hypothetically

You're a bit misguided about the Israelites. They encompass "African" history as well, it is not of any disgust to the continent you refer to as "Africa". The Israelites are a derivative of ancient mystery systems. Ancient Kemetic, Cushite, and peoples of Turtle Island teachings are combined into the Abrahamic religions. Also stories about the sciences of Astrology and astronomy. Whether the Bible, Talmud, Torah, Quran or the Moorish Koran. Not all skinfolk are kinfolk

A lot of anti blackness itt

Not really hypothetical it’s just white people cope and trying to keep you in the dark

Look up the sahara humid period, after it ended a lot of pastoral and hunter gathers from west/central/east Africa came to gather in the Nile river due to droughts which was the catalyst for the Egyptian civilization

Also west/central/east Africa are very connected historically and culturally especially the Sahel and East Africa

East Africans are black, black Americans just aren't descendants of them

I don’t believe in the Black Israelite narrative but Jews originated from a black man (Y paternal lineage )

Also east Africa is also black history, there’s East African linage also exists throughout the Sahel regions in Sudan Chad Niger Mali and North Nigeria

There isn’t a wall, west Africa might be the farthest point but East Africans are nomadic pastoralists who intermingled with all Africans and shared information

Also why can’t we claim a common historical heritage, Brits claim Greeks, like Homer and Aristotle who are so far off

I'm all for pan-Africanism not a big fan of black Israelite stuff tho lol

can you send me that Y paternal Lineage source?

researchgate.net/publication/273312393_Haplogroups_E1b1b1c1_M34_and_E1b1b1c1a_M84_among_Jews_Could_Abraham_be_E1b1b1c1_or_E1b1b1c1a

Huh lol

I don’t agree with them completely but they’re somewhat on the right path

the reasoning is loose until you understand that it needs to be all 5 characteristics and simply not having 1 of them means it no longer qualifies as a nation based on nations as a historical process. for instance this is why arab americans or asian americans or non chicano latin americans qualify as oppressed nationalities and not oppressed nations.

the key operative for most of this in the United States is the shared economy. Black people in the Black Belt operate the majority of the economy and are the majority in the population. Due to the stratification of reservations and the concentrated underdevelopment of Indigenous First Nations peoples, the do not have the population or economic density to qualify as operating a shared economy.

it is for this reason that the national project for indigenous tribes involves national development and not a nationalist project. political independence and secession for nationalities without a shared economy will only lead to vassalism and extreme rates of exploitation and poverty. for instance - id need to see if i can locate the exact times and locations as i cant remember them at the moment - there have been african countries that have granted independence to certain "nationalities" only for them to not have the means of production to sustain themselves and forces them to undergo severe exploitation.

hope this clears up some confusion.

what's a hotep?

"What is a nation?

A nation is primarily a community, a definite community of people.

This community is not racial, nor is it tribal. The modern Italian nation was formed from Romans, Teutons, Etruscans, Greeks, Arabs, and so forth. The French nation was formed from Gauls, Romans, Britons, Teutons, and so on. The same must be said of the British, the Germans and others, who were formed into nations from people of diverse races and tribes.

Thus, a nation is not a racial or tribal, but a historically constituted community of people.

On the other hand, it is unquestionable that the great empires of Cyrus and Alexander could not be called nations, although they came to be constituted historically and were formed out of different tribes and races. They were not nations, but casual and loosely-connected conglomerations of groups, which fell apart or joined together according to the victories or defeats of this or that conqueror.

Thus, a nation is not a casual or ephemeral conglomeration, but a stable community of people.

But not every stable community constitutes a nation. Austria and Russia are also stable communities, but nobody calls them nations. What distinguishes a national community from a state community? The fact, among others, that a national community is inconceivable without a common language, while a state need not have a common language. The Czech nation in Austria and the Polish in Russia would be impossible if each did not have a common language, whereas the integrity of Russia and Austria is not affected by the fact that there are a number of different languages within their borders. We are referring, of course, to the spoken languages of the people and not to the official governmental languages.

Thus, a common language is one of the characteristic features of a nation.

This, of course, does not mean that different nations always and everywhere speak different languages, or that all who speak one language necessarily constitute one nation. A common language for every nation, but not necessarily different languages for different nations! There is no nation which at one and the same time speaks several languages, but this does not mean that there cannot be two nations speaking the same language! Englishmen and Americans speak one language, but they do not constitute one nation. The same is true of the Norwegians and the Danes, the English and the Irish.

But why, for instance, do the English and the Americans not constitute one nation in spite of their common language?

Firstly, because they do not live together, but inhabit different territories. A nation is formed only as a result of lengthy and systematic intercourse, as a result of people living together generation after generation.

But people cannot live together, for lengthy periods unless they have a common territory. Englishmen and Americans originally inhabited the same territory, England, and constituted one nation. Later, one section of the English emigrated from England to a new territory, America, and there, in the new territory, in the course of time, came to form the new American nation. Difference of. territory led to the formation of different nations.

Thus, a common territory is one of the characteristic features of a nation.

But this is not all. Common territory does not by itself create a nation. This requires, in addition, an internal economic bond to weld the various parts of the nation into a single whole. There is no such bond between England and America, and so they constitute two different nations. But the Americans themselves would not deserve to be called a nation were not the different parts of America bound together into an economic whole, as a result of division of labour between them, the development of means of communication, and so forth.

Take the Georgians, for instance. The Georgians before the Reform inhabited a common territory and spoke one language. Nevertheless, they did not, strictly speaking, constitute one nation, for, being split up into a number of disconnected principalities, they could not share a common economic life; for centuries they waged war against each other and pillaged each other, each inciting the Persians and Turks against the other. The ephemeral and casual union of the principalities which some successful king sometimes managed to bring about embraced at best a superficial administrative sphere, and rapidly disintegrated owing to the caprices of the princes and the indifference of the peasants. Nor could it be otherwise in economically disunited Georgia ... Georgia came on the scene as a nation only in the latter half of the nineteenth century, when the fall of serfdom and the growth of the economic life of the country, the development of means of communication and the rise of capitalism, introduced division of labour between the various districts of Georgia, completely shattered the economic isolation of the principalities and bound them together into a single whole.

The same must be said of the other nations which have passed through the stage of feudalism and have developed capitalism.

Thus, a common economic life, economic cohesion, is one of the characteristic features of a nation.

But even this is not all. Apart from the foregoing, one must take into consideration the specific spiritual complexion of the people constituting a nation. Nations differ not only in their conditions of life, but also in spiritual complexion, which manifests itself in peculiarities of national culture. If England, America and Ireland, which speak one language, nevertheless constitute three distinct nations, it is in no small measure due to the peculiar psychological make-up which they developed from generation to generation as a result of dissimilar conditions of existence.

Of course, by itself, psychological make-up or, as it is otherwise called, "national character," is something intangible for the observer, but in so far as it manifests itself in a distinctive culture common to the nation it is something tangible and cannot be ignored.

Needless to say, "national character" is not a thing that is fixed once and for all, but is modified by changes in the conditions of life; but since it exists at every given moment, it leaves its impress on the physiognomy of the nation.

Thus, a common psychological make-up, which manifests itself in a common culture, is one of the characteristic features of a nation.

We have now exhausted the characteristic features of a nation.

A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture.

It goes without saying that a nation, like every historical phenomenon, is subject to the law of change, has its history, its beginning and end.

It must be emphasized that none of the above characteristics taken separately is sufficient to define a nation. More than that, it is sufficient for a single one of these characteristics to be lacking and the nation ceases to be a nation.

It is possible to conceive of people possessing a common "national character" who, nevertheless, cannot be said to constitute a single nation if they are economically disunited, inhabit different territories, speak different languages, and so forth. Such, for instance, are the Russian, Galician, American, Georgian and Caucasian Highland Jews, who, in our opinion, do not constitute a single nation.

It is possible to conceive of people with a common territory and economic life who nevertheless would not constitute a single nation because they have no common language and no common "national character." Such, for instance, are the Germans and Letts in the Baltic region.

Finally, the Norwegians and the Danes speak one language, but they do not constitute a single nation owing to the absence of the other characteristics.

It is only when all these characteristics are present together that we have a nation."

The Igbos are the third largest tribe in Nigeria, and the Yorubas (the second largest) claim migration from the Middle East.

I agree with most of your points so far, I'm just giving perspective that I don't think most people ITT have considered.

I'm casually racist against White people in most of my posts but people see the Eminem stannery and overlook all of that. It's funny.

This is why I hate arguing with you communist niggas; y'all just go off on aggressive tangents.

I read the man's book, agreed with some parts and rolled my eyes at the parts I thought were dumb (the Marxist stuff).

At no point in this thread did I talk about his philosophy.

I wasnt even aggressive with you lmao, I just called you illiterate for thinking Fanon's work isn't based on Pan-African Marxism.

You rolled your eyes at his Marxist thought? I am literally in the middle of an entire Political Theory paper on Fanon's relation to Marx, 90% of his theory is tied to some type of Marxist thought. You can't read any of his work and separate it from his Marxist Philosophy especially a work like Wretched Earth.

another funny thing is when creating the BPP, Bobby Seale introduced Huey to Wretched Earth and it was a fundamental book in their founding.

What do they say about cushites lmao

I can understand but it still seems deeply flawed to me if there’s no engagement w the question of sovereignty, which takes on internal (governing citizens) and external (international recognition and communication). While Indigenous tribes in settler colonial regions have a deep history of having their sovereign rights undermined by the settler state, they do still enter into treaty discussions and have varied degrees of oversight to punish and/or integrate foreigners who enter their territories, depending on their constitutions and laws.

Of course, there’s a great deal of Black political scholarship that is deeply skeptical of sovereignty as a concept, but these scholars also aren’t usually invested in nationhood for themselves (or their imagined communities) per se. They do at least consider the concept though. In our current global economy, I don’t see how a nation could exist as anything outside of the name without sovereignty.

You know, I actually don’t really have much issue w this concept of nation within nations as described by this author. It’s certainly interesting. But I’m going to continue to push back on this perception of indigeneity due to the above points. I imagine a ‘nation within a nation’ approaching a tribal nation recognized as such by the global community, and attempting to discuss any number of relevant issues that might concern both groups. Doing so while failing to recognize the tribal community as a nation. Probably isn’t going to be a very productive meeting. Just my 2¢!

These threads make me feel stupid af cause idk what is being said

We did not intermingle with west africans at all

The reason why west africans share some of our genes is because we did intermingle with north african muslims who intermingled with west africans through the arab slave trade

Nigga what the f*** 😂

F*** pan-africanism, all respect to yall but I dont wanna be with yall niggas. I'm not african, I'm somali