PDA

View Full Version : Was Nat Turner Wrong ?


LORD NOSE
02-17-2006, 11:52 AM
Nat Turner was born in Southampton, Virginia on 2nd October, 1800. Nat, the son of slaves, was the property of Benjamin Turner, a prosperous plantation owner. Nat's mother and grandmother had been brought to America from Africa and had a deep hatred of slavery.

Nat grew up sharing his mother's view of slavery. Taught to read by his master's son, Nat developed deep religious beliefs and encouraged by his parents, gradually began to believe that God had chosen him to lead his people out of slavery.

In 1831 Turner was sold to Joseph Travis. In February of that year an eclipse of the sun convinced Turner that this was a supernatural sign from God to start an insurrection. However, it wasn't until August 21st that Turner and about seven other slaves killed Travis and his family to launch his rebellion. In all, about 50 whites were killed.

Turner had hoped this his action would cause a massive slave uprising but only 75 joined his rebellion. Over 3,000 members of the state militia were sent to deal with Turner's rebellion, and they were soon defeated. In retaliation, more than a hundred innocent slaves were killed. Turner went into hiding but was captured six weeks later. Nat Turner was executed on 11th November, 1831.



http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USASturner.htm

LORD NOSE
02-17-2006, 11:58 AM
My master, who belonged to the church, and other religious persons who visited the house, and whom I often saw at prayers, noticing the singularity of my manners, I suppose, and my uncommon intelligence for a child, remarked I had too much sense to be raised, and if I was, I would never be of any service to any one as a slave. To a mind like mine, restless, inquisitive and observant of every thing that was passing, it is easy to suppose that religion was the subject to which it would be directed. The manner in which I learned to read and write, not only had great influence on my own mind, as I acquired it with the most perfect ease, so much so, that I have no recollection whatever of learning the alphabet--but to the astonishment of the family, one day, when a book was sewn me to keep me from crying, I began spelling the names of different objects - this was a source of wonder to all in the neighborhood, particularly the blacks - and this learning was constantly improved at all opportunities.




(5) Henry H. Garnet (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USASgarnet.htm), speech on slavery in Buffalo, New York (16 August 1843)
The patriotic Nathaniel Turner was goaded to desperation by wrong and injustice. By Despotism, his name has been recorded on the list of infamy, but future generations will number him upon the noble and brave.

Aqueous Moon
02-17-2006, 01:04 PM
Was he wrong for learning how to read? NO

Was he wrong for wanting be free from slavery? NO

Was he wrong for killing he slavemasters ? NO

But, I feel that he was wrong in his belief that a slave rebellion/uprising would free his people. They were out-numbered and out-gunned.

If this was his belief then I am wondering what would make him think such a thing...And, if there was an alternative form of action for him to take in that day and time.

LORD NOSE
02-17-2006, 01:35 PM
He Felt He Was Sent By God To Lead The Rebellion And That This Same God Would Make Him Victorious - That Belief In That Spook God Got Alot Of Us Killed

dif de la rev
02-18-2006, 08:00 AM
wrong ?!, how. he was able to read in turn got ideas from reading about a god who was for justice and put those in to practice. as for being an appointed leader that could be said about any person who assumes a leadership position without the votes/confidence of the masses. god ordained that was not a far fetch. i think that the john brown rebellion and the likes were either to bring courage and something akin to hope for the ones who did not realize the situation for not being able to 'read' as reading or any learning could have had him killed. so he took nmatters in own hands and the price his life though in his heart and mind was following a plan more divine.

Aqueous Moon
02-18-2006, 11:55 AM
That's a beautiful persepective, dif.

But, you said rebellion could bring hope to the people...I have to disagree, because what good is false hope?

Getting yourself and your people slaughtered can only serve to strike fear in the hearts of the others who witness such a thing...

Wooly Noggins
02-18-2006, 12:03 PM
they killed so many of us after Nat did what he did

and tightened up their watch

and devised more plans to make us docile


our situation got worst

check the willie lynch speech


lynch ?

he wasn't wrong though

but the tricksters got trickier after the rebellion


a real rebellion would have been great

imagine if he got all of them

would have been so sweet

dif de la rev
02-18-2006, 02:59 PM
he fought for what he thought was right in his mind or heart or both. arebellion is like ashort fuse that blows back in your face though i doubt nat knew the extent of forces hewasup against. he did what he didbased on simple readingsnot in depth planning and strategy more like smash and grab then watch and plot.

so is a rebellion like a renegade task force amongst the people that can be cancerous to the group as a whole while on otherside you have those who are cancerous from standpoint just get along and put head down ?

when things like willie lynch happen do they sow seeds of either hope or despair and in either cae do the some people look to alleviate knowing whether schooled or not that some innate inherent disservice to rightswere being down pressed by those who did the redressing of liberties ?

Aqueous Moon
02-18-2006, 03:12 PM
Legato,

Are you saying that if black people decided to have a rebellion against the establishment in these days that, they wouldn't get slaughtered?

I mean compared to Dr. Khalid or Malcolm X, or Elijah Muhammad, I can see the error in Nat Turner's plan.

If all the blacks in America staged an uprising against whitey right now we would get mowed down.

What that spook god belief that Nat Turner had did was let him forget about logic and gave him the false hope of being victorious of the slavemasters by, brute strength...impossible.

Out numbered and out gunned...gotta think strategically.

dif de la rev
02-18-2006, 04:20 PM
one had a god for a spook now days we have a spook watching their guard.

LORD NOSE
02-18-2006, 05:45 PM
Lol - They Ain't Using Guns In Rebellions In Wars No More - Try Anthrax And Hiv - And Even Deeper Shit - If We Were All To Pick Up Guns And Rebel Right Now, They'll Have Us Lookin Like Them Zombies In Resident Evil - What We Gonna Do ?

Shoot People And Ask The Same People For Food And Water ?

Any One Who Controls Your Food Controls Your Revolution



The Truth About Who And What They Are Is Killin Them Enough

And He's Doing A Good Job Of Destroying Himself In His Lies And Trickery - Violence Will Not Make Us Victorious - Although It Is Inevitable

LORD NOSE
02-18-2006, 05:46 PM
Lol - They Ain't Using Guns In Rebellions No More - Try Anthrax And Hiv - And Even Deeper Shit - If We Were All To Pick Up Guns And Rebel Right Now, They'll Have Us Lookin Like Them Zombies In Resident Evil - What We Gonna Do ?

Shoot People And Ask The Same People For Food And Water ?

Any One Who Controls Your Food Controls Your Revolution



The Truth About Who And What They Are Is Killin Them Enough

And He's Doing A Good Job Of Destroying Himself In His Lies And Trickery - Violence Will Not Make Us Victorious - Although It Is Inevitable

Aqueous Moon
02-18-2006, 06:27 PM
Legato,

That's exactly what I was saying by strategic thinking...wasn't nobody coming to Nat Turner's rescue...not even close, not even maybe.

now, shit is different...but, I ain't ready to take the chance of getting mowed down...can't rely on them other cats.

dif de la rev
02-18-2006, 06:33 PM
that i hear you can't act until you know that those behind are like the wall to hold you and not a rock to fold you down. with too many driven towards their own ends the means for action becomes diuluted through splinters which is the divide and conquer theory per se. they want to guarantee theirs as a person before the group there are no big i's or little u's jjust us two in the universe where we all converge to give the knowledge ensuoing the community's rewards.

Aqueous Moon
02-18-2006, 06:40 PM
for sho, I 'm always thinking bout the seeds. Gotta protect them^^

Os3y3ris
02-19-2006, 01:05 AM
Nat Turner was right in doing what he did. Consider the alternative.

MaShPG
02-19-2006, 01:39 AM
I think that Nat Turner's principal idea was right, you know if I was oppressed I'd die for freedom. But what if one of his followers killed his old master's son who taught him how to read? I mean they seemed to be randomly killing, and that son who tried to help Nat (and did by educating him) was white and could've gotten unlawfully killed.

LORD NOSE
02-19-2006, 03:03 AM
I think that Nat Turner's principal idea was right, you know if I was oppressed I'd die for freedom. But what if one of his followers killed his old master's son who taught him how to read? I mean they seemed to be randomly killing, and that son who tried to help Nat (and did by educating him) was white and could've gotten unlawfully killed.

ITS CALLED WAR !

knewcheeze
02-22-2006, 01:34 PM
he was way ahead of his time

back in those days it would have been EASY to overthrow the imperialist usa

SlightlySlightedFan
02-22-2006, 01:42 PM
He was probably not right in the head, not such a bad thing at all. His way was quite reactionary, and violent. Which usually are bad things.
But, for him, at the time, I'd challenge anyone to say they wouldn't do the exact same thing he did.

Taking over the US then would have been quite difficult, many people had already tried and failed, from the inside and the outside.

It's never been easier than now. For foreiners anyway.

knewcheeze
02-22-2006, 07:56 PM
you must be joking

right now they got helicopters with heat sensors tazers cars that go 100 plus mph......then if the police can't beat you they got the army marines navy and so on and so on......they won't hesitate to drop some radiation on you......

back in nats time you had a bunch of out of shape devils with muskets and shit.....please

THE W
02-22-2006, 08:12 PM
he was right, but he was reckless.

if you fail to plan, you plan to fail.

LORD NOSE
02-23-2006, 02:38 AM
he did plan

but he relied on a spook god to help him



the same thing happened to jesus

Maboya
02-23-2006, 01:23 PM
he did plan

but he relied on a spook god to help him

he relied on the Great Spirit like many a warrior has done in times of battle....only the basest of men rely on their sword alone imo



the same thing happened to jesus

yeshua layed down his life for his people...he knew from the jump what his mission was

LORD NOSE
02-23-2006, 05:30 PM
he relied on the Great Spirit like many a warrior has done in times of battle....only the basest of men rely on their sword alone imo


relied on the great spirit to do what ?


what is this great spirit ?


where does it live ?





yeshua layed down his life for his people...he knew from the jump what his mission was


according to what story ?


Matthew 27:46 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=27&verse=46&version=31&context=verse)
About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"ówhich means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"


i see this scripture in the bible as jesus relying on "the great spirit" to save him from death and jesus then feeling betrayed

Maboya
02-23-2006, 05:42 PM
relied on the great spirit to do what ?

make sure when they shot their enemy/swung their blade that aim was straight and to its mark


what is this great spirit ?

air, sky, water, earth, light, dark, ancestors, the first cause, energy etc


where does it live ?

inside and outside of self




according to what story ?


Matthew 27:46 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=27&verse=46&version=31&context=verse)
About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"ówhich means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"


i see this scripture in the bible as jesus relying on "the great spirit" to save him from death and jesus then feeling betrayed

up to that point yeshua was willing to do what he had to do...and in reality one can't walk their child and hold their hand into every realm they may be required to enter into.... sometimes they just have to trust that their parent gave them the wisdom to take the next step into that next level of life....

PEACE

7EL7
02-23-2006, 05:48 PM
make sure when they shot their enemy/swung their blade that aim was straight and to its mark




air, sky, water, earth, light, dark, ancestors, the first cause, energy etc




inside and outside of self








up to that point yeshua was willing to do what he had to do...and in reality one can't walk their child and hold their hand into every realm they may be required to enter into.... sometimes they just have to trust that their parent gave them the wisdom to take the next step into that next level of life....

PEACE

but you said he realized his mission like if he was down to die for it


him crying out asking "why have you forgotten me" tells me different




.. sometimes they just have to trust that their parent gave them the wisdom to take the next step into that next level of life....

PEACE


another level of life after death ?

Maboya
02-23-2006, 07:19 PM
but you said he realized his mission like if he was down to die for it


him crying out asking "why have you forgotten me" tells me different

no doubt the mission was understood....and like when a child is left alone on their first day of kindergarten class...and the protection of the parent is no longer present...and it fears and feels forsaken....and what takes place is DEATH (in my scnerio it's symbolic)....which MUST take place in order for there to be REBIRTH



another level of life after death ?

yea...another level of existence

some would say it's going back into the 'real world'

PEACE

THE W
02-23-2006, 07:51 PM
he did plan

but he relied on a spook god to help him



the same thing happened to jesus
except that dieing on the cross was jesus's plan. so i guess jesus succeeded in his death.

7EL7
02-23-2006, 10:40 PM
except that dieing on the cross was jesus's plan. so i guess jesus succeeded in his death.
ok he died and now what ?


a thousand something years later, his people was brought to america and was slaughtered - where the hell is he ?


waiting on a planet as a ghost waiting for the right time to save us ?


fuck that

i ain't waiting to die to recieve no heaven

Aqueous Moon
02-23-2006, 11:07 PM
Seem like this went from a discussion about the physical real life example of Nat turner, to the metaphorical speculated example of Jesus.

If you keep it in the real world perspective it should be obvious that staging a rebellion when you are outnumbered outgunned and relying on your enemy for your exsistence is foolish.

Even if you look at it from a metaphorical angle...it don't make much sense. But, dieng spiritually and being brought back to spiritual life by knowledge, wisdom, and understanding happens all the time.

Just make sure you keep your metaphorical examples seperate from the real life examples right in front of you.

LORD NOSE
02-23-2006, 11:38 PM
no doubt the mission was understood....and like when a child is left alone on their first day of kindergarten class...and the protection of the parent is no longer present...and it fears and feels forsaken....and what takes place is DEATH (in my scnerio it's symbolic)....which MUST take place in order for there to be REBIRTH





yea...another level of existence

some would say it's going back into the 'real world'

PEACE


seems like you have alot to offer homie - offer it to us - let us know

Maboya
02-24-2006, 12:21 AM
Seem like this went from a discussion about the physical real life example of Nat turner, to the metaphorical speculated example of Jesus.

If you keep it in the real world perspective it should be obvious that staging a rebellion when you are outnumbered outgunned

only if the physical is ones greatest reality...of course indigenous people the world over don't 'believe' that to be true

and relying on your enemy for your exsistence is foolish.

'relying on the enemy for ones existence'? care to explain??


Even if you look at it from a metaphorical angle...it don't make much sense.

makes perect sense imo....so essentialy you are saying the life and death/sacrifice of nat turner (in body and in the collective consciousness of people of color) was foolish and made no sense?? ha

But, dieng spiritually and being brought back to spiritual life by knowledge, wisdom, and understanding happens all the time.

he felt it was a time to kill...as many warriors have felt throughout the ages..it aint always a time to rest and study


Just make sure you keep your metaphorical examples seperate from the real life examples right in front of you.

i'll rather make sure not to give a damn about the linear thinking of the calcified pineal europoid

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surat_Shabd_Yoga#Basic_principles

Aqueous Moon
02-24-2006, 12:46 AM
1)only if the physical is ones greatest reality...of course indigenous people the world over don't 'believe' that to be true



2)'relying on the enemy for ones existence'? care to explain??




3)makes perect sense imo....so essentialy you are saying the life and death/sacrifice of nat turner (in body and in the collective consciousness of people of color) was foolish and made no sense?? ha



4)he felt it was a time to kill...as many warriors have felt throughout the ages..it aint always a time to rest and study




5)i'll rather make sure not to give a damn about the linear thinking of the calcified pineal europoid

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surat_Shabd_Yoga#Basic_principles


1) It's better to know and not 'believe'.

2) Black people are not self suffecient and neither was Nat turner, the same ones he desired to rebel against were the same ones supplying his food shelter and clothing. Which is why the concsous Black person today is more concerned with gaining self suffeciency, rather then having a violent rebellion and getting mowed down by the white man.

Besides, maybe more slaves would have joined him if they didn't have to worry about how they was going to feed, shelter, and clothe their children in a strange land with out massa.

3) I am saying that it makes no sense to commit suicide through rebellion and gain nothing in return. Make sure it pays off.

4) Yes, there is a time to kill and a way to kill...gotta think strategically, not just rebel and get slaughtered....that is stupid.

5) O.K....COOL

Maboya
02-24-2006, 01:36 AM
1) It's better to know and not 'believe'.

maybe they knew..are you suggesting that what you "know" is of more value then that of the ancients?

2) Black people are not self suffecient and neither was Nat turner,

depending on another human for ones "existence" (your word) and not being able to be self sustained in a country where the industries are ran by a specific people are not similar circumstances at all....unless one looks at the physical world as the be all to everything


the same ones he desired to rebel against were the same ones supplying his food shelter and clothing.

yea, until he chose that those things would NOT determine his existence


Which is why the concsous Black person today is more concerned with gaining self suffeciency, rather then having a violent rebellion and getting mowed down by the white man.

rebellion comes in many forms


Besides, maybe more slaves would have joined him if they didn't have to worry about how they was going to feed, shelter, and clothe their children in a strange land with out massa.

doubt that..there were free men at the time..esp in the west

it just wasn't the time for that intended victory..but of note is some 30 or so years later the civil war was on and poppin



3) I am saying that it makes no sense to commit suicide through rebellion and gain nothing in return. Make sure it pays off.

only to someone who only thinks of a physical freedom did it not "pay off"

should've the enslaved blacks on ships coming from africa and captured indians from the americas going to europe REMAINED on slave ships or did they GAIN freedom by jumping overboard?


4) Yes, there is a time to kill and a way to kill...gotta think strategically, not just rebel and get slaughtered....that is stupid.

in the grand scheme of things it was more then genius....guarantee his name will come up when THAT victory is achieved (as long as the name and stories/ are passed down) and his name is immortalized more then it is now...yes i guarantee it

Aqueous Moon
02-24-2006, 01:47 AM
Wow...I can't go on repeating myself over and over take what you will or leave it...I will be alright.

Maboya
02-24-2006, 01:57 AM
Wow...I can't go on repeating myself over and over take what you will or leave it...I will be alright.

why do you feel the need to 'repeat' yourself within the progression of the thread? perhaps u have nothing more to add then nat turners actions being "stupid" and welfare and living under the enemy was/is tolerable under the circumstances

WARPATH
02-24-2006, 02:21 AM
ok he died and now what ?


a thousand something years later, his people was brought to america and was slaughtered - where the hell is he ?


waiting on a planet as a ghost waiting for the right time to save us ?


fuck that

i ain't waiting to die to recieve no heaven

instead of looking at Jesus as the son of god look at him more as a interpeter like link from this world to the next, not a god just a flesh and blood man. He suffered for his people, and from it he knew that if he suffered and shed blood for his people, his people would live on, change and think differentley- During a savage time when synagouges was jacking peoples money.

Now suppose Jesus wasn't the first interpreter, or the last one, just the most famous one. Now assume for minute that the bible is just an exaggeration of that man's life. Now re-examine the bible, and watch how jesus lived. Then you'll get the message. Jesus was a template on how you should try and live you life, humble, peaceful.

If jesus was just a man and claimed to be the son of god, that would mean we are all gods children. Maybe jesus didn't go into the dessert for what was it 40 days? Maybe he went for four days. And maybe it wasn't the devil that tempted him. Maybe it was spirits that link this world to the next, and maybe they were testing him. Perhaps during that time he learned his purpose in relation to the universe in that respect.

Jesus didn't want anyone to worship him, at least I don't think he did. His story probably just got twisted, exspecially when it got transulated into english. Throwing in demons and the Devil, to try and scare and deter people.

7EL7
02-24-2006, 02:49 AM
instead of looking at Jesus as the son of god look at him more as a interpeter like link from this world to the next, not a god just a flesh and blood man. He suffered for his people, and from it he knew that if he suffered and shed blood for his people, his people would live on, change and think differentley- During a savage time when synagouges was jacking peoples money.

Now suppose Jesus wasn't the first interpreter, or the last one, just the most famous one. Now assume for minute that the bible is just an exaggeration of that man's life. Now re-examine the bible, and watch how jesus lived. Then you'll get the message. Jesus was a template on how you should try and live you life, humble, peaceful.

If jesus was just a man and claimed to be the son of god, that would mean we are all gods children. Maybe jesus didn't go into the dessert for what was it 40 days? Maybe he went for four days. And maybe it wasn't the devil that tempted him. Maybe it was spirits that link this world to the next, and maybe they were testing him. Perhaps during that time he learned his purpose in relation to the universe in that respect.

Jesus didn't want anyone to worship him, at least I don't think he did. His story probably just got twisted, exspecially when it got transulated into english. Throwing in demons and the Devil, to try and scare and deter people.


thats exactly how i see it -

7EL7
02-24-2006, 02:50 AM
why do you feel the need to 'repeat' yourself within the progression of the thread? perhaps u have nothing more to add then nat turners actions being "stupid" and welfare and living under the enemy was/is tolerable under the circumstances


even with all the information you think you have you have alot to learn

Aqueous Moon
02-24-2006, 02:57 AM
why do you feel the need to 'repeat' yourself within the progression of the thread? perhaps u have nothing more to add then nat turners actions being "stupid" and welfare and living under the enemy was/is tolerable under the circumstances

That's the problem - you can't seem to progress. Perhaps you are stuck in an outdated foolish ideology and cannot comprehend the next level of thought being generated by myself and others.

I never mentioned 'welfare'...so your flat out wrong right there.

I never said living under the enemy is/was tolerable...flat out wrong, again.

I did say it is stupid to go off and get yourself and your people slaughtered in the name of false hope/esoteric belief/ fantasized freedom.

The Black Man is and always was worth more alive than dead...period.

Also, food/shelter/clothing...these are human necessities - meaning we cannot survive without them.

Maboya
02-24-2006, 03:04 AM
even with all the information you think you have you have alot to learn

yea...i also kno not to reply to these lil comments in the manner u hope i would

WARPATH
02-24-2006, 03:17 AM
I think you guys are drawing to much mis conceptions from each others posts, I can't hardly follow the conversation so I just posted up about Jesus. If only we could build in our orginal toungues.......................

I think if you guys tried you pretty much come to the same conclusions.........I mean I followed Maboya's points and Aqueous points.........the same shit different threads.

Maboya
02-24-2006, 03:22 AM
That's the problem - you can't seem to progress. Perhaps you are stuck in an outdated foolish ideology and cannot comprehend the next level of thought being generated by myself and others.



any progression of thought u could hope to generate would leave u completley blind



I never mentioned 'welfare'...so your flat out wrong right there.

but u did mention the need of the slaves, then and today in depending their "existence" on massa now didn't u?


I never said living under the enemy is/was tolerable...flat out wrong, again.

um..you implied it...by suggesting warfare was/is not an option


I did say it is stupid to go off and get yourself and your people slaughtered in the name of false hope/esoteric belief/ fantasized freedom.

ha..sounds similar to what anglos said of him and of men of this sort in general

but anyway..i dealt in my previous post about your assertions of 'false hope, esoteric belief/ fantasized freedom'



The Black Man is and always was worth more alive than dead...period.

and your point here in regards to my previous statements is...??

if u call this existence 'living' then what was it called when original man was living as god on earth?


Also, food/shelter/clothing...these are human necessities - meaning we cannot survive without them.

your implication was that black people couldn't even EXIST if the white man didn't give these to them....if you were to attempt to address my points instead trying to spin your original assertions into some other point i wouldn't have to repeat myself

Aqueous Moon
02-24-2006, 03:36 AM
any progression of thought u could hope to generate would leave u completley blind

That was an arrogant, ignorant, foolish thing to say.



but u did mention the need of the slaves, then and today in depending their "existence" on massa now didn't u?

No. I didn't say they need massa, i said that they need to be seperated from massa.


um..you implied it...by suggesting warfare was/is not an option

No. I said it was/is a stupid option.


ha..sounds similar to what anglos said of him and of men of this sort in general

but anyway..i dealt in my previous post about your assertions of 'false hope, esoteric belief/ fantasized freedom'

Them anglos sure were quick to end his life...



and your point here in regards to my previous statements is...??

if u call this existence 'living' then what was it called when original man was living as god on earth?

How can any man get to the point where he lives as God on Earth if he goes off and gets himself slaughtered everytime...that's what them anglos want us to do.


your implication was that black people couldn't even EXIST if the white man didn't give these to them....if you were to attempt to address my points instead trying to spin your original assertions into some other point i wouldn't have to repeat myself

You are wrong...I did not imply that black people could not exist without the whiteman's help...I implied that we should actually make it happen, and become self - suffeceint.

Stop telling me what I "implied" or "asserted" and ask for clarification if you need it. Obviously, you do because I continue to repeat myself for you.

WARPATH
02-24-2006, 03:42 AM
I think you guys are drawing to much mis conceptions from each others posts, I can't hardly follow the conversation so I just posted up about Jesus. If only we could build in our orginal toungues.......................

I think if you guys tried you pretty much come to the same conclusions.........I mean I followed Maboya's points and Aqueous points.........the same shit different threads.

do I really need to quote myself? These late nights are killing me....................peace

Maboya
02-24-2006, 04:22 AM
hat was an arrogant, ignorant, foolish thing to say.


perhaps it was a reflection of your own comments:

That's the problem - you can't seem to progress. Perhaps you are stuck in an outdated foolish ideology and cannot comprehend the next level of thought being generated by myself and others. -- YOU

No. I didn't say they need massa, i said that they need to be seperated from massa.

when you are outnumbered outgunned and relying on your enemy for your exsistence is foolish. -- YOU

Black people are not self suffecient and neither was Nat turner, the same ones he desired to rebel against were the same ones supplying his food shelter and clothing. -- YOU


No. I said it was/is a stupid option.

"stupid"? so in essence you're saying this option could never have an intelligent plan formulated towards a positive result?...


Them anglos sure were quick to end his life...

yea and then quick to talk crap and write up theories on how the negro and injun are superstious people

How can any man get to the point where he lives as God on Earth if he goes off and gets himself slaughtered everytime...that's what them anglos want us to do.

maybe u can understand..thems was a different tymes

the indian fighters and black slave revolts was about liberating something more then just the body


you are wrong...I did not imply that black people could not exist without the whiteman's help...



excuse me, u certainly did ASSERT this of today and of nat turners times....

Black people are not self suffecient and neither was Nat turner -- YOU

when you are outnumbered outgunned and relying on your enemy for your exsistence is foolish. -- YOU



I implied that we should actually make it happen, and become self - suffeceint.

some did "make it happen" like NAT TURNER being "self suffiecient" enuff to pick up burners, pitchforks, knives, watever and bring it to that enemy....and those who were pioneers in the west at the time also made it happen

and some are still making moves...but apparently some see nothng to gain if the cost of freedom comes with blood

"Everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die"

THE W
02-24-2006, 11:03 AM
ok he died and now what ?


a thousand something years later, his people was brought to america and was slaughtered - where the hell is he ?


waiting on a planet as a ghost waiting for the right time to save us ?


fuck that

i ain't waiting to die to recieve no heaven
dont know where you're going with this but anyway,

what nat turner wanted to do was right, how he went about doing it was foolish.

Aqueous Moon
02-24-2006, 11:21 AM
perhaps it was a reflection of your own comments:

Perhaps what I said was the truth, and you are just too cocky to admit it.



"stupid"? so in essence you're saying this option could never have an intelligent plan formulated to it towards a positive result?...i think i better understand your suggestion of neva raising arms and being rather - "self sufficient"- in america under massas reign now

I didn't say never raise arms...I said think strategically. Becoming self sufficient is a better form of rebellion than doing it the violent way and letting the white man slaughter your women and children because you want to "liberate more than just the body". (repeat)


yea and then quick to talk crap and write up theories on how the negro and injun are superstious people

If superstition leads to foolishness than maybe they have a point there.
(repeat)
maybe u can understand..thems was a different tymes

the indian fighters and black slave revolts was about liberating something more then just the body
So what do you liberate when you are dead? nothing. (repeat)
I didn't say they were wrong to rebel. I said it was foolish to do it in that manner. (repeat)



excuse me, u certainly did ASSERT this of today and of nat turners times....

I did not assert anything. I said Black people are not self - suffecient not that they can't be. They should be . (repeat)

Balck people in America do rely on the white man (the system) for their food/shelter/clothing. (repeat)



some did "make it happen" like NAT TURNER being "self suffiecient" enuff to pick up burners, pitchforks, knives, watever and bring it to that enemy....and those who were pioneers in the west at the time also made it happen

some are still making moves...but apparently some see nothng to gain if freedoms cost comes in blood


Picking up small melee weapons and attacking the white man got him slaughtered. (repeat)

If you are gonna quote my comments, then quote the whole thing don't just pick out part of a sentence and come to the wrong conclusion.

Being self sufficeint is not making it happen by getting yourself slaughtered. Self sufficient means relying on self for needs. (repeat)

If being slaughtered is your idea of heaven then by all means - go ahead.
"Everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die"

Black people are dying everyday. Everyday black people die because they are surrounded by their enemy. How about getting some land and becoming self suffecient to put a stop to the slaughter that goes on everyday. We already at war. (half repeat/half new)

Aqueous Moon
02-24-2006, 11:39 AM
what nat turner wanted to do was right, how he went about doing it was foolish.



Exactly...That's what I have been saying since the beginning of this thread.

Maboya
02-24-2006, 12:37 PM
Perhaps what I said was the truth,

what truth?

and you are just too cocky to admit it.

so when i spit the same words BACK at you i'm "arrogant, ignorant, foolish" but when YOU say it it's the "truth"..and this is not being "cocky" on your part??

I didn't say never raise arms...I said think strategically. Becoming self sufficient is a better form of rebellion than doing it the violent way

there was no option other then the one nat turner took in those days...your demeaning of his response to oppression is disgusting


and letting the white man slaughter your women and children because you want to "liberate more than just the body".

what they did was to liberate more then just the body yea...AT THAT TIME...that doesn't apply today (in present conditions)..you're obviously intentionally taking my statements out of context

If superstition leads to foolishness than maybe they have a point there.

so u do AGREE with the enemy on that point? this is noted

and dying for liberation is not "foolishness"

o what do you liberate when you are dead? nothing

ha..u obviously have adopted a euro perspective on native warrior asthetics and black liberation theology

I didn't say they were wrong to rebel. I said it was foolish to do it in that manner. (repeat)

should they have rather marched in front of massas mansion with picket signs chanting 'we shall overcome'??

I did not assert anything. I said Black people are not self - suffecient not that they can't be. They should be .

people can always read what u wrote for themselves

Balck people in America do rely on the white man (the system) for their food/shelter/clothing.

that's different then their "existence"... but i don't expect someone who hasn't a concept of the ancients fundamental concept of a reality beyond the physical to understand that

Picking up small melee weapons and attacking the white man got him slaughtered.

he wasn't "slaughtered" he was HANGED get your black slave revolt history up

it's also noted how u'r echoing precisely what some of the house negros was likely saying back then.....

Being self sufficeint is not making it happen by getting yourself slaughtered. Self sufficient means relying on self for needs

how were they going to be self sufficient when YOU asserted that they owed their very EXSISTENCE to the 'massa'??

and stop confusing what went down during nat turners time and what could possibly go down in this day

f being slaughtered is your idea of heaven then by all means - go ahead.

na...heaven is a haven ie libeartion

and yes by any means it should be achieved...u would probably say MALCOLM X's "BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY" was 'foolish' talk as well, yes???


Black people are dying everyday. Everyday black people die because they are surrounded by their enemy.

yea, and not only are u confusing the times again...you're calling one of the greatest revolutionaries "foolish" because he DECIDED TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT

go figure..

oh, but i forgot dying is not an option for liberation, right??



How about getting some land and becoming self suffecient to put a stop to the slaughter that goes on everyday.

should nat turner gabriel prosser and them saints 'gotten them some land' instead of becoming eternal examples of SACRIFICE for GLOBAL BLACK LIBERATION????

"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. "


We already at war. (half repeat/half new)

is this a abstract concept u speak of -or- is there a physical sword to back up this state of mind (crown)???

Aqueous Moon
02-24-2006, 01:06 PM
what truth?

The truth you refuse to comprehend.

so when i spit the same words BACK at you i'm "arrogant, ignorant, foolish" but when YOU say it it's the "truth"..and this is not being "cocky" on your part??

No.

there was no option other then the one nat turner took in those days...your demeaning of his response to oppression is disgusting

I'm not demeaning his response to oppression...I am learning from it - what not to do.


what they did was to liberate more then just the body yea...AT THAT TIME...that doesn't apply today (in present conditions)..you're obviously intentionally taking my statements out of context

What did they liberate at that time? Nothing.

so u do AGREE with the enemy on that point? this is noted

and dying for liberation is not "foolishness"

Dying because of false hope/esoteric belief/fantasized freedom is foolish.

ha..u obviously have adopted a euro perspective on native warrior asthetics and black liberation theology

Wrong.

should they have rather marched in front of massas mansion with picket signs chanting 'we shall overcome'??

No.

people can always read what u wrote for themselves

Yes they can.

that's different then their "existence"... but i don't expect someone who hasn't a concept of the ancients fundamental concept of a reality beyond the physical to understand that

You won't exsist long without food/shelter/clothing.

he wasn't "slaughtered" he was HANGED get your black slave revolt history up

He was slaughtered along with his people. Some advice: read for comprehension not dissention.

it's also noted how u'r echoing precisely what some of the house negros was likely saying back then.....

We don't know what the house negros said do we?


how were they going to be self sufficient when YOU asserted that they owed their very EXSISTENCE to the 'massa'??

Didn't say they owed massa anything. I said the way they went about rebellion was foolish.
and stop confusing what went down during nat turners time and what could possibly go down in this day

Nat turner got slaughtered and we would get slaughtered if we was to do what he did.


na...heaven is a haven ie libeartion

and yes by any means it should be achieved...u would probably say MALCOLM X's "BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY" was 'foolish' talk as well, yes???

Malcom X was a seperatist. Not a go get your self slaughteredist...LOL


yea, and not only are u confusing the times again...you're calling one of the greatest revolutionaries "foolish" because he DECIDED TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT

I said the way he went about it was foolish.
go figure..

oh, but i forgot dying is not an option for liberation, right??

yeah, a foolish option.



should nat turner gabriel prosser and them saints 'gotten them some land' instead of becoming eternal examples of SACRIFICE for GLOBAL BLACK LIBERATION????

We would have been better off today if they would have.

"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. "

Yeah, that's what them anglos want you to do.


is this a abstract concept u speak of -or- is there a physical sword to back up this state of mind (crown)???

If you can't tell that we are at war within America...then you are the blind one.

7EL7
02-24-2006, 02:21 PM
what truth?



so when i spit the same words BACK at you i'm "arrogant, ignorant, foolish" but when YOU say it it's the "truth"..and this is not being "cocky" on your part??



there was no option other then the one nat turner took in those days...your demeaning of his response to oppression is disgusting




what they did was to liberate more then just the body yea...AT THAT TIME...that doesn't apply today (in present conditions)..you're obviously intentionally taking my statements out of context



so u do AGREE with the enemy on that point? this is noted

and dying for liberation is not "foolishness"



ha..u obviously have adopted a euro perspective on native warrior asthetics and black liberation theology



should they have rather marched in front of massas mansion with picket signs chanting 'we shall overcome'??



people can always read what u wrote for themselves



that's different then their "existence"... but i don't expect someone who hasn't a concept of the ancients fundamental concept of a reality beyond the physical to understand that



he wasn't "slaughtered" he was HANGED get your black slave revolt history up

it's also noted how u'r echoing precisely what some of the house negros was likely saying back then.....



how were they going to be self sufficient when YOU asserted that they owed their very EXSISTENCE to the 'massa'??

and stop confusing what went down during nat turners time and what could possibly go down in this day



na...heaven is a haven ie libeartion

and yes by any means it should be achieved...u would probably say MALCOLM X's "BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY" was 'foolish' talk as well, yes???




yea, and not only are u confusing the times again...you're calling one of the greatest revolutionaries "foolish" because he DECIDED TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT

go figure..

oh, but i forgot dying is not an option for liberation, right??





should nat turner gabriel prosser and them saints 'gotten them some land' instead of becoming eternal examples of SACRIFICE for GLOBAL BLACK LIBERATION????

"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. "




is this a abstract concept u speak of -or- is there a physical sword to back up this state of mind (crown)???



LMMAO !

Maboya
02-24-2006, 03:39 PM
I'm not demeaning his response to oppression...I am learning from it - what not to do.

is that what u got from it? i thought the obvious lesson was how to rather improve on it....

and you WERE saying he should've NEVER did what he did...this shows a myopic perspective on black history and the EXAMPLES left behind of armed STRUGGLE under oppression

What did they liberate at that time? nothing.

see above

Dying because of false hope/esoteric belief/fantasized freedom is foolish.

contrary to your assertion here- those events gave even GREATER HOPE, a foundation of ESOTERIC
doctrine (in the same manner that birthed YOUR NGE) and a greater zeal for freedom

Wrong

let's go back to your statement

what do you liberate when you are dead? nothing -- YOU

what did the life and death of MLK mean to Blacks and people of color in america if in death their is no liberation?...please share with us your profound wisdom

You won't exsist long without food/shelter/clothing.

MAROONS didn't need their enemy for none of that, did they?...but beside that, obvioulsy many chose to die rather then depend their "existence" on their enemy as you continually assert

He was slaughtered along with his people. Some advice: read for comprehension not dissention.

slaughtered would imply they died in a one sided battle..they were captured and hanged

We don't know what the house negros said do we?

but we sure do know the mentality

Malcom X was a seperatist. Not a go get your self slaughteredist...lol


you didn't answer the question...what does BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY imply?

I said the way he went about it waas foolish.

maybe only to the women that loved those men and coons today

men have to go to war at times ...nothing to hard to understand about that

yeah, a foolish option.

see above

should nat turner gabriel prosser and them saints 'gotten them some land' instead of becoming eternal examples of SACRIFICE for GLOBAL BLACK LIBERATION????-- Maboya

We would have been better off today if they would have. -- YOU


well there u have it folks

:no:

"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. "

Yeah, that's what them anglos want you to do.

anglos want people of color to become freedom fighters and die if needs be for justice by any means nesscesary?? is that right?

This is why I say itís the ballot or the bullet. Itís liberty or itís death. Itís freedom for everybody or freedom for nobody. America today finds herself in a unique situation. Historically, revolutions are bloody. Oh, yes, they are. They havenít never had a blood-less revolution, or a non-violent revolution. That donít happen even in Hollywood. You donít have a revolution in which you love your enemy, and you donít have a revolution in which you are begging the system of exploitation to integrate you into it. Revolutions overturn systems. Revolutions destroy systems.

A revolution is bloody, but America is in a unique position. Sheís the only country in history in a position actually to become involved in a blood-less revolution. The Russian revolution was bloody, Chinese revolution was bloody, French revolution was bloody, Cuban revolution was bloody, and there was nothing more bloody then the American Revolution. But today this country can become involved in a revolution that wonít take bloodshed. All sheís got to do is give the black man in this country everything thatís due him, everything.

I hope that the white man can see this, 'cause if he donít see it youíre finished. If you donít see it youíre going to be coming -- youíre going to become involved in some action in which you donít have a chance. And we donít care anything about your atomic bomb; it's -- itís useless because other countries have atomic bombs. When two or three different countries have atomic bombs, nobody can use them, so it means that the white man today is without a weapon. If youíre gonna --* If you want some action, you gotta come on down to Earth. And there's more black people on Earth than there are white people on Earth.

I only got a couple more minutes. The white man can never win another war on the ground. His days of war, victory, his reign -- his days of ground victory are over. Can I prove it? Yes. Take all the action thatís going on this earth right now that heís involved in -- tell me where heís winning. Nowhere.

Why some rice farmers -- some rice farmers -- some rice eaters ran him out of Korea. Yes, they ran him out of Korea. Rice eaters with nothing but gym shoes, and a rifle, and a bowl of rice took him and his tanks and his napalm, and all that other action heís supposed to have and ran him across the Yalu. Why? 'Cause the day that he can win on the ground has passed.

Up in French Indo-China those little peasants, rice growers took on the might of the French army and ran all the Frenchmen -- you remember Dien Bien Phu. No.

The same thing happened in Algeria, in Africa -- they didnít have anything but a rifle. The French had all these highly mechanized instruments of warfare, but they put some guerilla action on, and a -- and a -- and a white man canít fight a guerilla warfare. Guerilla action takes heart, takes nerve, and he doesnít have that. Heís brave when heís got tanks. Heís brave when heís got planes. Heís brave when heís got bombs. Heís brave when heís got a whole lot of company along with him, but you take that little man from Africa and Asia, turn him loose in the woods with a blade, with a blade -- thatís all he needs, all he needs is a blade Ė and when the sun comes down -- goes down, goes down and itís dark, itís even-steven.

but nobody was asking u to fight ...anyway...i'm sure the SPIRITS of these women are around somewhere

The Gbeto warriors were a terrifying group of female soldiers from the Dahomey Kingdom during the 1700s and 1800s. The Gbeto served as the king's official bodyguards and were known for their ruthlessness --

The West African kingdom of Dahomey (in modern Benin) maintained a well-trained army of women in service of the king up through the late 19th century. This all-female army participated in real battles and was reported to be vastly superior to male soldiers in their fighting skills. Some of these women soldiers continued to sabotage the French even after Dahomey's official defeat by France at the end of the 19th century.



If you can't tell that we are at war within America...then you are the blind one.

i know....but your 'weapons' of 'property' and 'self suffciency' are meaningless in a "war" without the means and WILLINGNESS to bear and use arms against aggressors

PEACE

7EL7
02-24-2006, 03:50 PM
YOU SHURE DO KNOW HOW TO MESS UP A GOOD THREAD WITH NON-PROGRESSIVE BULLSHIT


http://njsr.org/pics/albums/userpics/10534/whao.jpg

Maboya
02-24-2006, 04:00 PM
YOU SHURE DO KNOW HOW TO MESS UP A GOOD THREAD WITH NON-PROGRESSIVE BULLSHIT

that's your opinion....was it on topic, or not?

what have u added to the thread? if u aint read it how u know it aint progressive....?

simple yes or no answers is more of your thread prefrence i guess?

and everything i stated is backed up by history... knowledge...and the spirit of ancestors

always a bird in the crowd hating

PEACE

Aqueous Moon
02-24-2006, 04:08 PM
is that what u got from it? i thought the obvious lesson was how to rather improve on it....

and you WERE saying he should've NEVER did what he did...this shows a myopic perspective on black history and the EXAMPLES left behind of armed STRUGGLE under oppression

I said the way he went about it was foolish...I would have thought strategically.

see above

?

contrary to your assertion here- those events gave even GREATER HOPE, a foundation of ESOTERIC
doctrine (in the same manner that birthed YOUR NGE) and a greater zeal for freedom

If you mean that it taught us what not to do and how to think strategically instead of foolishly, then I agree...otherwise I don't agree.

let's go back to your statement
?


what did the life and death of MLK mean to Blacks and people of color in america if in death their is no liberation?...please share with us your profound wisdom

To me the life of MLK was dedicated to becoming one with the enemy, his death meant to me that his enemies desire to slaughter him and his people not join with them. And, I don't see liberation from his death.

MAROONS didn't need their enemy for none of that, did they?...but beside that, obvioulsy many chose to die rather then depend their "existence" on their enemy as you continually assert

Then die...You not hurting the enemy by dieing...you are helping him out.

slaughtered would imply they died in a one sided battle..they were captured and hanged

o.k....They got mowed down, they lost miserably...better?

but we sure do know the mentality
How so?



you didn't answer the question...what does BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY imply?

It means don't go get yourself slaughtered because then you won't have any means to do anything necessary...like seperate from the enemy


maybe only to the women that loved those men and coons today

men have to go to war at times ...nothing to hard to understand about that

Yeah, go to war just be smart about it...

see above



well there u have it folks Have what?





anglos want people of color to become freedom fighters and die if needs be for justice by any means nesscesary?? is that right?

The problem is that this supposed "justice" never comes to fruition because the freedom fighters get mowed down and slaughtered before it can. Which is the anglos plan.

but nobody was asking u to fight ...anyway...i'm sure the SPIRITS of these women are around somewhere

When the time comes for physical violence and bloody revolution...then it is obvious to protect yourself and kill the enemy...but, why go looking to get your women and chidren slaughtered, when they are already being slaughtered on the daily, in many different ways.


i know....but your 'weapons' of 'property' and 'self suffciency' are meaningless in a "war" without the means and WILLINGNESS to bear and use arms against aggressors

PEACE

Self suffeicency is not a weapon to use in war it is a logical necessity to have if you are going to declare a violent rebellion.

Bear and use arms against the aggressors...I'm all for it, just think startegically when you are outnumbered and outgunned. I'm sure those female warriors would see the intelligence in that.

Maboya
02-24-2006, 05:09 PM
I said the way he went about it was foolish...I would have thought strategically.

your perspective is myopic...what happened- happened in the manner in which it did for a reason

If you mean that it taught us what not to do and how to think strategically instead of foolishly, then I agree...otherwise I don't agree.

i could care less what u don't agree with..the FACT is many if not all black revolutionaries afterward see him as a founding father and share that same zeal and greater hope for freedom today.....his esotericisms were also a foundation

To me the life of MLK was dedicated to becoming one with the enemy,

u don't know what you're talking about..the fact is he wanted greater liberations for his people and even at the end was going to get more into americas corruption (vietnam, etc)

lol@ 'his life was dedicated to becoming one with the enemy'...that's exactly what the enemy and agents claim..he was human and said stupid shit like everybody else

he in fact slipped up in a speech the night b4 he was assassinated and almost let the 'cat out the bag'


his death meant to me that his enemies desire to slaughter him and his people not join with them.

regardless of what his enemies felt of him and his cause....the devil gives u nothing....and his actions led to a greater opening (though the sacrifice was being "self sufficient" under segregation) that was part of the process of the greater freedom to be achieved in the future (now)


And, I don't see liberation from his death.

even the most hardcore black nationalist and seperatist would tell u greater freedoms were also achieved through his actions...the devil gives u NOTHING

then die...You not hurting the enemy by dieing...you are helping him out.

are we living in 1830?

o.k....They got mowed down, they lost miserably...better?

shit... it was probably your ancestor who pointed them brothas out....thinking they gonna fuck it up for everybody....probably said the same shit too "then die"....that sellout coon shit must b imbedded into peoples descendents

how low can u go?

How so?

see above

It means don't go get yourself slaughtered because then you won't have any means to do anything necessary...like seperate from the enemy


WHAT? the fuck u just say??

by any means doesn't have ANY restrictions in achieving liberation and justice..stop bullshitting

i like how u just skipped over malcolms speech too

Yeah, go to war just be smart about it...

they were smart...took about 55 of them devils out...according to your lessons that should have em in the vip section of the holy city of mecca

Have what?

don't worry..it's for those with eyes to cee

The problem is that this supposed "justice" never comes to fruition because the freedom fighters get mowed down and slaughtered before it can. Which is the anglos plan.


JUSTICE is UNIVERSAL and not dictated by any political or social sphere of men

When the time comes for physical violence and bloody revolution...then it is obvious to protect yourself and kill the enemy...but, why go looking to get your women and chidren slaughtered, when they are already being slaughtered on the daily, in many different ways

no one is "looking" for any such thing...awareness of the enemy that u assert is around us is what matters in the present


Self suffeicency is not a weapon to use in war it is a logical necessity

nat turner didn't have or want that option...it's better to die one death then a thouand

self sufficiency TODAY of course is essential...back then they decided to take heads out...and if it ever got that bad AGAIN to quote malcolm and a american patriot "give me liberty or give me death"

that is the FIRST principle of life..freedom

not owning property and being so-called self suffiecient while the enemy is trapping u in like a rat setting traps for u in every conrner...that's DEATH...and all the slave revolts were JUSTICE


to have if you are going to declare a violent rebellion.

no one is declaring anything of the sort...be assured that "violent rebellions" are usually forced by an aggressor

Maboya
02-24-2006, 05:30 PM
sam7???


LMAO ...nah that's the god rite there tho

Aqueous Moon
02-24-2006, 05:56 PM
your perspective is myopic...what happened- happened in the manner in which it did for a reason

If you feel that I'm myopic because I don't buy into the "liberating something more than freedom" bullshit you shoveling than so be it.

i could care less what u don't agree with..the FACT is many if not all black revolutionaries afterward see him as a founding father and share that same zeal and greater hope for freedom today.....his esotericisms were also a foundation

Obviously you do care, becuase you continue to question my understanding.

Spook God esotericisms are outdated...

u don't know what you're talking about..the fact is he wanted greater liberations for his people and even at the end was going to get more into americas corruption (vietnam, etc)

If you say so, but that didn't happen cause he got mowed down, first.

lol@ 'his life was dedicated to becoming one with the enemy'...that's exactly what the enemy and agents claim..he was human and said stupid shit like everybody else

he in fact slipped up in a speech the night b4 he was assassinated and almost let the 'cat out the bag'

Well, maybe if the ancestors before him had come to the realization that seperatism and the striving for it would benefit us more than violent rebellion he coulda 'let the cat outta the bag' a lot sooner...In fact we probally would have been a lot better off and MLK wouldn't of had to say stupid shit in front of America, his people, and the world....then ultimately get gunned down.

regardless of what his enemies felt of him and his cause....the devil gives u nothing....and his actions led to a greater opening (though the sacrifice was being "self sufficient" under segregation) that was part of the process of the greater freedom to be achieved in the future (now)

Yeah, the devil gives you nothing...and being assisnated gives you nothing.


even the most hardcore black nationalist and seperatist would tell u greater freedoms were also achieved through his actions...the devil gives u NOTHING

Are you talking about intergration as a greater freedom?...that's foolish if you are.

are we living in 1830?

No.

shit... it was probably your ancestor who pointed them brothas out....thinking they gonna fuck it up for everybody....probably said the same shit too "then die"....that sellout coon shit must b imbedded into peoples descendents

how low can u go?

I don't go low enough to lie about what another said when it is clearly written in plain view. Your ancestors could have been the ones who infiltrated concsious Black organizations and delivered them up into the hands of the enemy. Claiming to be warriors when in fact they were ignorant fools.

see above



WHAT? the fuck u just say??

by any means doesn't have ANY restrictions in achieving liberation and justice..stop bullshitting

i like how u just skipped over malcolms speech too

It's logic. You can't do anything if you are slaughtered to death.

they were smart...took about 55 of them devils out...according to your lessons that should have em in the vip section of the holy city of mecca

Wrong..My lessons say no such thing. Elijah Muhammad and (Master Fard) was a non violent revolutionary and seperatist...he was smarter than that.

don't worry..it's for those with eyes to cee

Well I guess that counts you out.



JUSTICE is UNIVERSAL and not dictated by any political or social sphere of men

Exactly

no one is "looking" for any such thing...awareness of the enemy that u assert is around us is what matters in the present

So, stop being hung up on the past and learn from it.


nat turner didn't have or want that option...it's better to die one death then a thouand

self sufficiency TODAY of course is essential...back then they decided to take heads out...and if it ever got that bad AGAIN to quote malcolm and a american patriot "give me liberty or give me death"

I didn't see Malcolm pick up small melee weapons and attack the white man.

that is the FIRST principle of life..freedom

The first principal of life is self perservation...otherwise there is no life.
not owning property and being so-called self suffiecient while the enemy is trapping u in like a rat setting traps for u in every conrner...that's DEATH...and all the slave revolts were JUSTICE

Naw...whitey got way more punishment coming to him than a slave revolt...that is just not suffecient.


no one is declaring anything of the sort...be assured that "violent rebellions" are usually forced by an aggressor

Well, I would suggest getting prepared in the mean time...maybe develop a stategy.

LORD NOSE
02-24-2006, 05:58 PM
Kephrem !

Aqueous Moon
02-24-2006, 06:05 PM
Haha...that's exactly what I was thinking

Maboya
02-24-2006, 07:17 PM
If you feel that I'm myopic because I don't buy into the "liberating something more than freedom" bullshit you shoveling than so be it.

i didn't mention "liberating something more than freedom" there...your perspective is myopic because you can't see those events in the broader sense of things...who it inspired after it..and things of that nature

Obviously you do care, becuase you continue to question my understanding.

but you DO concede that "many if not all black revolutionaries afterward see him as a founding father and share that same zeal and greater hope for freedom today", then?

Spook God esotericisms are outdated...


what is outdated is your understanding of what a "spook god" is

but regardless of you and your old athiest europid assertions -- there's native people the world over who in no way shape or form are connected to the three major religions who commune with a higher power(s) with a full understanding of what that means

If you say so, but that didn't happen cause he got mowed down, first.

Nat Turner was a foolish freedom fighter, MLK was conspiring with the enemy...so what other information are you privy to of black leaders that shaped our world?

Well, maybe if the ancestors before him had come to the realization that seperatism and the striving for it would benefit us more than violent rebellion

Are you implying now that ALL of the slave revolts were foolish?

I asked you a question before..those natives and slaves that revolted on the ships..were they also "foolish" in their actions??


he coulda 'let the cat outta the bag' a lot sooner...

There were some blacks who seperated..they were called Pioneers in the West.

But tell me what MLK was saying in the speech before he got killed, if you know.


In fact we probally would have been a lot better off and MLK wouldn't of had to say stupid shit in front of America, his people, and the world....then ultimately get gunned down.

You talking wreckless now. Only a handful were able to seperate during those times, did you expect the whole black popultion of the South to move to the West? The only way they could've made that happen is if they united in ARMED REVOLT with BLOODSHED and SLAUGHTER, which YOU asserted was a "foolish" option.

Whatever stupid shit MLK said of little black boys and white girls holding hands, ultimately the objective of being at the neck of the enemy has come to fruition.

Yeah, the devil gives you nothing...and being assisnated gives you nothing.

Is selfishness a virtue to you?

Are you talking about intergration as a greater freedom?...that's foolish if you are.

Let me rephrase a previous comment to make it clearer for you:

"his actions led to GREATER OPENING (though, the sacrifice for that was the "self sufficiency" that blacks had under segregation"

are we living in 1830?

No. -- YOU

So why are you bringing up that leading armed revolts against the government will get one killed, and that I should "go die" if that's what I want -- as if even the crackhead on the block didn't know that??

What happened in the slave revolts and what can happen possibly break out to stop oppressive measures by authorities today are not similar at all, stop confusing the two issues and stick to your assertion that those slave revolts were "foolish" and didn't benefit anybody. (even though they essentially lit a fire under the anti-slavery movement of white folk and 30 years later there's this thing that was called the CIVIL WAR...but you knew that, right?)


I don't go low enough to lie about what another said when it is clearly written in plain view. Your ancestors could have been the ones who infiltrated concsious Black organizations and delivered them up into the hands of the enemy. Claiming to be warriors when in fact they were ignorant fools.

My ancestors didn't have time to think of such things they went to war and died. Leaving some of us to tell the enemy of the JUSTICE they will be recieving.

But you however have no problem saying that if you were living back there that you would say and feel the slave revolts to be foolish, right?

It's logic. You can't do anything if you are slaughtered to death.

That was never "logic". As long as one people rule over another people their will be resistance. Who else is reading this garbage?

If you wern't caught up in the physical so much as per your 'spook godisms' you'd knowledge that a world ruled by your enemy is not a world that is fit to live in.

Wrong..My lessons say no such thing. Elijah Muhammad and (Master Fard) was a non violent revolutionary and seperatist...he was smarter than that

Hmmm. Though you'll probably try to pass it off as being "symbolic" it can't be easily looked over that the "lesson" in question is similar in theology to that of the Hashashin.


10.*** Why did Muhammad and any Muslim murder the devil?* What is the Duty of each Muslim in regards to four devils?* What Reward does a Muslim receive by presenting the four devils at one time?

Answer:*Because he is One Hundred Percent wicked
and will not keep and obey the Laws of Islam.

His ways and actions are like a snake of the grafted type.

So Muhammad learned that he could not reform the devils, so they had to be murdered.

All Muslims will murder the devil they know he is a
snake and, also, if he be allowed to live, he would
sting someone else.

Each Muslim is required to bring four devils.

And by bringing and presenting four at one time, his Reward is a button to wear on the lapel of his coat.

Also, a free transportation in the Holy City Mecca) to see Brother Muhammad.

So, stop being hung up on the past and learn from it.

I've learned plently. Still a whole lot to learn. But it NEVER came to me as being "FOOLISH" as it did apparently to YOU.

I didn't see Malcolm pick up small melee weapons and attack the white man.

By his own words was he willing to fight with "small melee weapons"...yes or no???...

The first principal of life is self perservation...otherwise there is no life.

Sounds like caveman psychology. Original people born in the Americas and Africa were a free people not fearing the natural enviroment, elements, or stuck in any 'survival mode'.

Naw...whitey got way more punishment coming to him than a slave revolt...that is just not suffecient.

Some "whiteys" will probably be recieving the justice owed them when the time comes... and "punishment" will sting the back of a variety of hues....

Well, I would suggest getting prepared in the mean time...maybe develop a stategy.

How about NO strategy, and I let the spirit and my knowledge guide me to what I have to do??...

I can't imagine going into ANY war thinking man is basically made of flesh and bones and all we are basically doing is moving on instinct...with no higher power....that's some caveman shit, a beast type attitude....

and another thing......



http://comp.uark.edu/~tsweden/allah.gif

Clarence13X, Father Allah...MARTYR for the cause of FREEDOM, JUSTICE, and EQUALITY? No??

LORD NOSE
02-24-2006, 08:06 PM
Haha...that's exactly what I was thinking


I can tell by how he tried to bait you into an argument with him so that he can show off his knowledge and turn the initial topic into a million more

how vain lol

Aqueous Moon
02-24-2006, 08:21 PM
i didn't mention "liberating something more than freedom" there...your perspective is myopic because you can't see those events in the broader sense of things...who it inspired after it..and things of that nature

I didn't say I didn't see inspiration...I said it was foolish to stage a violent rebellion to free his people.

but you DO concede that "many if not all black revolutionaries afterward see him as a founding father and share that same zeal and greater hope for freedom today", then?

Maybe, but, I do have reverance and admiration for him myself...don't mean I'm go follow his example and get myself slaughtered.

what is outdated is your understanding of what a "spook god" is

but regardless of you and your old athiest europid assertions -- there's native people the world over who in no way shape or form are connected to the three major religions who commune with a higher power(s) with a full understanding of what that means

Well, you have not gone into much detail...only to say that he was "liberating something more than freedom"

Nat Turner was a foolish freedom fighter, MLK was conspiring with the enemy...so what other information are you privy to of black leaders that shaped our world?

Again...that is not what I said. I said staging a violent rebellion and believing that it would free your people was foolish.

I said that he wanted to be one with the enemy in peace...nothing about conspiring.

Are you implying now that ALL of the slave revolts were foolish?

What's foolish is revolting and thinking that you are gonna free your people. Revolt for the pure revenge of it, revolt cause you pissed at the situation but, don't revolt with out understanding that Knowledge Wisdom and Understanding is what it will take to free your people...not spook god fantasies.

I asked you a question before..those natives and slaves that revolted on the ships..were they also "foolish" in their actions??

Did they think they were going to free their people cause (spook) "god" told them so?


There were some blacks who seperated..they were called Pioneers in the West.

O.K.

But tell me what MLK was saying in the speech before he got killed, if you know.

What is your point?


You talking wreckless now. Only a handful were able to seperate during those times, did you expect the whole black popultion of the South to move to the West? The only way they could've made that happen is if they united in ARMED REVOLT with BLOODSHED and SLAUGHTER, which YOU asserted was a "foolish" option.

Exactly. So, what are we arguing??? They could not have won, they were out numbered and out gunned.

But, I guess they got some frustrations out...and gave me a lesson to learn from.

Whatever stupid shit MLK said of little black boys and white girls holding hands, ultimately the objective of being at the neck of the enemy has come to fruition.

O.K.

Is selfishness a virtue to you?

No.

Let me rephrase a previous comment to make it clearer for you:

"his actions led to GREATER OPENING (though, the sacrifice for that was the "self sufficiency" that blacks had under segregation"

I wouldn't call segrated blacks still on American soil "self suffecient". We gotta get our own nation...ya know, soveirgn.

So why are you bringing up that leading armed revolts against the government will get one killed, and that I should "go die" if that's what I want -- as if even the crackhead on the block didn't know that??

Because you keep saying that violent slave revolts were a good tactic.

What happened in the slave revolts and what can happen possibly break out to stop oppressive measures by authorities today are not similar at all, stop confusing the two issues and stick to your assertion that those slave revolts were "foolish" and didn't benefit anybody. (even though they essentially lit a fire under the anti-slavery movement of white folk and 30 years later there's this thing that was called the CIVIL WAR...but you knew that, right?)

My point is that it is foolish to not think strategically when you desire to free your people.

Are you saying that Nat Turner thought in his mind that he was lighting a fire for the civil war?

The original post said that "god" told him he was going to free his people.

My point again, is that god uses knowledge, wisdom, understanding to free his people.

Violent rebellion in the name of freedom...should be more strategical in nature.


My ancestors didn't have time to think of such things they went to war and died. Leaving some of us to tell the enemy of the JUSTICE they will be recieving.

But you however have no problem saying that if you were living back there that you would say and feel the slave revolts to be foolish, right?

If you think you are going to be free after your people jump in and ya'll go pitchfork the slavemaster to death, yeah...that would be foolish.

That was never "logic". As long as one people rule over another people their will be resistance. Who else is reading this garbage?

Logic is not garbage you just don't under or overstand.

If you wern't caught up in the physical so much as per your 'spook godisms' you'd knowledge that a world ruled by your enemy is not a world that is fit to live in.

How are you going to change your situation if you are not alive to make it happen?

Hmmm. Though you'll probably try to pass it off as being "symbolic" it can't be easily looked over that the "lesson" in question is similar in theology to that of the Hashashin.

I'm not talking about the Hashashin...and I "never take any thing on face value" - Father Allah



I've learned plently. Still a whole lot to learn. But it NEVER came to me as being "FOOLISH" as it did apparently to YOU.

O.K.

By his own words was he willing to fight with "small melee weapons"...yes or no???...

I already told you what I comprehend form his words...

Sounds like caveman psychology. Original people born in the Americas and Africa were a free people not fearing the natural enviroment, elements, or stuck in any 'survival mode'.

They had food, shelter and clothing...back then is not now or Nat turner's time...that was different.

Some "whiteys" will probably be recieving the justice owed them when the time comes... and "punishment" will sting the back of a variety of hues....

O.K.

How about NO strategy, and I let the spirit and my knowledge guide me to what I have to do??...

If that's your choice...

I can't imagine going into ANY war thinking man is basically made of flesh and bones and all we are basically doing is moving on instinct...with no higher power....that's some caveman shit, a beast type attitude....

My higher power is my knowledge, wisdom, and understanding...Supreme Wisdom makes me my own highest power.
and another thing......



http://comp.uark.edu/~tsweden/allah.gif

Clarence13X, Father Allah...MARTYR for the cause of FREEDOM, JUSTICE, and EQUALITY? No??

You can call him a martyr, but I rather refer to him as Blackman in America with knowledge, wisdom, and understanding...who taught his people in the best way possible.

He was a warrior just like all of us who resist conformity and contiue to survive and die in this wilderness called America.

Aqueous Moon
02-24-2006, 08:53 PM
I can tell by how he tried to bait you into an argument with him so that he can show off his knowledge and turn the initial topic into a million more

how vain lol

LOL...Darnit! it worked, too.

LORD NOSE
02-24-2006, 08:57 PM
LOL...Darnit! it worked, too.

and it caused all those who were having a nice discussion leave because don't no body wanna stop and read a book length fight between yall two

how rude lol

but you kept it civilized as always

Dissonance
02-24-2006, 09:01 PM
todays america.
1. the majority of americas armed forces are in other countrys.
2. black gangs, latino gangs and other type of gangs are just as well suited for battle as police or military, in fact some gangs out gun the police force.
3. A black uprising would cause more than just black people to uprise again you have latino, asians, mexicans, native americas, anybody who felt oppressed and is waiting for their time.

with just those three things i can say that yes we would loose some lives of course in any war you do but if there ever was a time for an uprising to happen its now.

thats not evening mentioning trump cards, like castro that man loves black people he feels our plite so we had a uprising i really do in my deepest of hearts think he would assist, same for umm shit whats dude name... chavez. my nigga chavez already put it down during the war crises that he would have lowered the gas prices in low income areas. but nobody said nothing about that. if americas were to rise up against our government damnit we'd have outside help. it's just that niggaz is scared. just like the slaves back in the day their scared.


I'm sorry son but you gotta get your head right. This is on some ignorant types stuff. you know why we are called a MINORITY. At the most about 18% of this nation is BLACK. Plus if it popped off, a lot wouldn't be down. You know how many rednecks there are in this country? The NRA.....all with tons of guns that know how to shoot. Plus those crazy militias. You think a few lost brothers in gangs, most of who really don't know how to handle they steel is better than that? Not to mention the cops and the armed forces.

You think Castro gonna be able to do soemthing. Man, I hate calling people out like this, but it's ignorant brothers like you that make us look stupid, and get us killed. You got some stuying to do my brotha.


And peace to Aqueous holding it down. I don't know what up with this other one acting foolish trying to distort things

LORD NOSE
02-24-2006, 09:04 PM
I'm sorry son but you gotta get your head right. This is on some ignorant types stuff. you know why we are called a MINORITY. At the most about 18% of this nation is BLACK.


never believe them statistics they give

if THEY say there is 18% of us here, triple it

Dissonance
02-24-2006, 09:08 PM
never believe them statistics they give

if THEY say there is 18% of us here, triple it


Na, you gotta realize this country is made up of all backwater rednecks and small towns with just a few major cities. The whole Midwest and Souuth there are places they still probably never seen a Black Man. It's crazy.

LORD NOSE
02-24-2006, 09:10 PM
Na, you gotta realize this country is made up of all backwater rednecks and small towns with just a few major cities. The whole Midwest and Souuth there are places they still probably never seen a Black Man. It's crazy.


might be true as hell

but still don't trust them when they give out numbers like that


how many slaves were there to the average house

Maboya
02-24-2006, 10:57 PM
I didn't say I didn't see inspiration...I said it was foolish to stage a violent rebellion to free his people.

But basically you're saying that you'd sacrifice the inspiration that was Nat Turner for a man who basically would've kept his indignation under wraps and was never known.

If blacks didn't revolt for freedom, what do you think the anti-slavery people would've thought?

Maybe, but, I do have reverance and admiration for him myself...don't mean I'm go follow his example and get myself slaughtered.


Still confusing 1830 for 2006 I see...

Well, you have not gone into much detail...only to say that he was "liberating something more than freedom"

Again...that is not what I said. I said staging a violent rebellion and believing that it would free your people was foolish.

Obviously in the long run it wasn't so foolish because it influenced events and people even to the present century.

What's foolish is revolting and thinking that you are gonna free your people

Right, I know what you've been saying. And the alternative would've been accepatble to you...even though you wern't a slave in the ealry 1800's.

Revolt for the pure revenge of it,

I don't look at it in that way at all...I only read PURE JUSTICE.

revolt cause you pissed at the situation but, don't revolt with out understanding that Knowledge Wisdom and Understanding is what it will take to free your people

Nat Turner was no dummy. He was actually rather intelligent.

Nat Turner was born in Southampton County, Virginia on October 2, 1800.* As a young boy, Turner was recognized as being highly intelligent.*

http://afroamhistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa040201a.htm

.not spook god fantasies.

So now Prophet Turner was a fanatical, foolish, tactician of shock warfare, huh?

Were the Haitian revolutionists who defeated French coloniasts also spook god fanatics?

According to some scholars the SLAVE REVOLUTION of SLAVE REVOLUTIONS was empowered with VODOU.

David Geggus, ďMarronage, voodoo, and the Saint Domingue slave revolt of 1791,Ē in P.Galloway and P. F. Boucher, Proceedings of the French Colonial Historical Society

Did they think they were going to free their people cause (spook) "god" told them so?

They were 'freeing' themselves by any means neccesary, at any cost. Of course you couldn't answer the question straight up and instead you offer a strained interpretation that the belief in a 'spook god' was the reason for revolt...when obviously...it..was...SLAVERY itself.

Exactly. So, what are we arguing??? They could not have won, they were out numbered and out gunned

So why did you previously state that they should've seperated??

You wrote:

Well, maybe if the ancestors before him had come to the realization that seperatism and the striving for it would benefit us more than violent rebellion -- YOU

My reply to that was:

Only a handful were able to seperate during those times, did you expect the whole black popultion of the South to move to the West? The only way they could've made that happen is if they united in ARMED REVOLT with BLOODSHED and SLAUGHTER, which YOU asserted was a "foolish" option.

Please tell us exactly how the ancestors should've "seperated" as you had suggested.

But, I guess they got some frustrations out...and gave me a lesson to learn from.

The only "lesson" that you're getting out of it was that they were "foolish" for attempting revolt and that you would never attempt that with big bad ol massa.

I wouldn't call segrated blacks still on American soil "self suffecient".

You wouldn't call places like so-called Black Wall Street and black buisnesses that were in black neighborhoods back then "self sufficient" but somehow today YOU are telling others that 'self suffiency' is what blacks should strive for??

Tell us Oracle what is this 'self sufficiency' that you speak of? Illuminate us.


We gotta get our own nation...ya know, soveirgn.

Oh, I forgot, the United Nations just hands those out.

Because you keep saying that violent slave revolts were a good tactic.

For what they were, yeah. And I by no means look at them as insignificant. I see them as one of the driving forces for greater physical liberties and for knowledge doctrines that came later on.

But I understand your point...these freedom fighters were foolish and too spook god-ish for your taste.

lol

My point is that it is foolish to not think strategically when you desire to free your people.

Can you share with us some of that "strategy" that you would've used?

Are you saying that Nat Turner thought in his mind that he was lighting a fire for the civil war?

I didn't say that, neither did I imply it.

read it again:

stick to your assertion that those slave revolts were "foolish" and didn't benefit anybody. (even though they essentially lit a fire under the anti-slavery movement of white folk and some 30 years later there's this thing that was called the CIVIL WAR

Nat Turner started a revolt, there were OTHERS before him.

Let's see if HISTORY agrees with your assertion that these events basically meant nothing.

Death or Liberty - Gabriel, Nat Turner and John Brown


Between the Revolution and the Civil War, three dramatic events in Virginia focused America's attention on the problem of slavery. Gabriel's Conspiracy in 1800, Nat Turner's Rebellion in Southampton County in 1831, and John Brown's Raid on Harpers Ferry in 1859 deeply shocked white southerners and provided confirmation for those who argued that slavery was incompatible with American liberty. African American scholar and activist W.E.B. Du Bois once noted that the attitudes of an "imprisoned" group could take three forms: "a feeling of revolt and revenge; an attempt to adjust all thought and action to the will of the greater groups; or, finally, a determined attempt at self-development, self-realization, in spite of envisioning discouragements and prejudice." These attitudes ebbed and flowed with the "spirit of the age." The spirit of revolt exhibited by Gabriel in 1800 and Nat Turner in 1831 convinced John Brown in 1859 that the slaves across the South were ready and willing to emancipate themselves. All they needed, Brown concluded, was the moral and military guidance of an inspired leader. "Death or Liberty" examines these events and the debates about slavery, freedom, and sectional politics that raged in their wake.

The original post said that "god" told him he was going to free his people.

My point again, is that god uses knowledge, wisdom, understanding to free his people.

Violent rebellion in the name of freedom...should be more strategical in nature.



"Nat Turner was no dummy. He was rather intelligent. "

"Can you share with us some of that "strategy" that you would've used?"


If you think you are going to be free after your people jump in and ya'll go pitchfork the slavemaster to death, yeah...that would be foolish.

Someone had to bust the first shot, and that's why in 2006 there are still young black and colored children, teens, adults learning of the man.

Logic is not garbage you just don't under or overstand

I didn't say "logic" was garbage. Also please give us the definition of ths word "overstand" that you employ here.

It's logic. You can't do anything if you are slaughtered to death.

Being too shook to risk ones life for freedom was the 'garbge' I was refring to.

Thus my reply to this ridiculous assertion was:

That was never "logic". As long as one people rule over another people their will be resistance.

NATURE and SCIENCE and THEOLOGY all agree with that too.

How are you going to change your situation if you are not alive to make it happen?

Ever hear it takes "blood and guts"?

You can't make everything happen, someone gotta die in the front line at some point.

With saying that...the PANTHERS...were these brothas/sistas "foolish" for picking up arms and threatening to use them if their human rights were violated..yes..or...no?

i'm not talking about the Hashashin...

And I never said you were talking about them..I only brought them up because after I said this:

"they were smart...took about 55 of them devils out...according to your lessons that should have em in the vip section of the holy city of mecca"


YOU came back and stated:

"Wrong..My lessons say no such thing. Elijah Muhammad and (Master Fard) was a non violent revolutionary and seperatist...he was smarter than that "

I took this as you saying the lesson for you (which I quoted) is SYMBOLIC when to myself and others it has an overt likeness to the ARMED and VIOLENT theology of the ASSASSINS.


and I "never take any thing on face value" - Father Allah



However it DOES look like FARAD did take it from a matter-of-fact assassin description and method however.

Description

Their Muslim contemporaries were extremely suspicious of them; in fact they were described in terms (Batini) which suggested they were only nominally Islamic.

Plainly, their connection to mainstream Islam was tangential at best.


Methodology

Although legend states that Hasan-i Sabbah, original leader of the Nizari Isamailies, used Hashish to grant "visions" of paradise to his followers, it is highly unlikely, given the fact that the use and effects of Hashish were well known during that time period, and frequent subjects of Imams in the Mosques. Marco Polo, who traveled through the area, gave an account similar to this:

Recruits were promised Paradise in return for dying in action.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashashin

By his own words was Malcolm willing to fight with "small melee weapons"...yes or no???...

I already told you what I comprehend form his words...

YES or NO?

They had food, shelter and clothing...back then is not now or Nat turner's time...that was different.

Um, try to read my replies in context. After I stated that FREEDOM is the first principle of life, you responded by saying:

"....The first principal of life is self perservation...otherwise there is no life. "

Yours is a ancient Europoid perspective IMO, because the "first principal of life" was understood by those who were living in paradise to be FREEDOM and not hiding in caves from the harsh elements and jackals thinking of "self preservation".

My higher power is my knowledge, wisdom, and understanding...Supreme Wisdom makes me my own highest power.

Was that also your "highest power" when you were in the womb of your mother?

You can call him a martyr, but I rather refer to him as Blackman in America with knowledge, wisdom, and understanding...who taught his people in the best way possible.

You state the obvious. The question was does he fit what would typically be refered to as a martyr for any particular cause.

crastuf
02-25-2006, 12:46 AM
not at all was Nat wrong because look where it got us. FREE. segregated and racial, but FREE

LORD NOSE
02-25-2006, 01:59 PM
and it caused all those who were having a nice discussion leave because don't no body wanna stop and read a book length fight between yall two

how rude lol

but you kept it civilized as always



true words - the vain just wants to be looked at as knowledgeable

forcing info into a disscussion by way of baiting someone to debate you is foolish and childish - proof and facts cannot be provided by copy pasting someone elses reasearch or listing the books where you claim to have got your so called proof from into a reply box - "i can prove it,look what it says in this book" - its sad - having Knowledge(information) is great, but when you don't know how to convey it to the cipher using wisdom and understanding its dangerous

hectis
02-25-2006, 02:11 PM
I Don't Think Nat Wuz Wrong. Is There Any Thing Wrong With Wanting To Be Free? I Think The People Who Did Not Help Were Wrong

LORD NOSE
02-25-2006, 02:27 PM
I Don't Think Nat Wuz Wrong. Is There Any Thing Wrong With Wanting To Be Free? I Think The People Who Did Not Help Were Wrong

yup fear is something else - just like today - many of us feel we have too much to lose to fight - my car my house my job my children - some of us won't sacrifice anything for the greater cause because some of us do not see exactly what the greater cause is - they are kept "happy" with "things" the devil provides them with - they have to get up in the morning and spend their entire lives working to pay for things they tell themselves they need - you can only buy things with money - it will not get us free -

Maboya
02-25-2006, 02:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SUNNY WINTERS
and it caused all those who were having a nice discussion leave because don't no body wanna stop and read a book length fight between yall two

how rude lol

but you kept it civilized as always



Originally Posted by SUNNY WINTERS
true words -

Why are you quoting yourself here?

Tell us how telling someone to "go die" is civilized. And go back and see if you can pinpoint where in the discussion I started flaming her, and see if it wasn't in fact AFTER she said that.




the vain just wants to be looked at as knowledgeable


Everything which has been discussed has stayed on topic more then not, right down to my last post, your assertion that it was 'vanity' and posted to "bait" her notwithstanding.


forcing info into a disscussion by way of baiting someone

You're arguing an assertion which YOU yourself claim of my initial comments....which is that it was to "bait" someone....that is only YOUR assertion of my arguement....which by the way is FOR Nat Turner. But you want to talk about vanity? What have you added to the discussion?


to debate you is foolish and childish -

This is only your ASSERTION. Since when have debates by default been "foolish and childish"??

proof and facts cannot be provided by copy pasting someone elses reasearch

So I take it I will never see you posting ANY information other then your own research on KTL ever again??? (as if ones own research NEVER consists of others, you are ignorant for that one) But you might well be the wrong person to ask because I don't see you EVER post anything but topical questions while you fall back never offering your own intellectual response.



or listing the books where you claim to have got your so called proof from into a reply box - "i can prove it,look what it says in this book" -

From what I can remember I cited ONE book source, and not "books".

its sad -

Your continual failure to offer an ORIGINAL INTELLECTUAL RESPONSE to this topic is what I find to be "sad".


having Knowledge(information) is great, but when you don't know how to convey it to the cipher using wisdom and understanding its dangerous

I refuse to humble myself to a person who continually asserts that what Nat Turner did was "foolish", maybe you find yourself to be of like mindness, but not EYE.

PEACE

Maboya
02-25-2006, 03:00 PM
Originally Posted by SUNNY WINTERS AKA 7EL7, AKA WOOLY NOGGINS

He Felt He Was Sent By God

So did many other people, he was percieved to be a prophet.


To Lead The Rebellion And That This Same God Would Make Him Victorious -

To a person with a myopic perspective he was not victorious, I see it in a broader sense and how those events snowballed into even greater victories.

That Belief In That Spook God Got Alot Of Us Killed

Show and Prove.

LORD NOSE
02-25-2006, 03:08 PM
true words - the vain just wants to be looked at as knowledgeable

forcing info into a disscussion by way of baiting someone to debate you is foolish and childish - proof and facts cannot be provided by copy pasting someone elses reasearch or listing the books where you claim to have got your so called proof from into a reply box - "i can prove it,look what it says in this book" - its sad - having Knowledge(information) is great, but when you don't know how to convey it to the cipher using wisdom and understanding its dangerous

first - this stands as true - but he just doesn't get it

LORD NOSE
02-25-2006, 03:36 PM
Why are you quoting yourself here?

why shouldn't i ?





So I take it I will never see you posting ANY information other then your own research on KTL ever again??? (as if ones own research NEVER consists of others, you are ignorant for that one) But you might well be the wrong person to ask because I don't see you EVER post anything but topical questions while you fall back never offering your own intellectual response.

not as MY proof

"heres your proof right here, look what it says in this book" lmao - thats your whole make up right there

you must have missed that part - but your a word twister who lies to himself to make yourself FEEL right - i see you though -





From what I can remember I cited ONE book source, and not "books".
maby you did do that in THIS thread - when i said that quoting whats written in books as your proof ........ you didn't understand what i meant ?

you took it as ..."i only cited one book, not books"

wtf man !



Your continual failure to offer an ORIGINAL INTELLECTUAL RESPONSE to this topic is what I find to be "sad".

i started the thread though - and asked a question - remember




Why would i offer an ORIGINAL INTELLECTUAL RESPONSE to my own question ?


are you OK man - make shure you drink plenty water man - its good for the brain - seems like you on that syrup




[quote=Maboya] I refuse to humble myself to a person who continually asserts that what Nat Turner did was "foolish", maybe you find yourself to be of like mindness, but not EYE.

PEACE

no one here asked you to humble yourself to a person who continually asserts that what Nat Turner did was "foolish" - but you make shit up because you wanna argue - you seem to be a very frustrated young man - go get you some pussy man, relax - the thread was intended to big up Nat Turner and to make shure people remember him - but here you go starting a fight with your 5 page replies worth of bullshit - i'm done replying to you here though - your no match

Maboya
02-25-2006, 05:20 PM
why shouldn't i ?

Who quotes themselves and then goes on to agree with themselves? You're one bugged out character.


not as MY proof

I brought out some historical record of what transpired after NAT TURNERS revolt because Ms. Moon suggested that those events were not effectual. Your lack of understanding of why I did this speaks volumes of your mental capacity or the lack thereof.


"heres your proof right here, look what it says in this book" lmao - thats your whole make up right there

When I cited that ONE book I asked Ms. Moon if she would also call the Haitan revolutionists 'spook fanatics' as she asserted of Prophet Turner because according to the thesis of that one scholar Vodou EMPOWERED the MOTHER of SLAVE REVOLTS. (do you see how it all relates my son?)


you must have missed that part - but your a word twister who lies to himself to make yourself FEEL right - i see you though -

Whatever. Starting now and whenever I see you post some of your usual bullshit I'mma be twisting your negro cap and exposing your lack of a functioning brain.



maby you did do that in THIS thread - when i said that quoting whats written in books as your proof ........ you didn't understand what i meant ?

you took it as ..."i only cited one book, not books"

wtf man !

So now this negro is against the quoting of books, and scholary books pertaining to the historical subject at hand no less. Straight up buffoonery.

but you make shit up because you wanna argue

I didn't make up shit. Every response I gave was to a specific comment made by Ms. Moon which stemmed from her original assertion that the most famous of slave revolts for black freedom in the U.S. was '"foolish".

you seem to be a very frustrated young man - go get you some pussy man, relax

Same shit. Different devil. In fact this coming from the same mind that stated in another thread:

us in the USA - alot of us, when we hear the words Islam and Muslim, we think about disipline, clean living, and restraint against that which is foul - this is because of what the Nation of Islam instilled in the streets of americafor 70 plus years - it renews the black man to be upright, clean and productive, and influences everyone else to do so also, even traditional so called muslims.






the thread was intended to big up Nat Turner and to make shure people remember him

You're changing directions now to save face.

Originally Posted by SUNNY WINTERS
He Felt He Was Sent By God To Lead The Rebellion And That This Same God Would Make Him Victorious - That Belief In That Spook God Got Alot Of Us Killed


but here you go starting a fight with your 5 page replies worth of bullshit -

My points can't be refuted, you can only assert they were bullshit even though I brought up a speech of Malcolm which agrees with my point on FREEDOM at any cost. The actions of the Prophet led to even greater things and inspirations for real Black people, what's "bullshit" was you even having to question if the man was wrong for what he did.


i'm done replying to you here though - your no match

What have you done except criticize my points from the sidelines, arguing my method of delivering those points doesn't show anyone how you are supposedly on a higher intellectual level.

PEACE

Aqueous Moon
02-25-2006, 07:20 PM
But basically you're saying that you'd sacrifice the inspiration that was Nat Turner for a man who basically would've kept his indignation under wraps and was never known.
No, I said rebelling in a violent manner and thinking that it will free your people because spook god told you is foolish.

If blacks didn't revolt for freedom, what do you think the anti-slavery people would've thought?

Blacks should revolt for freedom, but it's foolish to think that picking up a pitchfork is going to free your people.

Still confusing 1830 for 2006 I see...


Wrong


Obviously in the long run it wasn't so foolish because it influenced events and people even to the present century.

o.k.

Right, I know what you've been saying. And the alternative would've been accepatble to you...even though you wern't a slave in the ealry 1800's.

wrong

I don't look at it in that way at all...I only read PURE JUSTICE.

o.k.

Nat Turner was no dummy. He was actually rather intelligent.

o.k.



So now Prophet Turner was a fanatical, foolish, tactician of shock warfare, huh? no.

Were the Haitian revolutionists who defeated French coloniasts also spook god fanatics? let's stick to Nat turner.

According to some scholars the SLAVE REVOLUTION of SLAVE REVOLUTIONS was empowered with VODOU. o.k.

David Geggus, “Marronage, voodoo, and the Saint Domingue slave revolt of 1791,” in P.Galloway and P. F. Boucher, Proceedings of the French Colonial Historical Society

o.k.

They were 'freeing' themselves by any means neccesary, at any cost. Of course you couldn't answer the question straight up and instead you offer a strained interpretation that the belief in a 'spook god' was the reason for revolt...when obviously...it..was...SLAVERY itself.

o.k.

So why did you previously state that they should've seperated??
I said it would have been better if the ancestors could have realized that seperation and the striving for it would benefit us more than violent rebellion. If they did realize this, but couldn't make it happen then I know how they feel.
You wrote:



My reply to that was:



Please tell us exactly how the ancestors should've "seperated" as you had suggested.

I didn't suggest that.

The only "lesson" that you're getting out of it was that they were "foolish" for attempting revolt and that you would never attempt that with big bad ol massa.

wrong

You wouldn't call places like so-called Black Wall Street and black buisnesses that were in black neighborhoods back then "self sufficient" but somehow today YOU are telling others that 'self suffiency' is what blacks should strive for??

Tell us Oracle what is this 'self sufficiency' that you speak of? Illuminate us.


Having our own land and supplying our own food/shelter/ and clothing.

Oh, I forgot, the United Nations just hands those out.

wrong

For what they were, yeah. And I by no means look at them as insignificant. I see them as one of the driving forces for greater physical liberties and for knowledge doctrines that came later on.

But I understand your point...these freedom fighters were foolish and too spook god-ish for your taste. wrong

lol



Can you share with us some of that "strategy" that you would've used?

They couldn't use stategy cause they didn't have knowledge, wisdom, understanding...they had their spook god, so they did what he told them to do.

I didn't say that, neither did I imply it. ok

read it again:
nah


Nat Turner started a revolt, there were OTHERS before him. ok

Let's see if HISTORY agrees with your assertion that these events basically meant nothing. I didn't say that...I said he didn't free his people by a violent rebellion.






"Nat Turner was no dummy. He was rather intelligent. "

"Can you share with us some of that "strategy" that you would've used?"




Someone had to bust the first shot, and that's why in 2006 there are still young black and colored children, teens, adults learning of the man. ok



I didn't say "logic" was garbage. Also please give us the definition of ths word "overstand" that you employ here. no



Being too shook to risk ones life for freedom was the 'garbge' I was refring to. ok

Thus my reply to this ridiculous assertion was:



NATURE and SCIENCE and THEOLOGY all agree with that too. ok



Ever hear it takes "blood and guts"? yeah

You can't make everything happen, someone gotta die in the front line at some point. ok

With saying that...the PANTHERS...were these brothas/sistas "foolish" for picking up arms and threatening to use them if their human rights were violated..yes..or...no? stick to nat turner



And I never said you were talking about them..I only brought them up because after I said this:

"they were smart...took about 55 of them devils out...according to your lessons that should have em in the vip section of the holy city of mecca"


YOU came back and stated:

"Wrong..My lessons say no such thing. Elijah Muhammad and (Master Fard) was a non violent revolutionary and seperatist...he was smarter than that "

I took this as you saying the lesson for you (which I quoted) is SYMBOLIC when to myself and others it has an overt likeness to the ARMED and VIOLENT theology of the ASSASSINS.





However it DOES look like FARAD did take it from a matter-of-fact assassin description and method however.





YES or NO?

stick to nat

Um, try to read my replies in context. After I stated that FREEDOM is the first principle of life, you responded by saying:

"....The first principal of life is self perservation...otherwise there is no life. "

Yours is a ancient Europoid perspective IMO, because the "first principal of life" was understood by those who were living in paradise to be FREEDOM and not hiding in caves from the harsh elements and jackals thinking of "self preservation". ok



Was that also your "highest power" when you were in the womb of your mother? I am my highest power



You state the obvious. The question was does he fit what would typically be refered to as a martyr for any particular cause.

Let's just stick to nat turner...I won't be discussing anything else with you anymore.

Aqueous Moon
02-25-2006, 07:25 PM
and it caused all those who were having a nice discussion leave because don't no body wanna stop and read a book length fight between yall two

how rude lol

but you kept it civilized as always

Thanks...and your right.

Also, I do respect Nat Turner and I didn't intend to turn your thread into something else.

Maboya
02-25-2006, 08:17 PM
Let's just stick to nat turner...I won't be discussing anything else with you anymore.

Let's see if you can stick to your word.


No, I said rebelling in a violent manner and thinking that it will free your people because spook god told you is foolish.

Right, and we wouldn't even know the man if he didn't do that which you consider foolish.....I guess one persons "foolishness" is anothers "bravery".

Blacks should revolt for freedom, but it's foolish to think that picking up a pitchfork is going to free your people.

I think it's clear to everybody that a general slave revolt was expected.

Still confusing 1830 for 2006 I see...

Wrong - YOU

That is what I understood from you asserting you would never go the route Nat Turner did, when it was never suggested that in this time we should.

Right, I know what you've been saying. And the alternative would've been accepatble to you...even though you wern't a slave in the ealry 1800's.

wrong -- YOU

If revolt is foolish becaue of the consequences I would think the alternative would be not to revolt, not being foolish, and remaing in bondage.

They couldn't use stategy cause they didn't have knowledge, wisdom, understanding...they had their spook god, so they did what he told them to do.

You said "o.k." that Nat Turner was considered highly intelligent but here assert that they didn't have "knowledge, wisdom, understanding" -- which seems to be an obvious contradiction.

The lack of respect for this man, especially him, is rather shocking.

Clarence13X is the one who didn't have knowledge, wisdom, understanding, with his 'physical god', and people like you, who do what he told yall to do. How do you feel about that? You don't know who Nat Turner really was, and any person disrespecting the memory of the man will be checked by those who know what's up.

I didn't say that...I said he didn't free his people by a violent rebellion.

That is obvious. But it's your continual disrespect of his actions by calling them foolish which is the focal point of the discussion.

Also please give us the definition of ths word "overstand" that you employ here.

no-- YOU

Right there is none, becaue it's a foolish word.

I am my highest power

In certain aspects I do agree that this is true of everybody, but do you produce your own oxygen and gravitational field? I think we all should know the answer to that.

WARPATH
02-25-2006, 08:32 PM
Was Nat Turner wrong, about what exactly?

Was Nat Turner wrong to kill someone who was whipping the shit out of him everyday, no. Was Nat Turner wrong to kill the rest of the family, yes- if there were children and women. Was he wrong to rebel, no. Was he wrong because he got a hundred inncoent slaves killed, no- because he didn't kill the slaves, his opressors did. I feel that this article doesn't give us enough insight into what actually happen. I mean Nat killed the family but who was in the family? Were they all grown boys driving slaves in the field, if they wanted keep slaves then they got what was coming to them. However, if there were little children that didn't know what was going on, then Nat was wrong if he killed them. I doubt he killed the whole family by his self though.

Aqueous Moon
02-25-2006, 08:33 PM
Let's see if you can stick to your word. ok




Right, and we wouldn't even know the man if he didn't do that which you consider foolish.....I guess one persons "foolishness" is anothers "bravery".
ok


I think it's clear to everybody that a general slave revolt was expected.
ok


That is what I understood from you asserting you would never go the route Nat Turner did, when it was never suggested that in this time we should. ok



If revolt is foolish becaue of the consequences I would think the alternative would be not to revolt, not being foolish, and remaing in bondage. ok



You said "o.k." that Nat Turner was considered highly intelligent but here assert that they didn't have "knowledge, wisdom, understanding" -- which seems to be an obvious contradiction. You should be able to tell that ok implies that i am no longer taking you seriously.

The lack of respect for this man, especially him, is rather shocking.

Clarence13X is the one who didn't have knowledge, wisdom, understanding, with his 'physical god', and people like you, who do what he told yall to do. How do you feel about that? You don't know who Nat Turner really was, and any person disrespecting the memory of the man will be checked by those who know what's up. Wrong. - about Father Allah.

That is obvious. But it's your continual disrespect of his actions by calling them foolish which is the focal point of the discussion. Wrong



Right there is none, becaue it's a foolish word. wrong



In certain aspects I do agree that this is true of everybody, but do you produce your own oxygen and gravitational field? I think we all should know the answer to that.

Why should I cast pearls before swine?...that would be foolish.

Maboya
02-25-2006, 08:58 PM
You should be able to tell that ok implies that i am no longer taking you seriously.

Who are you Lil Jon? And I wasn't able to tell that you were using it like you say you are because that's only how some uneducated, white valley girl type, 85%ers use that shit.

Wrong. - about Father Allah.

To quote you this one time -- "ok".

That is obvious. But it's your continual disrespect of his actions by calling them foolish which is the focal point of the discussion.

Wrong -- Lil Jon

Let me rephrase that then, it's the reason why I decided to engage you in the first place.


Why should I cast pearls before swine?...that would be foolish.

Seems like "foolish" is one of your favorite words. And why are you JACKING a saying from the very book (http://www.answers.com/topic/pearls-before-swine-cast-not) (I think I mentioned this to you before too) that calls YOU a FOOL for not believing in what you call a "spook God" (http://scripturetext.com/psalms/14-1.htm)? How dumb is that?

Aqueous Moon
02-25-2006, 09:04 PM
Who are you Lil Jon? And I wasn't able to tell that you were using it like you say you are because that's only how some uneducated, white valley girl type, 85%ers use that shit. hahaha...you cracked me up with this one...fo real that's some funny shit. Thanks for making me smile.



To quote you this one time -- "ok". Yeah...now you get it. I'm still laughing off that shit...



Let me rephrase that then, it's the reason why I decided to engage you in the first place.
I don't think so...but, let's just stick to nat.



Seems like "foolish" is one of your favorite words. And why are you JACKING a saying from the very book (http://www.answers.com/topic/pearls-before-swine-cast-not) (I think I mentioned this to you before too) that calls YOU a FOOL for not believing in what you call a "spook God" (http://scripturetext.com/psalms/14-1.htm)? How dumb is that?

Wrong...Just plain wrong. *Aqueous Moon wipes laugh tears from her eyes* good shit!

Ha! you are Kephrem!....*Aqueous Moon laughs even harder*

Maboya
02-25-2006, 09:13 PM
Right there is none, becaue it's a foolish word.

wrong - Ms. Moon


Did Elijah, Farad, or Clarence13 used the word "overstanding"?

Tell us why there's a need to "overstand", lol, when UNDERSTAND means:

understand
O.E. understandan "comprehend, grasp the idea of," probably lit. "stand in the midst of," from under + standan "to stand" (see stand). If this is the meaning, the under is not the usual word meaning "beneath," but from O.E. under, from PIE *nter- "between, among" (cf. Skt. antar "among, between," L. inter "between, among," Gk. entera "intestines;" see inter-).

understanding
O.E. understandincge "comprehension," from understand

JASPER
02-25-2006, 09:27 PM
Wrong like an incestious triplett of brothers.

Aqueous Moon
02-25-2006, 11:47 PM
Wrong like an incestious triplett of brothers.

Jasper, why you making my stomach hurt ?...I'm already laughing hard enough! ha ha haaaa

Aqueous Moon
02-25-2006, 11:48 PM
Did Elijah, Farad, or Clarence13 used the word "overstanding"?

Tell us why there's a need to "overstand", lol, when UNDERSTAND means:

understand
O.E. understandan "comprehend, grasp the idea of," probably lit. "stand in the midst of," from under + standan "to stand" (see stand). If this is the meaning, the under is not the usual word meaning "beneath," but from O.E. under, from PIE *nter- "between, among" (cf. Skt. antar "among, between," L. inter "between, among," Gk. entera "intestines;" see inter-).

understanding
O.E. understandincge "comprehension," from understand

Nah...I don't think you would appreciate my wisdom.

Maboya
02-26-2006, 12:23 AM
Nah...I don't think you would appreciate my wisdom.


Is that the same wisdom that just agreed with Jasper that Nat Turner was wrong? What does this supposed wisdom of yours offer that is so profound that it's far beyond and supercedes the etymology of the word understanding which by itself didn't need any alteration?

7EL7
02-26-2006, 03:44 AM
Jasper, why you making my stomach hurt ?...I'm already laughing hard enough! ha ha haaaa


where in your reply were you agreeing with jasper ?