>I was trying to make the
>point that how many European
>nations have been collectively brought
>up on charges (by some
>worldwid organization like League of
>NAtions, United NAtions) against the
>"war crimes" they committed against
>non-European peoples.

Okay. That's definitely true. But implied in that answer is your support of the Nuremburg trials, etc. Is that basically right?

>>There IS contention here. Let
>>me get this clear.
>>You're implying that JEWS as
>>members of a particular religious
>>group have purposely attempted to
>>stifle understanding and exposure of
>>the African genocide. That's
>>just wrong.

>No I'm implying that members of
>a CULTURAL GROUP (Europeans) have
>purposely stifled or misrepresented the
>truth.

Agreed.

>The "Jews control
>the media" comment was more
>directed for JMello who initiated
>this whole conversation by saying
>their is a Jews a
>totally distinct group from other
>Europeans.

Fair enough.

>Israeli Jews are European.

Not really, man. Recent immigrants certainly are, but many Jews have lived there forever, and others are coming from all over the place.

>Just
>like white AMericans are European.

I'm not.

>You don't lose
>your culture upon arriving on
>a new land.

Agreed. However, if you participate in a culture and contribute to it, you're part of it at least in some sense.

It
>simply adapts to fit the
>new experiences and situations UNLESS
>your cultural heritage and ideology
>is systematically suppressed like what
>has been done to Afrikans
>WORLDWIDE.

True.


>This is the
>reasoning behind the term Afrikan
>Diaspora. Similarly there is
>a "European Diaspora."

True.

>> Keep in mind, though,
>>that groups often (well, usually)
>>define themselves by who they
>>are in accord with. In
>>deciding who to ally with,
>>they DO need to understand
>>themselves, but also they need
>>to understand the other.

>I'm glad you said this.
>This shows the distinction between
>our views. Afrikans have historically
>defined themselves INDEPENDENTLY of any
>other peoples.

Now come on, you're an African scholar. You know how long African peoples have been in contact with their *own* differing cultures and other foreign ones. This is PRECISELY how they define themselves. For instance, what distinguishes Wolof culture in Senegal from Mande? It sounds redundant, but it's their differences. Their different chieftancies, religious practice, artistic/ceremonial practice. And as much as you're bent on resisting Western influence in Africa and the African diaspora, it has definitely occured. Countries/peoples define themselves now on their levels of industrialization, political ideology (i.e. some West African leaders are strong Marxists, while others are trying to build republics).


Europeans have
>historically possessed a need to
>be in close proximity and
>CONTROL of others in order
>to assert their own self-image.

Basically. I'm not sure if I'd define it exactly this way, but imperialism has definitely been the sinister constant.


> Like I said before
>an Afrikan without her/his own
>culture is DEAD (according to
>ANY traditional Afrikan "ethnic" group).

Except that "traditional" ethnic groups are being redefined in Africa (and everywhere else), and in some cases they're being redefined more inclusively. Others, less.

Alek

________________________________
"Say some shit that suprise me...
My face don't change."