutch, certain compounds of “zwart” conveyed notions of anger, irascibility, and necromancy; and “black” had comparable pejorative implications in Elizabethan and Stuart England”] In other words before the salve trade had really kicked-off, blackness already had these negative connotations.

28:25 - Now I’m going to quote again from Lewis, from Tamara Elizabeth Lewis and she says… well first of all let me just say this definition, again just to reiterate, this definition or association of blackness with evil was widened to include people with black skins. “Thus when the English first began directly confronting Africans on a large scale in the sixteenth century, they built associations between their understandings of the concept of blackness and dark-skinned people.

” That’s Lewis but I think those associations had already… they didn’t create those associations, they inherited those associations from the Judeo-Christian heritage that was developed throughout the middle ages from the Rabbis of the third century onwards going through all of the Christian bishops and so forth. So “This understanding of the African other became very influential through the work of Sixteenth Century writers such as George Best. The blackness of the African, as Best saw it, was a result of Ham’s disobedience when he looked at his father’s nakedness.

In fact Best further interpreted the story as meaning that Ham had disobeyed Noah by copulating on the Ark [again this is all taken from the Rabbis]. As a result, God punished Ham by making his son “so black and loathsome” that he and all his progeny would symbolize disobedience to “all the world. ” Thus, Best wrote that the black African represented sinfulness, disorder, and lust. Best’s interpretation combined the characteristics repeatedly central to European constructions of the African other, color and nakedness, with sexuality.

The African’s black skin came to stand for a presumed “blackness within. ” The black color of the African body, underscored by the image of nakedness, became the most noticed and profound element in the precolonial social construction of the African other. It stood as a symbolic trope for the African other’s moral inferiority to white Europeans. “ And “it seems apparent that early precolonial European travelers’ reports from Africa were framed by this Biblical discourse.

It was these reports, as in the writing of (someone called) Leo Africanus in 1525, that brought the African other to the popular consciousness of those that never left Europe. “ And that’s taken from Meisenhelder again.

31:13 - now Let me quote from Leo Africanus, here he says “Let us consider, whether the vices of the Africans do surpass their virtues and good parts…Their wits are but mean; and they are so credulous, that they will believe matters impossible, which are told them. So ignorant are they of natural philosophy that they imagine all the effects and operations of nature to be extraordinary and divine. They observe no certain order of living nor of laws…By nature they are a vile and base people, being no better accounted of by their governors than if they were dogs…the greater part of these people are neither Mahumetans, Jews, nor Christians; and hardly shall you find so much as a spark of piety in any of them.

They have no churches at all…they lead a savage and beastly life…They spend all their days either in most lewd practices…neither wear they any shoes nor garments. The Negroes likewise lead a beastly kind of life, being utterly destitute of the use of reason, of dexterity and wit, and of all arts. “ So I mean it could go on and on but the point I think is… the point to be established here is that by the 1500s, by the early 1500s, before the slave trade had really kicked off anti-blackness was fully embedded in the minds of these Europeans.

So going into the 16th century these Europeans travel to Africa and their descriptions continue to be framed by the impacts of these earlier earlier accounts, the Greeks’ accounts (Herodotus, Diodorus Siculus) sometimes they even quote pretty much directly from Diodorus and Heredotus as they make up stories about Africa and also they’re of course really influenced by the biblical narrative of the “Curse of Ham. ” They consistently report as the most significant things that they notice about Africans to be that their skin was black and their bodies were naked.

Now I’m going to conclude the video with what I think is a really really interesting comment again from Tamara Elizabeth Lewis’s paper. The paper here is called. . again I definitely recommend you check it out. The paper is called “To Wash a Blackamoore White: The Rise of Black Ethnic Religious Rhetoric in Early Modern England. “ And I’m going to quote from this because she refers to what she calls “Black religious historiography” and there are two people she mentions in particular Robert E hood Hood and Washington… Robert J Washington I believe the name is but let me quote this because from an afropessimist perspective this is really interesting. This is quoting directly from Tamara Lewis, she says ““In black religious historiography, the dominant position is that antecedent views of blackness as negative influenced the European consciousness prior to the development of slavery. This view holds that rather than racism arising out of a utilitarian function (such as the justification of slavery) during colonialism, hatred of blackness and black people is endemic to the culture of the West, having its basis in the ancient Greco-Roman tradition.

Robert Hood argues that primal myths, representing a kind of subconscious, subliminal way of seeing, “buried deep within our Western psyche and culture,” instinctively associate darkness and blackness with fear, negativity, and evil. “ Now this is really interesting because one of the things is maybe lacking a bit in Afropessimist writings is an answer to the question “why?” Why antiblackness? What is it about why us that makes others hate us so much and what is it about us that makes others decide that we need to be the ones who are either sub-human or almost sub-human.

Why are we the other? Why we as Calvin Warren argues - why are we the ones who are to stand in for nothingness… ontological nothingness and thus can be abused and mistreated and destroyed over and over because we stand in for metaphysical nothingness?Why us? Robert Hood this argument here is that it’s… in Western culture, in the Western psyche there has always been this almost primordial distinction between black and white, good and bad, white being good - black being evil.

The argument as i said earlier is that the Ancient Greeks and others in antiquity had that kind of dichotomy, and what Hood argues is that that blackness, evil blackness is associated… it’s just put onto us. A I find that really interesting and I’m gonna go back now to quote… I’m going to close with this quote from Lewis again: “Hood’s returning concern is that the embedded psychic, cultural, and historical values of blackness are so firmly entrenched, reflexive, and unconscious in the communal spirit of Western society that they are too fixed to be effectively dislodged in the quest for racial equality and diversity” And Tamara Lewis says this, she says “The problem with this position is that if blackness as evil is programmed within the human psyche, how can racism, which Hood argues is associated with this primordial consciousness, ultimately be avoided or transcended? Instead, this position implies that society, the outgrowth of human consciousness, is forever doomed to racism.

” What she’s just done there she’s basically just described afropessimism - that is the afropessimist argument to a T isn’t it!? That the world is always by its nature anti-black and if anti-blackness is ever going to end, if we are ever going to liberate ourselves, the world has to end. So i just found that really interesting. I found that sort of… anyway so I hope you found that informative and stimulating and generative. I’ve tried to kind of do a quick survey of Judeo-Christian thought to show how anti-blackness has roots with the Ancient Greeks going right back to some of these Ancient Greek historians from four, five. . fourth-fifth century BCE onwards. And then we saw how early Christians adopted this I suppose you want to call it colorography of black = evil, white = good and then they start to associate the black/evil with Ethiopians with African people - that was new whereas the Greeks hadn’t yet done that although the greeks did seem to have this view of Africans - twofold view one they’re either really really noble or they’re they’re completely savage possibly subhuman.

The Christians start to bring that together… lascivious, libidinous Africans are embodiments almost of blackness and sin. You see the “Curse of Ham” - the Rabbis bringing the “Curse of Ham” and the idea in the third century CE. Blackness is… Ham becomes the father of all black people and the blackness of skin is a curse for our alleged sexual depravity - all based on a midrashic interpretation of the the book of Genesis, chapter nine of Bereshit. And then you see that “Curse of Ham” reverberate throughout christian history, reverberating all the way down through the centuries even in Islamic history - but as I say I’m going to talk about islamic history and anti-blackness in another video.

All the way down to the early modern era, the late medieval period, pre-slavery before slavery really kicked off you see the early modern English and other Europeans again they had the black-white, evil-good typography and they associate blackness with African people, Ethiopians, following the lead from their their ancestors and then you see them basically putting it into effect. So I suppose the follow-up this probably opens up is that perhaps the enslavement of Africans wasn’t just an accident, actually.

It wasn’t just something else we just happened to be… no, no. It seems that we were enslaved because we were already seen as slaves, we were already seen as the embodiment of sin, the embodiment of evil, needing to be controlled by non-blacks. So thank you very much family for checking this out thank you so much again once again for being a patron and a member of africans arise Really look forward to getting your thoughts and your feedback on this so holler at me when you can.

Take care - it’s africansarise at hotmail. co. uk. Take care for now and i’ll speak to you next time in the next patreon members-only exclusive content. Alright, Salama! Peace!.