>No it is not revisionist. First off, as I discussed in a >former post "God is IMMANENT," various Afrikan groups tend >to be very inclusive when it comes to religious practices, >beliefs and/or deities. By this alone, foreign religions >already had open door.
This "inclusiveness" is NOT a good thing then, IMO. It leaves the door wide open for every tom, dick and harry to enter and pollute us if they have the necessary will to AND we do not care to effectively defend ourselves against their onslaught.
>If we then look at specific cases we >see that conversion was generally ushered in by >ECONOMIC/POLITICAL BENEFITS. For example, the conversion of >King Ezana(sp?) of Axum allowed for better relations with >then Christian Egypt and the larger Byzantine Empire; the >conversion of the mansas and royalty of the ancient MAli >empire to Islam allowed the empire to gain better trade >relations with the greater Muslim world; scores of kidnapped >and forcibly enslaved Afrikans converted to Islam to gain >their freedom from their captors. In all these cases it si >obvious that the conversion was not done so simply because >someone saw the "truth" of g.o.d. or a.l.l.a.h. but moreso >because of economic gain, betterment of international >relations or improvement of social status. >
Obviously then, Africans didn't just leave the door open, our ancestors did that AND took off their pants and bent over. How could africans have been so easily conquered and also enticed by petty economics to allow these deadly foreigners into our lands to poison us if this were not the case?
If you do not impose your will over others, your will, will be imposed on is a lesson Africans have sadly failed to learn to this very day.