ON QUESTIONS OF RACE, ETHNICITY AND NATIONALITY

overview of slave trade.jpg

1.       Various peoples from the African continent were kidnapped, trafficked and enslaved in the territories that became the United States of America. Are the descendants of those people living in the United States today still African? To answer this question, it is important to clarify in what aspect is meant “still African”. Who or what is “African”?

 

a)       First of all, let’s consider who it was that is being referenced. Let’s think about the person that was put in chains, survived the middle passage and brought to the Americas. Was that person “African”? In what sense? Here, I can only speak on what I know. So, let me paint a picture. My great, great, great, great, great grandfather was captured and brought to the Carolinas in the late 1750’s. His father was a cattle herder and rice farmer living along what is today called the Cacheu River. If you were to ask him about his identity, he would tell you that he was a b’alante b’ndang of the B’urassa people. That was his identity. That was his concept of himself. That was his being. He did not know anything about this thing called “African”. So the very question of this debate, as posed, makes no sense to my 6th generation great grandfather. HE was not AFRICAN. He was a member of the B’Urassa people. Other people refer to the B’urassa as Balanta. In this sense then, I will reinterpret the question at hand to fit MY understanding and my circumstances. In short – am I still B’urassa?

 

b)      The answer to this question is very simple and my seven-year-old son can answer this. Let’s start from a basic, common sense understanding that anyone can understand.

 

c)       YOU ARE ALL YOUR ANCESTORS – You (every single person reading this) is the union of your mother and father. That’s how you got here. Your father planted his seed in your mother’s womb, she nurtured it for nine months, and then you were born. Every human being that has ever lived was born from the union of male and female. The very BLOOD that circulates in your body was given to you from your mother and father. The very LIFE FORCE energy, the BREATH OF LIFE, and the GENETIC INSTRUCTIONS that are responsible for the life that you have – you received all of it from your mother and father. Therefore, your mother and father live inside of you. Because this is also true of your mother and father – that their mother and father live inside of them – then it is also true that your grandparents – their blood, their life force energy, their breath of life, and their genetic instructions, also live inside of you. From this it follows, that ALL your ancestors live inside of you. Your blood, your life force energy, your breath and your genetic makeup are shared by all the ancestors living inside of you. Therefore, your life is not your own. ALL your ancestors depend on you for their existence.

 

d)      Genetic testing through African Ancestry shows that my paternal ancestry is a 100% match with Balanta. So here is definitive, scientific proof, the answer to the question. Yes, I am still B’urassa and all of my sons and male descendants after me will also be B’urassa.

 

e)      There are, however, other aspects to the question we are debating, since the spirit of the questions goes beyond just genetics and into other areas such as culture as well as such things as legal status. So let’s deal with the issue of legal status.

 

f)        My great, great, great, great, great grandfather, before he was captured, was a very young boy in the B’urassa age group of Nwatch. His father was a  b’alante b’ndang which is the head of the household and thus eligible to sit in the Council of Elders. And that’s where B’urassa state formation stops. B’urassa were a stateless society by intention because they understood state formations created inequality. So, at the time of capture, my great, great, great, great, great grandfather was the son of a sovereign head of household.

 

g)       Now the question is: what was his legal status upon arrival in the Carolinas? The answer is simple – he was a prisoner of war. The B’urassa were at war against the Mandingo of the Kaabu empire which were the biggest man-hunters in the area. The B’urassa were also at war with the Portuguese, English and Dutch slave traders. My great, great, great, great, great grandfather did not relinquish his “B’urassa” identity or status upon arrival in the Carolinas. He was, however, designated by the name “George”. I will use this name temporarily because I do not know his B’urassa name. Remember, George, like most B’urassa that were captured, was a young boy. He had not advanced through any of the age grade initiations that formally teach B’urassa culture.  George fathered a son who was called Jack around 1789. Was Jack still B’urrassa? Good question. Genetically speaking, the answer is yes. We already answered that. Legally, Jack’s status (under international law) was “a B’urassa prisoner of war”. Culturally is where we start to have questions, and then there is also spirituality, another aspect. George was brought to the Carolinas before there was a nation known as The United States of America. Jack was born after the formation of the United States of America, so legally, Jack was a B’urassa prisoner of war in the United States of America. In 1819, Jack had a son that was designated by the name Yancey Blake. Was Yancey still B’urassa? Genetically, yes. Legally, in 1819 he wasn’t a citizen of the United States, so he was still a B’urassa prisoner of war. Culturally, he was best described as a slave – he had a slave culture. He neither lived in the B’urassa culture of his grandfathers, nor did he live in the culture of his slave owner. In this sense, he was neither American, nor, as the question has been posed, African. More difficult to answer, however is the question of his spirituality. I can address this later.

Dred Scott Case.JPG

This Dred Scott Supreme Court decision attempted to settle the legal status of slaves in free territories to avert a civil war, but it provoked one instead. Dred Scott, who was born a slave in Missouri, traveled with his master to the free territory of Illinois. As a result, Scott later sued his master for freedom, which the lower courts usually granted. However, when the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court, it ruled that Scott would remain a slave because as such he was not a citizen and could not legally sue in the federal courts. Moreover, in the words of Chief Justice Roger Taney, black people free or slave could never become U. S. citizens and they “had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.” The dissenting justices pointed out that in some states people of color were already considered citizens when the Constitution was ratified. In 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment overturned the Dred Scott decision by granting citizenship to all those born in the United States, regardless of color. But was the 14th Amendment a “grant” of citizenship?

h)      1865, the year of Emancipation, is the critical point of departure. No African who was taken captive and transported against his will to the Americas ever renounced their tribal identification and status vis-à-vis their original "citizenship". From 1444 up until Emancipation, all Africans held in slavery were not considered citizens of in the country of their captivity. The legal status of Africans in America after the Emancipation is undetermined. According to Imari Abubakari Obadele (founder of the Republic of New Africa):

"We are not American citizens... the Fourteenth Amendment, in an attempt to bestow citizenship upon the African newly freed from slavery, incorporated the rule of jus soli, 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States and of the state wherein they reside.' A sound principle of international law, the rule of jus soli was obviously intended to provide American citizenship for persons born in the United States through what might be termed 'acceptable accidents' of birth. Thus, a person born in the US as a result of his parents' having come to this country voluntarily -- through emigration and settlement or vacation travel or business -- could not be denied citizenship in the country of his birth. He might have dual citizenship, gaining also the citizenship of his parents, but he could not be left with no citizenship. His birth in the US under such conditions would meet the test of an "acceptable accident."

By contrast, however, the presence of the African in America could by no stretch of justice be deemed 'an acceptable accident' of birth. The African, whose freedom was now acknowledged by his former slavemasters through the Thirteenth Amendment, was not on this soil because he or his parents had come vacationing or seeking some business advantage. Rather the African -- standing forth now as a free man because the Thirteenth Amendment forbade whites (who had the power, not the right) to continue slavery -- was on American soil as a result of having been kidnapped and brought here AGAINST his will.

What the rule of jus soli demanded at this point -- at the point of the passage of the slavery-halting Thirteenth Amendment -- was that America not deny to this African, born on American soil, American citizenship -- IF THE AFRICAN WANTED IT. This last condition is crucial: the African, his freedom now acknowledged by persons who theretofore had wrongfully and illegally (under international law) held him in slavery by force, was entitled as a free man to decide for himself what he wanted to do -- whether he wished to be an American citizen or follow some other course.

The rule of jus soli, in protecting the kidnapped African from being left without any citizenship, could operate so far as to impose upon America the obligation to offer the African (born on American soil) American citizenship; it could not impose upon the African -- a victim of kidnapping and wrongful transportation -- an obligation to accept such citizenship. Such an imposition would affront justice, by conspiring with the kidnappers and illegal transporters, and wipe out the free man's newly acquired freedom.

Thus, the Fourteenth Amendment is incorrectly read when its Section One is deemed to be a grant of citizenship: it can only be an offer. The positive tone of the language can only emphasize the intention of the ratifiers to make a sincere offer. On the other hand, the United States government, under obligation to make the offer. also had the power to create the mechanism – a plebiscite-- whereby the African could make an informed decision, an informed acceptance or rejection of the offer of American citizenship. Indeed, Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment makes clear that Congress could pass whatever law was necessary to make real the offer of Section One. (Section Five says, 'The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.)

The first 'appropriate legislation' required at that moment -- and still required - was that which would make possible for the now free African an informed free choice, an informed acceptance or rejection of the citizenship offer.

Let us recall that, following the Thirteenth Amendment, four natural options were the basic right of the African. First, he did, of course, have a right, if he wished it, to be an American citizen. Second, he had a right to return to Africa or (third) go to another country -- if he could arrange his acceptance. Finally, he had a right (based on a claim to land superior to the European's, sub- ordinate to the Indian's) to set up an independent nation of his own.

Towering above all other juridical requirements that faced the African in America and the American following the Thirteenth Amendment was the requirement to make real the opportunity for choice, for self-determination. How was such an opportunity to evolve? Obviously, the African was entitled to full and accurate information as to his status and the principles of international law appropriate to his situation. This was all the more important because the African had been victim of a long-term intense slavery policy aimed at assuring his illiteracy, dehumanizing him as a group and depersonalizing him as an individual.

The education offered him after the Thirteenth Amendment confirmed the policy of dehumanization. It was continued in American institutions . . . for 100 years, through 1965. Now, again following the Thirteenth Amendment, the education of the African in America seeks to base African self-esteem on how well the African assimilates white American folk-ways and values Worse, the advice given the African concerning his rights under international law suggested that there was no option open to him other than American citizenship. For the most part, he was co-opted into spending his political energies in organizing and participating in constitutional conventions and then voting for legislatures which subsequently approved the Fourteenth Amendment. In such circumstances, the presentation of the Fourteenth Amendment to state legislatures for whose members the African had voted, and the Amendment's subsequent approval by these legislatures, could in no sense be considered a plebiscite.


The fundamental requirements were lacking: first, adequate and accurate information for the advice given the freedman was so bad it amounted to fraud, a second stealing of our birthright; second, a chance to choose among the four options: (1) US citizenship, (2) return to Africa, (3) emigration to another country and (4) the creation of a new African nation on American soil.

On the other hand, the United States government still has the obligation under Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment to ‘enforce' Section One (the offer of citizenship) in the only way it could be rightfully 'enforced' -- by authorizing US participation in a plebiscite. By, in other words, a reference to our own will, our self-determined acceptance or rejection of the offer of citizenship. There are further important ramifications. A genuine plebiscite implies that if people vote against US citizenship, the means must be provided to facilitate whatever decision they do make. Thus, persons who vote to return to Africa or to emigrate elsewhere must have the means to do so. . . .

Now then, we repeat: an obvious and important ramification of the plebiscite is that there must exist the capability of putting its decisions into effect. If the decision is for US citizenship, then that citizenship must be unconditional. If it is for emigration to a country outside Africa, those persons making this choice must have transportation resources and reparations in terms of other benefits, principally money, to make such emigration possible and give it a reasonable chance of success. If the decision is for a return to some country in Africa, the person must have those same reparations as persons emigrating to countries outside Africa PLUS those additional reparations necessary to restore enough of the African personality for the individual to have a reasonable chance of success in integrating into African society in the motherland. If, finally, the decision is for an independent new African nation on this soil, then the reparations must be those agreed upon between the United States government and the new African government. Reparations must be at least sufficient to assure the new nation a reasonable chance of solving the great problems imposed upon us by the Americans in our status as a colonized people."

i)        After 1865 and the 13th and 14th Amendments, our legal status in the United States of America became “colonized people through forced integration.” This is your/our current legal status until one makes an informed free choice, an informed acceptance or rejection of the citizenship offer.

IF YOU DID NOT KNOW AND UNDERSTAND THE PRINCIPLE OF JUS SOLI AND THE LEGAL REQUIREMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO CONDUCT A PLEBISCITE FOR THE EXERCISE OF SELF DETERMINATION, THEN YOU DID NOT MAKE AN INFORMED FREE CHOICE, AN INFORMED ACCEPTANCE OR REJECTION OF THE CITIZENSHIP OFFER. THUS, YOUR AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP, IS NULL AND VOID UNLESS YOU WAIVE YOUR RIGHT TO MAKING A FREE AND INFORMED ACCEPTANCE OR REJECTION OF THE OFFER.

 

j)        So at this point, we have systematically proven that genetically speaking I am still B’urassa. Legally speaking, I never renounced my B’urassa status (knowledge of which was taken from me through the process of terroristic brainwashing) and I never made a valid acceptance of American citizenship, so I am not American. Properly speaking, I am a B’urassa colonized through forced integration in the United States of America. Culturally, I am neither B’urassa (knowledge of which was taken from me through the process of terroristic brainwashing) nor American. By American, I mean, I don’t practice white supremacy. My culture is what is properly referred to as #ADOS – American Descendants of Slaves. Here, American refers to location, not ethnicity, consciousness, spirituality or nationality.

 

k)       Spiritually, I am neither Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist or any of the most well-known organized religions, nor have I ever been a member of any of their churches. The only organized religion or spirituality that I ever identified with and attended services for was Rastafari. However, I left the Rastafari movement and after discovering and studying my B’urassa ancestry, I have come to learn that spiritually, I am still B’urassa.

 

l)        So now I have answered the question(s) at hand. I am neither on paper nor in actual practice, American nor African. Genetically and spiritually, I am still B’urassa. Legally, I am a B’urassa colonized through forced integration in the United States of America, and culturally I am #ADOS (because of the process of terroristic brainwashing).

 

m)    CONCERNING THE QUESTION OF PAN AFRICANISM – In the past, because knowledge of our ancestral identities was erased through the process of terroristic brainwashing, many #ADOS have searched for an identity. Until the advent of genetic testing, for the vast majority of #ADOS, we could only learn that we came from “somewhere in Africa”. As a result, the entire continent of Africa became our identities, a place holder for our actual, SPECIFIC ancestral lineages. As a result, we built bonds with all the people of the African continent, and in particular, with those who shared the trans-Atlantic slavery experience. This bonding, based on this level of knowledge of self, formed the Pan African movement. However, I am a new kind of Pan Africanist. My Pan Africanism is not built on a sentimental feeling of a vague understanding of my relationship to the African continent. I know who I am and I know my history. I have written three volumes on my family history dating back to 42,000 BCE and am finishing the 4th and final volume entitled Balanta B’urassa My Sons: Those Who Resist Remain. My new Pan Africanism is based on the fact that I believe that knowing my history, our history, we can tell the truth, acknowledge our mistakes so that we don’t make them again. For example, my brother Foday is Temne and his ancestors were part of the Soninke or Mali Empires. When we discuss how his ancestors oppressed my ancestors, he apologized on behalf of his ancestor for what they did to my ancestors. We realize that BOTH of our ancestors ended up enslaved here in the United States because we did not have the advantage of understanding the threat against us. Now we do and now we see the pitfalls of not uniting against this threat. So we can be proud of our ancestral heritages and work together in better-informed Pan Africanism without falling into the pitfalls of tribalism. We can also empathize with each other about the experience of both losing and regaining our specific ancestral lineages. Once everyone knows WHO they are and WHOSE they are, then that truth can provide the answers to the questions we have today surrounding the who, what, where, when and how of REPARATIONS and how we will work with each other. There is no conflict between #ADOS and Pan Africanism once everyone knows their specific ancestral lineages.

 

n)      AND THIS IS THE REASON WHY I AM ISSUING THE FOLLOWING INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE REPARATIONS MOVEMENT.

 

1.       Because the purpose of any reparations is to repair, then the first action requires answering, "Repair to what?" - What was the condition before the injustice that needs to be repaired?

 

THEREFORE, THE FIRST STEP IN REPARATIONS is to train and develop a professional class of African American genealogy researchers and deploy them as part of a modern day government Workers Project that will go throughout the United States and determine the genetic ancestry and family history of every black person claiming to be the descendants of slaves.

 

Because I have done this myself for my family, and reconstructed our family history for the last 18,000 years, including the first encounter with Europeans and their capture by Mandinka slave traders of the Kaabu empire who sold them to Luso Africans (mixed breed Portuguese and African) slave traders who then sold them to English rice planters in South Carolina (names are known), I know what it takes to do such a research project. The first step is removing the "negro problem" - getting rid of an identity that is not established in historical fact. Upon arrival in America, black victims of human trafficking were terrorized into forgetting their names, their language, their culture, and knowledge of where they come from. As the movie clip shows, not knowing yourself, only knowing yourself as "negro" or "black" or "from somewhere in Africa" is the continuing legacy of slavery. . . .

It is now the 21st century and the science, the tools, and the means for repairing this exist today. At this point, the government needs to provide, free of charge, maternal and paternal dna testing through the company African Ancestry as well as a professional genealogy case manager to work with each person to re-establish their historical ancestry. This is step #1

Every college and university should have a special program for training this class of genealogy researches and all African American students entering the program should be granted free tuition and a living stipend for four years of study. Within ten to fifteen years, every African American could then have their ancestral identity restored. This would then become the basis for further reparations. The process itself feeds several birds with one seed - a significant number of black students would be able to attend college free of charge with a useful vocation and guaranteed employment (through the government program) that is directly related to the "repairing" of the African American community.

THE SECOND STEP IS THEN USING THE SAME TECHNOLOGY AND WORKFORCE TO CALCULATE WHO OWNED WHO AND HOW MUCH WEALTH WAS CREATED AND STOLEN.

I suggest everyone start by reading Daina Ramey Berry's book, The Price For Their Pound of Flesh: The Value of the Enslaved, from Womb to Grave, in the Building of a NationTop of Form

 

A note to #ADOS– go back to “i)” and consider carefully. The way #ADOS is proceeding, they are waving their right to make a free and informed rejection of the citizenship offer. By waving this right, #ADOS is ceding valuable legal territory. In the same way that #ADOS founder Antonio Moore has done his homework when it comes to the economic and wealth aspects of Reparations, he must also do his legal homework lest he compromise other allies doing that aspect of REPARATIONS work. Essentially, #ADOS must make it clear – are they advocating integration into America or liberation from America? I am without question a liberationist and not an integrationist. I recommend that #ADOS add to its platform the demand for a US Sponsored Plebiscite while educating #ADOS that the movement is not divisive on this question – it is not an either/or choice. All 4 natural options are valid and must be provided for – 1) those who want to integrate into America; 2) those who want to return to their ancestral homelands; 3) those that want to form a new nation of their own on land that is currently within the United States of America; and 4) those that want to emigrate to some other country. We need not fight amongst ourselves on this question. We respect each person’s right of self-determination, but we struggle or the provisions for ALL FOUR OPTIONS EQUALLY.