Continuation of Which Ancestors? (and other criticisms)
Again I’m finding conscious ‘black’ people saying stuff that sounds a bit… off-key.
Feminine: Recently I’ve noticed a sharp increase in the word “feminine” being used like an insult. I first noticed it in this video:
Though his church-hypocrisy points are valid, Urhoboman5’s describing churches’ dysfunctional atmosphere as “feminine” irked me. Other brothers have used it too, mainly in reference to men expressing gender-queer/ transvestite/ homosexual behaviour.
Obviously in modern Western culture dresses, floral designs, etc. are designated women’s stuff and are part of the female gender role. I can sympathise with the “feminine” label to that degree.Though incorrect, it’s understandable that men would think the sexes behave in fundamentally distinct ways, because that’s what we’re all raised with. But at 19:14 Urhoboman5 specified that he deems not taking responsibility & refusing to improve one’s life as feminine traits. He then goes on to call the whole megachurch atmosphere toxic, parasitic, destructive & feminine. I also hear London brothers labelling women who act in ways they don’t like. Gold digging is feminine. Whining about problems without trying to solve them is feminine. Being fake & putting yourself on display for the world is feminine. One brother I know, who’s generally very deep-thinking, genuinely couldn’t understand that ‘black’ women go through the same difficulties as us!
On occasion I’ve seen women online use the term pejoratively about their men! Why would any self-respecting woman allow her sex to be a symbol of dysfunction & weakness? Sounds like subtle Christian influence to me.
Is this meant to mean intelligent women aren’t feminine? Does thinking for herself make a woman masculine? Or lesbian? Or… what?
And what about deadbeat men who don’t take responsibility or try to improve shit? Are they feminine too?
Afrocentrism: Many conscious ‘blacks’ I’ve met (offline and online) have been strict in distancing themselves from Afrocentrism. At first I was confused why, but now I get it.
Unlike others, Afrocentrics come off as very sloppy. Their passion for Africa and its people is admirable. But their passion reveals them to have the personality role that Elizabeth Puttick calls Sage. In short, Sages are the chatty bastards who let their mouths run away with them. They’ll say anything for the sake of an entertaining story, even if it’s false. That leads to things like:
- Alkebulan is the old name of Africa (dealt with in Which Ancestors?)
- Afrika is the correct spelling of Africa (technically true but it’s still a Greek – therefore non-Afrikan – word)
- The confusion between melanin and melatonin, hence the claim that ‘whites’ are that colour because of calcified pineal glands
- We have untapped psychic/ magic powers that our ancestors could use freely (so how do we tap them?)
- We’re not really from Africa, therefore we don’t need to have anything to do with Africans
- We were kings and queens (some of us were, not all but it’s a nice thought)
- Worse, labelling other ‘blacks’ who dare to correct or disagree them as sellouts/ ignorant/ self-hating
In other words, they seem to prioritise self-pride & feel-good stories over evidence & truth. This may not be a bad thing, as many people’s brains operate that way (including many to most ‘whites’, hence why they still claim Jesus and ancient Egyptians as their own), but it can come across as weak.
This is the danger of adhering to one particular movement. I personally prefer Pan-Africanism (as delineated on African Holocaust.net) and aspects of Garveyite nationalism.
Hebrew Israelites: I always knew there was something about these guys I didn’t like. I agree the original Judeans/ Hebrews/ Israelites were ‘black’. I know some of the tribes went into Africa and had progeny who are still there today. I agree there are uncanny (they’d say prescient) similarities between the Babylonian captivity and the Maafa. But does mean ALL ‘black’ (and Hispanic & native American!?!?!?!) people have to follow the Torah? What if we don’t want to? I for one abhor the Torah.
Then I found out that some of them join the Israeli army – voluntarily! – and I was pissed. Just like back in WWI and WWII, ‘blacks’ are putting their lives on the line for ‘whites’.
In fact, why would any ‘black’ person want to move from one country where they’re being targeted for extermination (USA) to another country where they’re being targeted for extermination (Israel)?!? Even if I had the CMH and my family were following Mosaic law, I ain’t endangering my life trying to assimilate with Ashkenazim!
While we’re on the subject of religion…
Return to ancestral religions: I can really sympathise with this. Since literally everything about our African identities were stripped away, it’s natural to want to have something to cling to. It’s also natural that once you find out how much of your ancestors’ achievements and greatness (or at least people who looked like them) was actively hidden from you, you’d want to retrieve it. There are aspects of Kemetic culture that were SERIOUSLY CRAZILY FOOHOOKING AMAZEBALLS!!!
And I’m still freaking out about the Great Wall of Benin!!!
Nevertheless, as I explained in Which Ancestors?, following old faiths & cultures just because they’re of our ancestors is jahil (ignorant). They weren’t perfect. There were aspects of their ways that are either unworkable in this day & age, counterproductive or downright evil. Examples:
- Libation – pouring water for the remembrance of the dead. Are they gonna drink? Even if they could, what if they’re not buried where you’re pouring it?
- Killing women & children as “witches” just because you lost a bet, or got robbed, or didn’t get the job you wanted.
- The Kemetics believed the sun (as the god Ra) went to battle against the forces of chaos & darkness every night. This meant sunrise was never guaranteed, even though it always happened.
- To this day the Mursi of Ethiopia practise knocking out their children’s lower incisors to make space for the lip plates.
Only xyz makes you ‘black’: This is one of the stupidest things I’ve heard yet. Though it’s a marginal minority opinion, there are some who believe that only having certain phenotypic traits makes you truly ‘black’.
One of my friends has been told because she doesn’t have 4C hair or thick lips or a broad blunt nose she’s not truly ‘black’. True her features regularly see her mistaken for Indian BUT she has the one feature that the label ‘black’ actually refers to: BROWN SKIN!!! Darker than mine, and no-one’s been dumb enough to question my ‘blackness’ for a long time. Similarly I’ve read forums in which other Africans claim Somalis aren’t really African or ‘black’ for the same reason. Their noses are too thin, their hair not curly/ kinky enough, etc. From experience Nigerians* seem to love stirring up this kind of shit more than anyone else.
* I hope you didn’t think I meant all, only some. Nor am I claiming only Nigerians do it.
Why’s this a problem? It’s the old colonial line repeated verbatim: the only “true Negroes” look like this:
otherwise they’re mixed. On some forums huge debates about this arise, and it seems a lot of “habeshas” don’t see themselves as ‘black’/ ‘Negro’/ ‘Bantu’ – rightly or wrongly.
But regardless of which side says it, the premise is still inaccurate. According to that logic, the Khoikhoi & San of southern Africa are “mixed-race”, even though genetics proves they’re among the LEAST mixed people on Earth!
Hopefully won’t have more to add in the near future…
One Tawny Stranger 
One thought on “Is feminine bad? (and other criticisms)”