The Civil, Political and Legal Illiteracy of African Americans: Failure to Apply the Framework of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

“The shift from a domestic civil rights model to an international human rights model will be, for the professional African and Anglo-American communities, in Thomas Kuhn’s words, ‘as if the professional community [is] suddenly transported to another planet where familiar objects are seen in a different light and are joined by unfamiliar ones as well.’”

- Dr. Y. N. Kly, African-Americans and the Right to Self-Determination, Keynote Address to the Proceedings of the Conference on African Americans and the Right to Self-Determination, Hamline University, May 14, 1993.

In September 1992, the United States ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) developed under the auspices of the United Nations. The covenant protects the right to self-determination, the right to non-discrimination, the right to remedy, and the rights of minorities. That same same month, the United States was among three nations that narrowly escaped condemnation in 1992 by the United Nations Sub Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities for a pattern of gross human rights violations.. The complaint, submitted by the International Human Rights Association of American Minorities (IHRAAM) to UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali on April 30, 1992, was based on the continuing pattern of gross human rights violations suffered by African Americans in the United States, as typified by the case of Los Angeles motorist, Rodney King. Shortly thereafter, disillusioned with the prospects of life In America, I dropped out of Yale University and left the country.

I was seeking a place, a country of my own.

At this same time, IHRAAM hosted the Conference on African-Americans and the Right to Self Determination at Hamline University, May 14, 1993. In his Keynote Address, Dr. Kly asked, “What is the context for such a complaint? What is the legal vocabulary for a discussion of these issues? Do African Americans have a right to self-determination under international human rights law?” Further, Dr. Kly stated,

“At decisive points in the American past, events occurred that had the effect of arresting African-American socio-political and intellectual development, subjecting it to an orbit governed by the ‘strange attraction’ of historically-enforced paradigms, such as: no matter what actual effect majority decisions may have on the African-American, accepting these decisions represents not only what is best for African-Americans, but also the only possible way in which U.S. democracy can be expressed or maintained: to prove and confirm that the U.S. system, as is, is best for everyone, is the guideline for all legitimate African American analysis, leadership decisions and studies; to speak of the unique needs of the African-American community within the framework of government policy formation is racist or promoting segregation or racial isolationism; special rights, self-government, segregation and separation are all to be considered the same thing.

The original conditions that brought these paradigms into force and which locked the direction of African-American socio-politico development to this is, of course, too complex to be analyzed in this paper. However, suffice it to say that they are the conditions emanating from the shock and resulting tumult of enslavement, the lost recognition of rights as human beings, and all subsequent acts, terror, political control techniques and policies to which this particular community was subjected during its movement through legal enslavement, Jim Crow, and apartheid (segregation). From the vantage point of the intelligentsia of the dominant group, these same paradigms are encouraged and validated as a consequence of fears, privileges, customs and orientations growing out of having experienced the advantageous side of this historical development. In short, historically, a situation of Anglo-American domination has been viewed as both natural and desirable.

We feel it would be fair to assume that the patterns of African American leadership and the framework for decision-making that we see merging from the chaos of what is called the African American or black community, results from ‘sensitive dependence’ on these original historical circumstances.

If so, then our gathering here today is historic because it represents the first effort of African-American and indeed American thinkers to free their minds (in relation to the African-American question in the context of American development) from the intellectually crushing and oppressive paradigms that have served only to loop back toward the past, thus assuring that in relation to American pluralistic societal development, we shall continue to turn in purposeless circles around our original ‘strange attraction’ to various forms of enslavement and/or servitude, domestication and consequent materialism and dehumanization.

Our attempt today to begin the process of reorienting intellectual thought around the right to self-determination is first of all an act toward intellectual liberation, and is an historical landmark suggesting that we have finally broken free of the enslavement paradigms, and can now begin to contribute positively and meaningfully to African-American freedom . . . .“

In February of 1993, I intuitively understood the need to liberate my mind, to break free of the enslavement paradigms. The only way I knew how to do that was to physically leave America. At the time, however, as Dr. Kly surmised, I, like the rest of American and Afro-America, did not yet have the legal vocabulary for a discussion of these issues. I could only express frustration and rage for the injustice I was experiencing.

By that time, IHRAAM had facilitated communications between the National Organizing Committee for the Million Man March based in Chicago and were preparing for an intervention at a meeting of the UN Working Group on Minorities, May 26-30, 1997.

In 1996, however, I began learning from Irish El Amin Greene, Founder and Director of the Nkrumah Washington Community Learning Center (NWCLC) under the direction of Dr. Kly. El Amin had begun to direct my studies towards the law. Taking me to its old location, El-Amin explained to me the history of the National Council of Black Lawyers Community College of Law and International Diplomacy where he used to work. He provided documents about its co-founders Dr. Charles Knox and Dr. Y.N. Kly, both distinguished experts in international law and diplomacy, and provided me with textbooks on the U.N. and its procedures. One book in particular would change my life the way the Autobiography of Malcolm X had done: International Law and the Black Minority in the U.S. by Dr. Y.N. Kly. Along with another of his books, The Black Book (which details Malcolm X’s program to internationalize our struggle through the Organization of Afro American Unity),

I gained some clarity on what must be done and what I must do,

in order to gain relief from genocide and win reparations. I thus began writing Ras Notes: Conceptualizing Our Case for the U.N. At this time, I established communication with Dr. Kly’s International Human Rights Association of American Minorities (IHRAAM) and UHRAAP. I then began researching U.N. resolutions through the internet at DePaul University, and obtaining articles, petitions, and reports from NGO’s concerning our case. From these I began drafting the Petition of the Nkrumah-Washington Community Learning Center on Behalf of their Members, Associates and Afro-American Population Whose Internationally Protected Human Rights Have Been Grossly and Systematically Violated By the Anglo-American Government of the United States of America and Its Varied Institutions.”

At NWCLC, I was being trained to become an international legal advocate for African American self determination for the next generation. Lack of money for tuition and an intense contempt for higher educational institutions following my experience at Yale prevented me from formally enrolling in IHRAAM’s International Legal Studies Program in cooperation with Barrington University. I decided I would teach myself and learn on my own.

Alas, like Dr. Kly, I have arrived at the understanding that the question of a claim by African Americans for the right to self-determination “is largely one of self-definition within the context of geopolitical and legal reality.“ Moreover,

“An analysis of the African-American question thus should begin with a look at what level of political authority is absolutely needed by African-Americans in order for them to manage or resolve their most pressing crises, e.g. disproportionate representation in prisons, welfare, health care, educational dropouts, drug usage, mental institutions, homelessness, single parent families, etc. First, what is required to safeguard their right to be different and equal, and to achieve equal status with the majority? Second, what international legal responsibilities does the U.S. government have toward the African-American national minority that will assist it in achieving its political and socio-economic needs? Finally, which of these minority rights or U.S. legal obligations is it feasible to expect to be fulfilled in the present political, socio-economic and international legal climate? The second and last questions are dealt with in this presentation, and it is not appropriate to attempt a response to the first within the context of this Conference. It can perhaps be most usefully answered only in an African-American conference designed for that purpose - to reach consensus agreements that may be put forward as representing the African-American democratic and collective decisions, and leading to appropriate procedures for consultation and approval by the African-American people as a whole.”

The 2020 Presidential election has seen both candidates put forward their respective “plans” for Black America: LIFT EVERY VOICE: THE BIDEN PLAN FOR BLACK AMERICA and THE PLATINUM PLAN FOR BLACK AMERICANS: OPPORTUNITY, SECURITY, PROSPERITY, AND FAIRNESS. In addition, segments og the black community have put forward their plans for Black America as well: Black Agenda 2020 and #ADOS Black Agenda and Ice Cube’s A Contract With Black America. Unfortunately, as Dr. Kly predicted, ALL of these plans suffer from the ‘strange attraction’ of historically-enforced paradigms, that, despite their best intentions, perpetuate the crushing and oppressive forms of enslavement and/or servitude, domestication and consequent materialism and dehumanization of the dominant white (Anglo-American) majority paradigm that deviously seems both natural and desirable. In other words,

none of the 2020 plans for Black America have shifted from a domestic civil rights model to an international human rights model

and thus can not effect a true remedy for the welfare of the Black community. To rectify this, and to put forward a vision of what is required to safeguard Black America’s right to be different and equal, and to achieve equal status with the majority under an international legal framework (why Dr. Kly respectfully declined to do at the Conference on African-Americans and the Right to Self Determination) I submitted the

Agenda for Black America’s Restoration and Self Determination.

Somewhat to my surprise, the response to the Agenda for Black America’s Restoration and Self Determination has revealed the alarming civil, political and legal illiteracy of African Americans, despite the fact that in 1964, Malcolm X admonished us to internationalize our struggle and to move from civil rights to human rights. As Dr. Kly outlined in 1993,

“Concerning the content of the right to self-determination, Article 1 of the ICCPT stipulates that ‘State Parties . . . shall promote the right in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.’ The ICCPR stipulates that under this right, peoples ‘freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.’ Although international instruments do not provide a succinct definition of the contents of the right to self-determination of peoples, the Declaration of Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States stipulates that the creation of a sovereign and independent State, or the acquisition of any other freely decided political status, are all means through which people can exercise the right to self-determination. . . . A large number of states such have introduced autonomy or self-government. . . . In many instances, self-determination has come to mean self-management, home rule, or merely the delegation of powers to a municipal authority with expanded functions. The title does not matter so long as the central government agrees to power sharing and leaves a sufficient and acceptable amount of control over minority affairs in the hands of group representatives. Sufficient self control by certain groups over their internal affairs is seen in human fights law as essential for protecting dignity, identity, and diverse customs, and placing groups on an equal footing with other parts of society.”

This is essentially the substance of the Black Lives Matters call for community control of police. Such a call, moreover, is popularly accepted by the Black community. However, why limit such a demand to just one area of the black experience? Why hasn’t the Black Community formulated a comprehensive demand for “community control” of all areas and institutions affecting Black lives? Why was no comprehensive agenda for Black autonomy or self determination put forward until now? Why has no platform framed their agenda or even referenced the ICCP of which the United States is a party to?

The answer is: civil, political and legal illiteracy.

Dr. Kly continued,

“When members of minorities demand, as the traditional African-American leadership has always done, no more than equal treatment, which has been increasingly interpreted in U.S. courts to mean the same treatment, the ordinary rules concerning non-discrimination apply. However, if a national minority such as African-Americans began effectively to demand, in some respects, differential treatment for the purpose of achieving equal status, it becomes necessary to distinguish between the domain which is of common concern and that which is specific to the members of the minority. In all matters of common concern, the principle of equality and non-discrimination continues to reign supreme. The first level of obligation for the sovereign state, the United States in this case, is to respect the equality of all individuals before the law. This presents the first problem: should the law be the same for all groups? To what extent, and in regard to which circle of persons under which circumstances, should a legal or political system for that particular group be recognized? To the extent that it is found necessary in order to allow for the preservation of the identity and equal status of the group, certain matters may have to be transferred to the area of separate concern. . . . The first level of state obligation is inextricably intertwined with the second level, which is to assist its inhabitants in enjoying their human rights through fulfilling their justified claims to minority rights as spelled out in human rights instruments. This means that equal enjoyment of human rights must be achieved through active legal regulation and its administrative and financial implementation. . . . In the case of African Americans, the use of affirmative measures, non-territorial self-government, or certain forms of institutional autonomy, can help to redress past discrimination and/or inequality in the enjoyment of rights by recreating equal opportunity in fact. This requires an affirmative definition by the group itself of its wishes and or its minority or ‘nation’ identity (the subjective factor). Self-definition for African-Americans will have the effect of defining their status for the purpose of justifying their entitlement to transitional affirmative measures, special rights or minority rights, and compensation for gross violations, depending on the democratic demands of African-Americans.”

The United Nations’ Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities states:

1. States shall protect the existence and the national or ethnic, cultural, religious and linguistic identity of minorities within their respective territories and shall encourage conditions for the promotion of that identity.

2. States shall adopt appropriate legislative and other measures to achieve those ends.

As Dr. Kly, noted, the Declaration, which is not legally binding, gives us direction as to the interpretation of Article 27 of the ICCPR, which is legally binding on state parties ratifying the Covenant. Why aren’t we demanding and exercising our international rights???? Again, African Americans haven’t shifted from a civil rights framework to an international legal/human rights framework because of the ‘strange attraction’ of historically-enforced paradigms, that, despite their best intentions, perpetuate the crushing and oppressive forms of enslavement and/or servitude, domestication and consequent materialism and dehumanization of the dominant white (Anglo-American) majority paradigm that deviously seems both natural and desirable.

This explains why, in 2020, in the midst of complete failure of United States democracy and a fraudulent presidential election between two known racists, one a narcissist and the other a pedophile, the overwhelming expression of the black community is “VOTE! YOUR ANCESTORS DIED FOR THE RIGHT!”

This represents a blatant psychosis, a form of Stockholm syndrome, when it comes to the question of African American civil, political and legal status. Shifting the paradigm from civil rights to international human rights is provoking African American cognitive dissonance. I witnessed this first hand during a panel discussion with a black professor of African American history, who, without even reading the Agenda for Black America’s Restoration and Self Determination, began ignorantly attacking it.

As to the possible claims to self-determination that African Americans could possible make at this time, Dr. Kly identifies three:

“(1) First, African-Americans may wish to make their claim to international protection for the right to self-determination based on an agreement between themselves and their government. This would mean first bringing their political and socio-economic grievances to the attention of the U.S. government with a plan for internal self -determination that could feasible resolve those grievances. Any such agreement reached would be recognized in international human rights law. . . .

(2) Second, African -Americans may claim systematic and institutional discrimination, present violations of human rights (including minority rights) and past gross violations of human rights (including slavery and apartheid), claiming that this has left them in an inferior political, social and economic situation in the United States, and in an underdog position in relation to other peoples in the world, from which they can only escape through the adoption of some form of autonomy, self-government, or institutional self-management, insofar as, over the past few decades, equality before the law, non-discrimination and affirmative action have proved inadequate. Thus, a demand for special rights under Article 27 of the ICCPR would appear appropriate. If the U.S. government refuses to recognize their special rights and is still unable or unwilling to provide for equal status (assuming that they have been democratically demanded by a representative African-American assembly or council), then, backed up by references to ‘recourse… to rebellion against tyranny and oppression’ set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the language in the Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation Among States, a third legal claim becomes available.

(3) The third option would probably be the most disruptive to positive relations between groups in the United States. African-Americans could claim they have a right to self-determination as a revolt against oppression and the violation of their human rights. This would call attention to the long history of gross violations of their human rights and the continuation of this pattern into the present.”

The Agenda for Black America’s Restoration and Self Determination is a combination of options 1 and 2 above.

Of greatest importance and thus concern, however, is Dr. Kly’s conclusion:

“While in theory we have concluded that African-Americans do have the right to self-determination in international law, we must in all reality remind ourselves that African-Americans have not made made self-determination or minority rights demands. Nor are they creating the political structure required to do so..”

During Panel Discussion I at the conference, Keith Ellison stated,

“This condition of Black people, the pseudo-citizenship, gives African-American people the right to forge their own separate, independent identity, if they should choose to do that. I think what is needed is that African-American citizens should have a right to vote on that question. Should we remain with the American state, the United States, or should we opt out of that arrangement? The common estimation and legal status of African-Americans throughout American history brings African-American citizens into the modern day position where any effort to integrate with American society is rebuffed. It is not that African-Americans have, by and large, been opposed to integration and pluralism. Whites, particularly those possessing political and economic power, have resisted inclusion. What I am saying is that if a national minority is refused the right to be integrated, then the larger society should allow and assist the national minority to opt for an independent destiny.”

Following Mr. Elliison, Dr. August Nimitz said,

“The question that Dr. Kly raises at the end of the paper is why aren’t there any demands at this particular time. It seems to me the reason is that there were in fact very real changes that took place in this country in the aftermath of the Civil Rights movement that led to, if not integration, then a degree of upward mobility for increasing layers within the Black community - a degree of upward mobility that reflected something else that was taking place within U.S. society, increasing class polarization within U.S. society as a whole.

Within the black community, you begin to see increasing disparities in income and wealth. In fact, there was a layer of people who benefited quite well materially from the Civil Rights movement.

I would argue fundamentally that the quest for self-determination throughout history on the part of the oppressed minorities has almost invariably been led by elites and intellectuals. This was the experience of Nineteenth Century Europe, and it has been the experience of Twentieth Century Africa and other third world countries. The reality is that as opportunities have become available for elites and intellectuals within the Black community to move, to become upwardly mobile, the requests and demands for self-determination have tended to abate. To the extent, to make a forecast, that those desires, those quests, are not entirely fulfilled, we may anticipate again a demand for self-determination, but as long as the hope exists, and as long as the possibilities exist for that kind of mobility, I am not convinced that we will see a demand for African-American self-determination in the immediate future.”

From this understanding, we can further understand how the Presidency of Barack Obama was used to pacify the Black Community and prevent and such African American demand for self-determination.

Neely Fuller Jr. calls this strategy of providing the black community with hope in order to prevent them from claiming self-determination as SHOWCASISM:

Here we must revisit Director J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI's COINTELPRO (Counterintelligence Program) that was aimed at investigating and disrupting dissident political groups within the United States. Hoover clearly stated COINTELPRO’s goal to prevent any African American claim for self-determination:

“For maximum effectiveness of the Counterintelligence Program, and to prevent wasted effort, long-range goals are being set.

1. Prevent the COALITION of militant black nationalist groups. In unity there is strength; a truism that is no less valid for all its triteness. An effective coalition of black nationalist groups might be the first step toward a real “Mau Mau” [Black revolutionary army] in America, the beginning of a true black revolution.

2. Prevent the RISE OF A “MESSIAH” who could unify, and electrify, the militant black nationalist movement. Malcolm X might have been such a “messiah;” he is the martyr of the movement today. Martin Luther King, Stokely Carmichael and Elijah Muhammed all aspire to this position. Elijah Muhammed is less of a threat because of his age. King could be a very real contender for this position should he abandon his supposed “obedience” to “white, liberal doctrines” (nonviolence) and embrace black nationalism. Carmichael has the necessary charisma to be a real threat in this way.

3. Prevent VIOLENCE on the part of black nationalist groups. This is of primary importance, and is, of course, a goal of our investigative activity; it should also be a goal of the Counterintelligence Program to pinpoint potential troublemakers and neutralize them before they exercise their potential for violence.

4. Prevent militant black nationalist groups and leaders from gaining RESPECTABILITY, by discrediting them to three separate segments of the community. The goal of discrediting black nationalists must be handled tactically in three ways. You must discredit those groups and individuals to, first, the responsible Negro community. Second, they must be discredited to the white community, both the responsible community and to “liberals” who have vestiges of sympathy for militant black nationalist [sic] simply because they are Negroes. Third, these groups must be discredited in the eyes of Negro radicals, the followers of the movement. This last area requires entirely different tactics from the first two. Publicity about violent tendencies and radical statements merely enhances black nationalists to the last group; it adds “respectability” in a different way.

5. A final goal should be to prevent the long-range GROWTH of militant black organizations, especially among youth. Specific tactics to prevent these groups from converting young people must be developed.”

We have now reached that long-range horizon and can conclude that COINTELPRO was, indeed, effective in preventing militant black nationalists groups and leaders from gaining respectability.

AGAIN, NO MAINSTREAM AGEND FOR BLACK AMERICA USES ANY SELF DETERMINATION FRAMEWORK EXCEPT THE AGENDA FOR BLACK AMERICA’S RESTORATION AND SELF DETERMINATION.

For the benefit of increasing the civil, political and legal literacy of African Americans, I include below

1. Minority Rights: Some Questions and Answers (excerpt from A Popular Guide to Minority Rights, ed. Dr.Y. N. Kly, Clarity Press, Inc. as well as

2. the full-text of From Civil Rights to Human Rights and Self Determination? Proceedings of the IHRAAM Chicago Conference 2012.

Minority Rights: Some Questions and Answers

QUESTION: Why should African-Americans look to international human rights law for help achieving equal status and equality in America?

International human rights law promotes norms of minority treatment that are more wide-ranging and have been more successful inpractice than limited concept of civil rights (non0discrimination and equality before the law, which in the United States is interpreted tomean the same treatment).  These norms reflect the modern world’s experience in trying to accommodate the problems of minorities bygiving the historically evolved situation and circumstances of the minority group adequate consideration, leading often to positive stateaction and different treatment, in view of their different requirements.Viewing the problem of minorities within the international context prevents the error of thinking that local minorities’ problems are unique(and hence insoluble).  By enabling the African-American problem to be viewed within the context of a whole range of problems whichhave typically arisen for minorities worldwide—by the mere fact of their being a minority  -- we can see that African-Americans’development problems are essentially caused by the fact that they are a minority in a state that refuses to recognize or provide for theirminority rights or to permit any form of community control.  Segregation attempted to institute the cultural assimilation of African-Americans while maintaining their physical separation.  

QUESTION: International human rights law as a model for minority rights is all well and good, but who says America will payany attention?

Political pressure created by African-Americans demanding these rights, in conjunction with international pressure, will createcircumstances that will raise the cost both domestically as well as internationally, of denial of these rights beyond the benefit of notproviding for them.  To maintain the creditability of its position as a leading power, the United States must provide for minority rights,should these rights be demanded.  As a matter of fact, in cases where effective demands are made by Native Americans, we have seenpositive action on the part of the United States government.  Faced with an effective contingent of Native American lobbyists from theUnited Sates and politically forced to respond in an internationally supported forum concerning the needs of the world’s indigenouspeoples, the United States delegate to the United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Populations was forced to respond, according tothe UNPO Monitor, that:

• …although human rights of indigenous people is promoted in the United States, the promotion of the rights of dignity and “equality” are not sufficient.  Expressed support of the basic goals of the draft Declaration [on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples].  Offered a working model on how the rights of indigenous people can be recognized and implemented—on the right to self-determination, raised the issue of the recognition of tribal self-governance and autonomy over a broad range of issues as a positive development in the national level.  Highlighted the uniqueness of this concept of self-governance which considers a “government-to-government relationship.”  Finally, expressed determination to explore how this concept of self-determination might be translated into international terms.

• -Americans were to vote under a system which gave them full representation according to their votingnumbers, insofar as they are a numeric minority, they could still continue to be outvoted on every issue where their interest might clashwith that of the majority.  There would still be no (institutionalized) way which ensured that the system would address their specific needsor permit African-American communities to address their needs, themselves.  

QUESTION: Surely, if individual African-Americans are elected to office, this should mean greater clout for the community?       While African-Americans holding elected office doubtless feel strong obligations to their community and project their concerns inwhatever arenas they may be functioning in, such officials also have obligations to the other communities over whom they also havejurisdiction.  Frequently, in fact, elected black leaders have operated what Cynthia Enloe, writing with regard to black Americans, terms asub-machine:

QUESTION: Why hasn’t civil rights worked?       

As a minority in a majoritarian democratic system (as opposed to a pluralist system), African-Americans don’t have the voting powerto enforce adequate consideration of their needs.  American electoral procedures such as the single non-transferable vote (as opposedto proportional representation) and at large municipal voting (as opposed to the ward system) are all geared to ensure majoritydomination.         However, even if African-Americans were to vote under a system which gave them full representation according to their votingnumbers, insofar as they are a numeric minority, they could still continue to be outvoted on every issue where their interest might clashwith that of the majority.  There would still be no (institutionalized) way which ensured that the system would address their specific needsor permit African-American communities to address their needs, themselves.  

QUESTION: Surely, if individual African-Americans are elected to office, this should mean greater clout for the community?       

While African-Americans holding elected office doubtless feel strong obligations to their community and project their concerns inwhatever arenas they may be functioning in, such officials also have obligations to the other communities over whom they also havejurisdiction.  Frequently, in fact, elected black leaders have operated what Cynthia Enloe, writing with regard to black Americans, terms asub-machine:

• a patronage and favor-dispensing organ nominally controlled by a politician from a relatively weak ethnic group [whose] owninfluence and resources depend on access to the resources of the larger machine controlled by politicians of another community.  In essence, the sub-machine boss is the loyal lieutenant of the machine boss; but he is permitted enough autonomy to build a personal power base of his own so long as it never rivals that the senior patron.

•        These representatives, while they may be African-American, cannot be seen to be speaking for the African-American communities.  Their position is therefore very ambiguous where the interests of majority and minority conflict.  While a number of mayors in majorAmerican cities are now African-American, in many instances it cannot be said that the African-American communities that have electedthem have benefited.  So the question remains: who has the legitimacy and authority, as conferred by the democratic process, to speakfor African-Americans?  Is there a need for an African-American election?  Are African-Americans enjoying democracy in America, orhave their interests and needs, insofar as they differ from that of the majority population, been consistently submerged by the interest ofthe majority Anglo-American ethny?  Is the subordination of African-American need to majority interest even visible in the very courtdecisions which enforced their civil rights since, as Derrick Bell has observed, “Successful court decisions in relation to civil rightscoincide with those case decisions that also serve to benefit the majority ethny even more”?

QUESTION: Were we misdirected when we struggled for civil rights and against the “separate but equal” doctrine?       

No.  At the time, there really wasn’t much understanding of discussion of the options (nor indeed, was conventional international lawas developed with regard to minority rights as at present).  Resistance to segregation, the American version of apartheid, and indeed,the image of apartheid and Bantustans as practiced in South Africa, may have weighed against the maintenance of separate institutions,in the presumption that they would necessarily be controlled by Anglo-Americans and thus kept unequal.  However, the African-Americanpeople may not have generally understood that what may have appeared as the alternate process, “integration,” was in realityassimilation, and would encourage the dismantling of the existing degree of African-American economic, political and educationalinstitutions, communities, families, etc.Most important to note is that African-Americans were neither separate nor equal.  The doctrine, while using the words “separate butequal” was actually a doctrine of segregation and racism.  All institutions of the African-American community were under the indirectcontrol of the Anglo-American majority ethny through the apparatus of the state: school curricula, the justice system, the licensing systemfor professionals, etc.  Thus, African-Americans have never fought for nor against a separate but equal system.  They have foughtagainst racist (Anglo-American) oppression and for civil rights, assuming that civil rights was the way of overcoming Anglo-Americanoppression, while racism was simply the tool to maintain the oppression.         While African-Americans may have brought about the end of official constitutional-legal discrimination (segregation), they have notachieved equal status (particularly as a group) in the electoral system, or indeed, in terms of general level of political and economiccontrol in any sector.  So while the struggle for civil rights (the rights of a citizen) has been valuable, it has not provided equality or equalstatus in law or in fact.  It has provided for African-Americans to be treated the same as Anglo-Americans regardless of whether this“same” treatment leads to greater inequality in fact or not, and regardless of whether treating African-Americans as the same legallyproduces greater or lesser legal equality.  It provided for their cultural and political assimilation into the Anglo-American underclass, fortheir disappearance as a separate nation; in short, it provided for ethnocide.  

QUESTION: Does non-discrimination (equality before the law) work for African-Americans?       

Apart from marginal remedy for some individuals, not at all, because most discrimination is institutional, structural and systemic.  The main recourse provided by equality (same treatment) before the law/non-discrimination is threat of court action.  As any who haveever undertaken such legal action can testify, it is a tremendously costly and lengthy process, with the outcomes always uncertain andthe proofs concerning individual situations burdened by subtleties often beyond the power of the courts to capture.  While successfullawsuits likely do cause some attitudinal discrimination to abate, it is likely that attitudinal discrimination is pushed underground, whilesystemic discrimination remains, disguised in legitimate institutions, politico-legal mandates, prerogatives and necessities.         A further problem with attempting to solve discrimination problems through the courts is the fact that, increasingly, the United Statesjudicial system regards equal treatment “of rich and poor alike” as before mentioned, to mean the same treatment (in abstract, makingthese two unequals equal in such a way as to seem concerned rather with preventing the possibility of discrimination against the rich)and thereby discounts factors that differentiate the parties concerned, such as poverty, historic oppression, etc.       Constant litigation on the part of aggrieved individuals is not the solution but remains a symptom of the problem, which is systemicand institutional.  

QUESTION: If non-discrimination laws don’t end discrimination, how do you end discrimination?

First we should consider some of the sources and purposes of discrimination.  Discrimination does not derive from a free-floating attitudeof “racism” arising spontaneously in the minds of some “bad people” who “don’t like [black] people.”  Typically it evolves dialecticallythrough specific historical events leading to the creation of systemically generated and ensured inequalities, whether its concerns today’sthird world economic refugees, victims of the neo-colonial international economic order, or the situation of the African-Americans, victimsof a long history of one nation’s official systemic policies devoted to ensuring the dominance of Anglo-Americans.  The material andpsycho-social hierarchies generated by systemic inequality in turn condition a web of attitudes, fears, distastes, and hostilities.         

However, awareness of this systemic causality plays little part in most inter-group relations—not just because of the complexity ofthe understanding required, but also because what is really at issue is not just majority distaste for this or that trait of the discriminatedgroup.  The issue is collective power relations between the groups, and the individual power of group members that either benefits orsuffers from this unequal relation.  These are pocketbook issues and concerns “having” (as opposed to “sharing” which can be properlyviewed as “having an appropriate part of,” or negatively viewed as “having less,” or at minimum as “maximizing your losses,” insofar asfailure to share may result in a situation in which the pie itself is destroyed.)  It concerns habits of interaction, customary assumptions andso on, all of which are measured on a scale of relative privilege.         

Psycho-spiritual complexes deriving from the long history of official systemic discrimination and gross human rights violation in whichAfrican-Americans have been subjected, lead any in the majority culture to take it for granted that they should receive priorityconsideration over African-Americans in the allocation of social benefits, i.e. jobs, education, housing.  Many, while refusing to admit therelevance of historical/systemic factors to the present day African-American condition, consciously and unconsciously anticipate and fearretaliation for their disproportionate privileges.  Few can be impervious to the distorted and inflammatory depictions of African-Americansin the major American media, or indeed the reality of their disproportionately negative standing in all typical Anglo-Americanmeasurements of social well-being (income, life expectancy, health, education, etc.)  Such a web of motivation often leads the majoritypopulation to a reluctance to surrender any of the advantages and privileges which have been directly tied to its historical role asvictimizer.  Far better to blame the victim than to admit or dwell on causal factors which could lead to its recognition of both the justice,need and wisdom of surrendering its position of superiority, both material and attitudinal, which translates into the proportionate sharingof political and economic power and resources.         

Equally, the remediation of such ingrained attitudes and long term abuse as has existed in the African-American case might requirenot merely the alleviation of material inequality, but also a form of public repentance as exemplified by an official admission of andapology/reparations for the history of systemic discrimination and gross human rights violations.         

Once a measure of equal status has been established between groups, any tendency to discriminate would likely lose its deep-rooted and destructive basis, and where it remained, become similar to the milder rivalries and frictions which exist between cultureswhich nonetheless recognize each other’s full human equality, e.g. the rivalry between the British and French, etc.  It is in such cases thatnon-discrimination and recourse to the courts is most effective.  However, in situations where the historical situation has led to deep andpervasive structural inequalities in the relationship between majority and minority, the effectiveness of policies of non-discrimination forcreating equality are negligible.  So the question is one rather of establishing equal-status and interdependence between groups.  Within the American framework, the notion of how nondiscrimination policy can succeed in producing equality probably goes somethinglike this: if every instance of discrimination is prevented, then discrimination as a whole will be ended, and thus meritorious individuals,who exist in similar proportions in all groups, will rise to their natural place in the general social order, and hence all groups, by naturalprocess, will end up having a proportionate share of the social product, and a proportionate standing in all social indicators, i.e. equality.  This view of non-discrimination is concerned, not so much with protecting the right to be different, as with insisting that difference not benoticed or not matter, when it comes to allocating benefits, etc.  Inactuality, it becomes a game of “let’s pretend”: let’s pretend that thecontroller (the employer, the landlord, the banker, the real estate broker, the university professor) doesn’t notice that you are a minoritymember; he/she will treat you as if he thought you were equal (the same as an Anglo-American) although actual social conditions andprejudicial Anglo-American social criteria may lead him/her to assume (rightly or wrongly) that the schools you attended as a child wereunder-financed, that the community your grew up in and presently live in is beset by social problems resulting from unemployment,underemployment or low-wage employment, that your ability to excel or even function in the job may be impaired by the whole gamut ofsocial factors which beset you as a member of a devalued group, thereby rendering you less capable, less reliable, and so on.  This notonly leads inescapably to hypocrisy, but is also highly insulting.  Insofar as the collective identity of the minority is burdened by stigma, sois the standing of the individual, whether the attendant presumptions apply to him/her or not.  

There is no way for individuals tocompletely, or even sufficiently, escape the stigma attached to the collective identity even if they do manage to escape the materialconditions.  In short, the game of pretending to ignore differences is a way of suggesting that there is something wrong with beingdifferent (non-Anglo-American): a way of imposing cultural domination and ignoring your right to be who you are, with equal status.         

Non-discrimination can only be achieved by ensuring the right to be different by whatever means that may require.  It may requireboth an attempt to put a stop to negative action, as well as taking positive action on behalf of preserving the identity and promoting theequality of discriminated-against groups through politic0-legal or socio-economic policies directed specifically towards the groupconcerned.  

QUESTION: Maybe discrimination is rooted in human nature and can’t be prevented?       

This is unlikely.  Most research shows that the source of discrimination lies in a historical oppression or devaluation which issystemically implemented and ensured by the state.  Thus, it can only be appealed against to the state that is also its creator andpreserver.  As far as minority rights are concerned, the key may lie in sidestepping the issue of discrimination; in getting equally throughminority control of institutions, and leaving prejudice to its most natural correction: the development of respect and esteem deriving fromequal-status relations and the creation of situations of interdependence among groups.       

Discrimination counts most and is maintained when one group has to go to another group which is prejudiced against it for fulfillmentof basic needs: shelter, housing, education, capital; that is, when one group is made dependent on another, and when the law of thatgroup comes to feel that they are superior to the dominated group, and that there is something wrong with any number of aspects of thedependent group.  If African-Americans run their own communities, their own socio-economic institutions, then they no longer have to tryto achieve their needs in and through socio-economic institutions (etc.) controlled by the Anglo-American community.  They are then ableto provide for their own through initiatives enabled by access to proportionate share of the public purse (i.e. tax revenue, etc.), thuscreating conditions of interdependence between groups, enabling the marginalization of the problem of discrimination.  

QUESTION: Aren’t rights or measures that are just for minorities a kind of reverse discrimination?       

No. The concept of reverse discrimination as used in the United States is an effective way of attempting to ignore the existence ofminorities and minority rights, and psychologically prevent minorities from seeking rights outside of their control.  It suggests that thehistorical situation of the dominant group is the same as that of the devalued minority, and that where there is no difference, no right tobe different, all should be treated the same—even if the effects maintain inequality for the minority.  International law specifically militatesagainst the concept of reverse discrimination.  See Article 1:4 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination(CERD) and 8:3 of the Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious, and Linguistic Minorities, inAppendix II.

QUESTION: Do special measures and special rights apply to all minorities?  What about homosexuals, or the disabled?  What about Greek or Irish Americans?

Minority rights are essentially collective rights as they exist for the purpose of eliminating minority oppression and inequality.  Thereforein a technical sense, the word “minority” and the word “victim” in domestic law become similar when the right to international protection isevoked.  It is evoked because some important aspect of the minority’s rights and needs is being denied, ignored or trampled upon by themajority.  Customary international law suggests that rights involved in Article 27 of the ICCPR, as far as the United States is concerned,apply particularly to the national minorities: the African-Americans, Native Americans, and Chicanos.  These minorities existed collectivelywithin the state as the time it was constituted, and are not seen as immigrants from another state within the international system.         

Immigrant minorities, on the other hand, have made individual choices to leave duly constituted states in which they were citizens;there is implicit in the notion of immigration, the acceptance on the part of the immigrant of the desire to assimilate.  This does not mean,however, that the state may not be willing to accord them certain resources or special rights.  Canada, for instance, has such amulticultural policy which benefits its many immigrant minorities.  This does not put them on the same plane, however, as Canada’snational minorities, the aboriginal peoples and the French Canadians, who either enjoy or are recognized to have the right to significantlygreater politico-legal control of socio-economic and cultural institutions, and who seek to be regarded in full equality as founding nationsof the state.         

Social minorities (gays, the disabled, women [so-defined because of their non-dominant position], etc.) do not figure within theconfiguration of national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities protected by international minority rights law.  However, other humanrights law applies to them.  

QUESTION: What is the difference between special measures and special rights?       

While special measures refer to measures taken on behalf of the group which cease to exist once the minority achieves equal statuswith the majority, special rights are permanent and are accorded with a view to recognizing the minority’s right to remain different, tocontinue to exist and develop as a minority or nationality distinct from the majority culture, while interacting with it on a basis of equalityand interdependence.       

Special rights may include the notion of proportionality, widely recognized as effective for reducing group conflict and ensuringequal development.  It may be introduced in a limited manner (e.g. in only some sectors such as hiring in the civil service) or extensivelyin most public jurisdictions.  IN Switzerland, for example, the French, German and Italian populations share federal executive, legislativeand judicial positions proportionally;  proportionality is even taken into account in the armed forces.  In Belgium of the 1950’s-60’s, a near50-50 form of proportionality was extensively used.  Belgium’s 1971 constitution stipulated that with the possible exception of the primeminister, the cabinet must comprise an equal number of Flemish and French ministers.  The same devotion to the principle of equality isalso found in Belgian government’s allocation of resources.  When railway lines had to be abandoned, when industrial developmentprojects were sited and financed, when road were built, the decisions were made on the basis of equal shares in the benefits for eachnationality or minority.       

In particular, special rights creates pluralist democracy in order to assure equal status of all nations or minorities in the state—minority control of institutions in various sectors, such as education, healthcare, the justice system, culture, welfare, tourism, etc.  Controlover these sectors, whether achieved through autonym, devolution, federalism, etc. permit minority control over important elementsaffecting its well being and daily life.  This allows the minority a measure of self-determination without threatening the territorial integrity ofthe state.

QUESTION: Can we talk about self-determination and not be talking about secession?       

Yes.  Self-determination has come to be divided in scholarly discourse between external self-determination (the right of a group tosecede and become fully politically independent) and internal self-determination (where a group exercises political rights, among themthe right to control over jurisdictions of social activity such as education, health, criminal justice, etc. in varying degrees, while remainingwithin the existing state).

QUESTION: In Article 1 of both Covenants, self-determination is said to be the right of “peoples.”  Is self-determination aminority right, too?       

Many scholars such as Ian Brownlie argue that trying to establish differences between groups such as “peoples,” “minorities” and”indigenous peoples” and their respective rights is fruitless, insofar as the issues are the same, and “the segregation of topics is animpediment to fruitful work.”   In his keynote address to the Hamline Conference on African-Americans and the Right to Self-Determination reprinted herein, Dr. Kly further advances these arguments.  In practice, varying degrees of internal self-determinationhave been accorded to both peoples and national minorities in order to promote harmonious inter-group relations.       

When used in relation to national minorities,  self-determination is concerned primarily with internal jurisdiction, and does not permitthe right of succession or threat to the territorial integrity of the state.  The word “autonomy” is being used with greater frequency now, inthis regard.  While “internal self-determination” as it relates to national minorities, and “autonomy” can be regarded as functionally thesame, there is no escaping the liberating connotations which continue to cling to the former term.

QUESTION: What are African-Americans?  A people?  A racial, ethnic or national minority?       

There is no internationally agreed upon definition for either peoples or minorities.  Both share many characteristics.  Also stateshave devised solutions in domestic law to permit nationalities to exercise varying degrees of self-determination.  While a commonlanguage, culture and religion may play an important determining role in the process of definition, the subjective factor—self-definition,the desire and ability of the group concerned to assert its will to exist as such, to be and to develop as a group, and to express its needfor “autonomy” or some form of internal self-determination to achieve equal status—is a major factor in determining how a group isdefined in international law.       

Keeping in mind the international legal relationship between the word minority and the word victim, the most important factor callingforth legitimate demands for )internal) self-determination may be their historical circumstances, and the extent to which they have beenunable or unwilling to assimilate, or have been prevented from assimilating by the majority culture, and remain trapped in a condition ofpermanent inequality vis-a-vis the majority.       

While there has been no internationally accepted definition of national minority (let alone minority), this term continues to appear ininternational legal texts.  Some have argued, in fact, that this is the only type of minority that truly has rights to international protection,  insofar as all other are essentially immigrant or social minorities, and are covered by other human rights instruments.       

While classification of African-Americans as a national minority abrogates the issue of whether they are an ethnic minority, it seemsclear that their self-definition as African-Americans; their recognizability anywhere in the world as such; their distinctive music, dance,cuisine, dress and manner; and their sense of a shared history would clearly make the ethnic definition, too, and an appropriate one.

QUESTION: Do African-Americans have a unique cultural identity?       

Many factors make up a people’s or national minority’s unique identity; these concern shared characteristics such as language,religion, or a common heritage.  While most national minorities do to some degree share many of the same characteristics (as majorities,and indeed as the people of many independent states), it is important to remember that the African-American culture was consolidatedunder conditions of oppression.  It would be difficult to argue that there is common history between the enslaved and the enslaver, i.e. ashared experience of that history, a shared interpretation of that history, or a shared evaluation of its major actors.         

Assuredly, African-Americans have a unique identity.  Their roots go deep into Africa, not Europe.  It would be nonsensical toassume that , over the passage of generations, parents transmitted to their children nothing of the practices and understandings withwhich they themselves have grown up—even under the hostile conditions of enslavement, which attempted to erase all prior identities.  African-American culture in the southern United States still retains many direct linkages—the basket weaving women of South Carolina,the syntax and vocabulary of the Gullah language  which many have claimed provides the basis for what is commonly referred to, andcoming to be taught as, African-American language, etc.       

Despite the long history of theft and borrowing from African-American blues and jazz, there is nonetheless recognition of thedistinctive cultural source of this music.  Even today, the reference to “crossover” music asserts a continuing difference anddistinctiveness of the African and Anglo-American musical cultures.       

While African-Americans, like Mexicans, Cubans, French, etc., do to some degree share some of the same religious beliefs asAnglo-Americans, they also practice many religions not generally practiced by Anglo-Americans.  Within the African-American community,we find, Muslins, Holly Rollers, the Green Door Society, the Yoruba, the Black Hebrews, Daddy Grace, Father Divine, and so on.  Thereligious culture of African-American Christian churches is strikingly different from that of Anglo-American churches, to the extent thatsome worship an African Christ.  Most African-American Christians still belong to the African Methodist Church.  

QUESTION: Why does having a unique identity matter?  Why can’t everybody just be the same.  After all, we’re all alikeunder the skin.       

Unique cultural identities result from the historical circumstances of a people.  It is not, on the collective level, what a groupchooses.  It results essentially from group historical experiences and situations.  Therefore, the correct question in relation to minorityrights law is not, why can’t we all be the same—we are essentially the same—it’s why should one people be oppressed because of itsdifference from another group?  The minority rights answer is: they shouldn’t, and therefore they must be afforded the rights required tobe equal.         

A group’s ethnic identity is made up of the common experience of their families, their ancestors, and their communities.  It concernstheir social beliefs and religious practices, their values, their goals, their way of doing things.  It means their music, their way of dress,their hair-styles, their marriage mores, their languages as well as their way of talking, their interests, their particular talents, their cooking,their dance, their sports and entertainment, their treatment of children and the elderly, and so on. These aren’t attributes that people“put on,” in the way that people are sometimes said to “become cultured.”  These are attributes that people take in with their mother’smilk, from the historical practice and customs of their community.  They provide the fabric for daily life.      

 Frequently an ethnic identity can be impoverished by oppression.  Various expressions of that identity can be devalued by anotherethny which has the power to enforce its values.  The instance where African-American corn-row hair-styles were once rejected asunsuitable for those working in Anglo-American-controlled banks is a case in point.  The denigration and suppression of an ethnic orcultural expression previously accepted as natural can only have a negative effect on inter-cultural relations.         

Groups are different, and they have the right to have their differences recognized and respected as much as their sameness.  These differences don’t go away by ignoring them.  Rather, ignoring the ethnic dimension of an individual’s identity (while at the sametime accepting majority ethnic identity as somehow “universal”) puts minority groups at a disadvantage, since it prevents the society frombeing able to adequately process their unique demands, needs and requirements for equal status.  

QUESTION: What if the minority doesn’t express the desire to maintain its culture, but sometimes seems to be trying toescape from it and assimilate into the majority?       

The fact that an oppressed minority is usually afraid to express its unique culture where an environment hostile to the culture ismaintained by the state, is well understood in international law, and is the chief reason for promoting minority rights.   African-Americans,like nationalities, have throughout their history affirmed a strong desire to maintain their culture in every way except where it was fearedthat doing so would provoke retaliation from the Anglo-Americans who controlled the apparatus of the state.More often, the minority is simply forced to find means of accommodating the majority culture while at the same time rejecting it. In orderto survive and function in situations where the majority has control and enforces its cultural preferences: in the workplace, in housing, insocial services, in educational institutions, and other areas.  For instances, many African-Americans provide an official and unofficialname to their children.  

QUESTION: What if the individual minority member wants to assimilate, or join the dominant culture?       

We should stress that it remains a feature of minority rights that the individual minority member should not be forced to availhim/herself of the rights he/she might bear as a minority individual, and should be regarded as free to assimilate into the dominantculture, if so desired, and to participate in it fully, without discrimination.   However, this decision of the individual does not affect the rightof the group.  The individual is simply deciding to be a part of one group and not the other, or both, if the circumstances permit.  Minorityrights are not to be taken as enforced ghettoization of minority members.         

It should be reiterated that the desirability of assimilating into the dominant culture is often simply due to the dominant culture’spower in the society, and the fact that it has refused to share power with the other nationalities (minorities) and has denigrated theirculture and traditions.  Were the minority to achieve equal status through the exercise of minority rights, then minority traditions, values,standards of beauty, etc. would have equal appeal to that of the majority.  

QUESTION: You said earlier that minority rights can mean that minorities have the right to control socio-economic andcultural institutions.  Give me an example.              

Let’s take education.  Since Brown v. Board of Education as well as during segregation, African-Americans have been integratedinto the Anglo-American education system.  In practice this has meant the demise, at a remarkable pace, of colleges which traditionallyhave served the African-American population.   On the other hand, African-American students have not felt at home in Anglo-American-dominated institutions.  They have not felt that these institutions adequately represented their history, their interests or their needs.  Inshort they did not feel these institutions were “theirs,” in the same way as Anglo-American students might.   Many felt embarrassed by theexistence of affirmative action programs, the claimed intention of which was to accelerate their entrance into the Anglo-Americaninstitutions and thereby their assimilation into Anglo-American culture, but which often were administered and interpreted in such amanner as to discredit their true capabilities or to catapult them, under intense scrutiny, into a situation of hostile and unfair competition.  Applying the minority rights argument, there could be African-American and Anglo-American educational institutions as well as bi-culturalinstitutions.  All would of course be multi-racial.  

QUESTION: Does self-determination mean we could control our own school? Re-establish African-American colleges?  Thatsounds like going back to segregation.  We heard “separate but equal” before but it was never equal.  Why should webelieve in it now?       

Yes, self-determination might entail African-American control of college curricula, programs and financing.  But this wouldn’t be likereturning to segregation.  For one thing, there would be no restrictions based on race.  Those African-Americans who wished to attendAnglo-American or bi-cultural institutions would be free to do so.  Anglo-Americans who wished to attend African-American or bi-culturalinstitutions would also be free to do so.  But this time, unlike during either the segregation or the civil rights period, the control of theAfrican-American educational situation would be in African-American hands.  This would mean, among other things, that African-Americans could decide qualifications for teachers, hiring and firing, curricula, student eligibility and professional licensing standards,disciplinary codes, dress codes, fee scheduling, etc. (albeit with some restrictions resulting from mechanisms which might be put in placefor ensuring parity, where required, with multicultural national standards.)  However, in general African-American institutions would not beaccountable to any other agency or administrative oversight outside of the African-American community.         

During the period of segregation, while African-Americans did almost all the administration and teaching, African-Americans, inconjunction with the African-American community, did not establish the subjects or content, nor the priorities, nor were they culturally orpolitically free to promote their culture and vision of the world and the U.S. in equal-status with Anglo-Americans, or to affirm their culturalor political preferences, thus creating the intellectual and cultural ethos of their institutions.  Also, during the period of segregation,African-American institutions did not have the funding to permit them to function on a par with Anglo-American institutions.  

QUESTION: How would African-American colleges be in any better financial condition in a situation of self-determination?       

Article 27 of the ICCPR, as amplified by Article 1 of the Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic,Religious and Linguistic Minorities, requires governments to “create conditions” favorable to the preservation and development ofminority cultures.  In practice this has often meant giving minorities jurisdiction over their own schools.  The educational sector hashistorically  been the most common sector for minorities to exercise their cultural rights.  The funding of these educational institutions hasbeen a government responsibility, financed by a share of public moneys, i.e. transfer payments in those situations where minorities werenot also given the right to raise money in the numerous ways that governments do: by power to tax, by licensing fees, etc.  (See, forinstance, Articles 41-43 of the Statute of Autonomy of the Basque Country, 1979, in Appendix I.)  In Canada, the federal structure andprovincial taxation rights thereunder has permitted French Canadians, by means of their control of the Quebec provincial government, todirectly control a sector of the taxation rights accorded to Quebec and secure funding for education institutions and the Desjardinbanking movement.  

QUESTION: If African-Americans controlled their own educational system, how would this make a difference?       

First of all, it would enable African-Americans both to preserve and develop their unique cultural identities by accepting communitypractices and understandings as normative rather than (at best) “different but all right.”  On the higher level, this is not just a matter ofteaching African-American literature or studying African art.  It also permits the expression of an African-American perspective on all thevarious disciplines: history, political science, law, sociology, psychology, economics, anthropology, and so on—in the same way that thisnaturally occurs in, say, Canadian, Quebecois, French, and British educational institutions.  It creates responsiveness not just to theneeds but also to the views and practices of the African-American community, seeking to affirm, substantiate and empower these views(both intellectually and in actuality).  As such, it would serve as a cornerstone and pillar establishing and ensuring the unique African-American intellectual contribution to global scholarship.         

Secondly, it would mean jobs for the community—not just jobs in the present (teaching and administrative positions) but also theguarantee of jobs in the future, for the students coming up, since education as well as professional and other licensing authority could begeared towards meeting community needs.  

QUESTION: Since “integration” and the significant movements of whites into traditionally black schools and colleges, manyAfrican-Americans have wanted to set up schools to preserve their own culture.  But then they thought: what was the usein establishing schools, if non-discrimination meant they were obliged to open their doors to whites, who might come inand take over.  Could they have a policy saying no whites were allowed to come?              

It isn’t a matter of the presence of the whites or any other race, it’s a matter of establishing the purpose and curricula of the schoolin relation to the highest African-American standards and needs.  All people should be invited to assist a worthwhile purpose.  Thecurricula and policies would be dominated by universal values as understood by the African-American community, as well as coursesspecifically geared to meet the needs of the African-American community.  

QUESTION: Does African-American control of the educational system mean that kids would be learning Afrocentrism?       

What African-American control of African-American education means is just that: control of schools by the African-Americancommunity.  It’s not simply a question of the curriculum, it’s a question of the administration, philosophy, world view, etc.  it will be thedemocratic consensus of the community which decides those qualified to determine what goes into the African-American curriculum.         

African culture inhabits African-American culture like the sap, the tree.  Whether consciously rediscovered, or simply passed on as  family practice from one generation to the next it is pervasive throughout African-Americans’ daily habits, ways of thought and belief,modes of relating, political and lifestyle preferences, and so on.  For generations it has represented their heritage and their aspirations.  There is no way for the two to be torn apart.  And yet, with the centuries of life in America, the African-Americans have evolved tobecome a new African people in North America—Africans who are also American, and whose relation with Europe is significantly differentfrom that of African or Asian populations.  Who is to say how that identity, given its freedom to develop according to its own tastes andabilities, might evolve?       

If the African-American community as a whole wants Afrocentrism, then likely it would play a larger role.  But there are otherelements in the community as well, wanting other things.  Undoubtedly Afrocentrism represents yet another rich channel of African culturepouring into the African-American pot.  But insofar as Afrocentrism is (self)-consciously imported, insofar as it can be sensed asrepresenting something other than what the people presently are, then it must be recognized as being a part, not the whole of theAfrican-American culture; as feeding into the hole, enriching it, undoubtedly, but not being it.  The whole is what the African-Americanpeople are, today, as they stand, as they remember, as they have forgotten, as they experience subliminally, habitually, and so on.  As UNESCO’s World Conference on Cultural Policies in Mexico recently declared:

• [Culture] comprises the whole complex of distinctive spiritual material, intellectual and emotional features that characterize asociety or social group.  It includes not only the arts and letters, but also modes of life, the fundamental rights of the human being,value systems, traditions and beliefs.

• It would be a mistake to assume that African-American control of their own schools would mean that they would have to go out and startbehaving in a way that they were not presently behaving.  Unless they wanted to do so.  Unless they decided, as a group, to do so.  Itwould e similar to taking all the noteworthy English writers, poets, scholars, musicians and exponents of “high culture,” as comprising thewhole of English culture.  Where, then, would one find steak and kidney bean pie?  Or stiff upper lips?

QUESTION: What could self-determination mean in relation to other jurisdictions such as criminal justice?       

It’s well known that the United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world in relation to its African-American population—infact, four times the rate of white dominated South Africa.   Much of African-Americans’ disproportionately higher rates of incarcerationstem not only from acts deriving from circumstances of poverty and oppression that they endure, but also from the disproportionatetendency of law enforcement to apprehend, convict, harass, intimidate and scapegoat the African-American community.  Much alsostems from the exacerbated tensions between law enforcement and enforcement personnel has been a largely unsuccessful attempt tomitigate the poor relations existing between the African-American community and the criminal justice system insofar as such blackpersonnel have not themselves been in control of their working environment, but rather caught up in it like helpless cogs in a machine,forced rather to prove themselves to their environment (the various peer groups and hierarchies within the criminal justice system) thanto their community.         

Dr. Roberta Sykes, an eloquent spokeswoman for the Black Aboriginal minority of Australia, made the following observationpertinent to police work in her own community, which suffers similarly high rates of incarceration:

• We have to work out methods whereby Blacks can have immediate and profound influence in policy and practice.  It is my contention that it does not matter very much what color a police officer is—what matters is who he or she is accountable to.

• If African-Americans were enabled to influence the criminal justice system or establish their own criminal justice system insofar as it concerned the African-American community—not just through personnel, hiring, firing and appointments, but through a systematized form of African-American input into criminal law content, policy, behavior codes, sentencing, parole, passage or prioritizing of laws, etc., itis likely that an entirely new relationship between the African-American communities and law enforcement would be achieved.  Law enforcement would be seen as it properly should be—as an extension of the community values, needs and understandings, and responsible to it rather than to politicians, absentee property holders or Anglo-American philosophic, socio-economic and political priorities or public opinion.  The community would have the freedom to find alternatives to incarceration; to give appropriate consideration to community evaluations to offenders;  to give due weight to mitigating socio-economic and cultural factors in relation to crimes and misdemeanors; and to stop harassment by establishing procedures to ensure enforcement responsiveness and responsibility to the community and community evaluation of service and service personnel.  

QUESTION: If we want to talk about the African-American community controlling its education and criminal justice systems,etc., don’t we have to talk about how we decide what the African-American community wants?       

Yes, African-Americans will need to institutionalize a political and democratic means of accessing African-American demands andneeds.  The main question African-Americans need to politically and democratically determine is whether, as a people, they wish toassimilate, or to be empowered, collectively.  Their answer to this question determines the direction that they should follow—civil rights orminority rights.       

This could be done by holding some form of referendum for African-American voters only, which might draw on the good offices ofthe United Nations to provide the required expertise and legitimacy.  There are numerous bodies in the international world concernedwith the establishment of electoral procedures under a wide variety of circumstances; they would have answers to the numeroustechnical questions which would arise in that regard.  The required expertise is there, if there is the will and desire to access it.         

Also, African-Americans need establish democratic structures or institutions which will provide arenas for policy debates, and theemergence of an African-American-elected leadership responsible to the African-American people.       This may mean establishing a national Council, and African-American Congress, and African-American Assembly or whatever, anddemanding its recognition by the government as the only legitimate voice of the African-American people.  

QUESTION: What are the advantages of an African-American National Council, Assembly, Congress, or what have you?       

It would enable African-Americans to choose their own leadership, which would have to answer first to them.  This would encouragethe leadership to put forward policies that African-Americans want and need that reflect their history and circumstances.  This isparticularly important when the federal government puts into place policies that solely or even predominantly affect African-Americans.  Rather than consulting with people whom the federal government has decided it is willing to recognize as African-American leaders, thefederal government would be encouraged to confer with a body which is directly responsible to the African-American people, and henceresponsive to its needs.  Because the National Council, etc., would have been democratically chosen by the African-American peopleand legal recognized as the sole voice of African-Americans, the federal government will be less inclined to behave as if this leadershipmay or may not (depending on federal government whim or interest) represent the true will of the African-American people.  It would beunlike the present situation where individual leaders are summoned for consultation to the White House, and remain just that: individualVIPs—any one whom might be “de-legitimized” simply by failing to receive an invitation next time.         

The National Council, or whatever, would provide an apparatus for the African-American people which would enable them to makedecisions and institute planning in relation to African-American philosophy and cultural paradigms as it relates to how they see the bestinterest, globally as well as nationally.         

Further, this authorized representation would counter the present situation where media heroes engage with world leaders onwhatever issues may move them (or be mediagenic at the time), representing the authority of the African-American people without havingbeen legitimately given it.         A National Council, once integrated within the governmental structures of the American politico-legal system, would be able tofunction like another layer of government, regulating and responding to its key population group within the spheres of its ownjurisdictions.  

QUESTION: What kind of politico-legal system can offer African-Americans these jurisdictions, bearing in mind that theAfrican-American population is not concentrated in one area, but rather is spread out through many states?       

True, the African-American population is spread out, but that may prove to be advantageous.  For one thing, territorialconcentration has a tendency to give rise to movements which seek to establish self-determination through taking over a specificterritory, and demanding political independence.  This is threatening to both the state and the local non-minority population which may belocated within such territories, insofar as it may arouse fears of secession, and dismemberment of the country.  No state easilycountenances secession, and in any event, African-Americans may not have the relative numbers, power, or desire to move towardtaking political control of a specific territory, so long as their survival needs can be better obtained as an integrated part of the countrythey feel they helped to build.         

The international legal norm of minority rights instead suggests the establishment of politico-legal structures within the framework ofthe state, related specifically to the use and needs of African-Americans as a dispersed minority.   While in practice and in law,territorially-concentrated minorities’ needs are more easily facilitated, there are existing and historical precedents for empoweringdispersed minorities which could serve as examples for African-Americans.  This does not preclude the combination of local territorially-based autonomies with a national politico-legal structure geared towards a dispersed population.         

Insofar as each minority situation has its own particular conditions and is advanced or constrained, according to the needs,structures and views of the state with which it is negotiating implementation of its rights, it is unlikely that the model of any other countrywould be adopted in the United States without substantial reversion or embellishment.  What is needed at this point is to use thesehistorical models as a means of initiating a discussion of new possibilities.QUESTION: How would African-Americans go about establishing a National Council?       

What is most necessary is widespread recognition of the need and consequent demand for such a body within the community itself.  Ideally, at such time, a non-partisan entity permitting all groups, large and small, to participate, might serve the technical role ofestablishing he procedures and facilitating the process.  While the UN might assist such an entity, and legitimize and provide expertise tothe process, insofar as the process must be sufficiently self-developed, the UN, international organizations and African states mustplainly see a manifestation of the demand before participating.  

QUESTION: What role would the United States government play?       

Since any such National Council, Assembly, or what have you, formed at the initiative of the African-American community and suingfor government recognition, affects traditional power relations in the state, its recognition could entail constitutional and/or legal changes,bureaucratic changes, changes in the tax structures or transfer payments, according to the powers which might be acceded to it and/or,attendantly, to the African-American community.         

At the present time, the United States government has no single, logical, constitutionally-delineated and institutionally-coordinatedpolicy for dealing with its national minorities.   Indeed, with the emergence of “rainbows” and “multiculturalism” even within African-American activist organizations themselves, and the failure of the major political parties to raise, let alone deal with, African-Americanissues, there appears to be desire, within both the white and black echelons of power, for the existence and problems of African-Americans to be submerged in the generalized distress of what has been termed the American “underclass.”       

And yet, time is running out.  African-American populations dominate major metropolitan areas.  Already the decay in Americancities is ominous.  Something has to be done, of the good ship U.S.A., punctured by the gaping holes that are its major cities, andravaged by a major ethnic conflict that could approach third world proportions, will sink.  It is in the interest of the country as a whole tosolve the problem of African-American inequality.  African-American autonomy—which may indeed by the only way this community will beable to develop, insofar as four decades of civil rights have produced neither assimilation nor non-discrimination—is therefore ultimatelyin the interest of the USA.  Consider the similar situation of majoritarian democracy in South Africa.  Will the present South Africa under majority rule be able tosatisfy the desire of the Zulu—and indeed, the Afrikaner minority—for protection and maintenance of their unique cultures?  Alreadythese groups are demanding minority rights and internal self-determination.  If such internationally-recognized rights are not, to somedegree, accorded to them, will South Africa be able to achieve the peace required for its economic development?

QUESTION: Why should African-Americans give much value to achieving true democratic participation through democraticpluralism?  In most democracies where elections are in place, people can’t even be bothered to vote.       

The simple attainment of democracy as it concerns African-Americans and as it is reflected in some form of a national councilpermitting the formulation of policy and election of leaders directly responsible to the African-American community, in and of itselfrepresents an assertion of the right of the African-American community to existence and to socio-economic development as such.  Itrepresents a mechanism for encouraging the direction of political power and economic resources into the community.  Even should thevoting pattern of African-Americans in elections that concerned their community alone subsequently reflect an indifference similar to thatof other communities, this would not change the immense impact the very existence of such politico-legal and socio-economic institutionswould have in promoting African-American equal-status relations through creating a high degree of political and economicinterdependence in place of dependence with the majority community.  

QUESTION: Will it be necessary to wage a war of liberation in order for African-Americans to achieve minority rights?       

This may not necessary.  We have before us the example of the restructuring of eastern Europe, where systemic changes too vastto have been contemplated even a year earlier, once initiated, took place swiftly and with little bloodshed.  Why?  Because the time ofthese ideas had come.  The old order was helpless before them.  The agreement on the need for change was general and all-pervasive,and therefore unstoppable.  In the case of America, it is clear that the explosive situation caused by the systemically-enforced inequalityof African-Americans is reaching the end of its containment.  That something must be done—something new—will become apparent tomost.  Once this realization becomes pervasive, sufficient numbers of the decision-makers in all communities will be enabled to facilitatethe systemic shift to minority rights required to avoid catastrophe.  

QUESTION: If self-determination for African-Americans is so beneficial, what can possibly hold it back?       

The major questions remain the extent to which the African-American struggle will meet with the good will of the United States rulingcircles, and how prepared they are to make sacrifices.  The economic capability for it exists in the U.S.—inherent at minimum in theredirection of economic resources already being spent on containment of African-Americans in situations of political and social malaise.  The international paradigms re there—paradigms which need not be taken as gospel, but simply as a way of introducing conceptualflexibility, of freeing the mind from the rigidities of past practice and opening up new possibilities.         Again, as Dr. Roberta Sykes noted with regard to her own Black Aboriginal community in Australia:

• Being supportive of self-determination is attitudinal and behavior, so there is no handbook or set of commandments to make the task easier.  At each point along the way, policy makers must ensure that their work is guided by determinations made in the Blackc ommunity about the Black community’s welfare.  Anything less is not self-determination, and the principle of self-determination is non-negotiable.

• America stands in danger of running aground on its minority problem.  If good will cannot be generated from traditional Americanmoral values—the belief in equality, fairness, sharing and justice—then in the end it may come to be realized, willy-nilly, through anotherno less quintessential American belief—that of enlightened and pragmatic self interest.

From Civil Rights to Human Rights and Self Determination? Proceedings of the IHRAAM Chicago Conference 2012.

SINCE 1863, THE TIME OF THE EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 151 NEW INDEPENDENT NATIONS HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED.

March 17, 1861: Italy

July 1, 1867: Canada

January 18, 1871: Germany

May 9, 1877: Romania

March 3, 1878: Bulgaria

1896: Ethiopia

June 12, 1898: The Philippines

January 1, 1901: Australia

May 20, 1902: Cuba

November 3, 1903: Panama

June 7, 1905: Norway

September 26, 1907: New Zealand

May 31, 1910: South Africa

November 28, 1912: Albania

December 6, 1917: Finland

February 24, 1918: Estonia

November 11, 1918: Poland

December 1, 1918: Iceland

August 19, 1919: Afghanistan

December 6, 1921: Ireland

February 28, 1922: Egypt

October 29, 1923: Turkey

February 11, 1929: The Vatican City

September 23, 1932: Saudi Arabia

October 3, 1932: Iraq

November 22, 1943: Lebanon

August 15, 1945: North Korea

August 15, 1945: South Korea

August 17, 1945: Indonesia

September 2, 1945: Vietnam

April 17, 1946: Syria

May 25, 1946: Jordan

August 14, 1947: Pakistan

August 15, 1947: India

January 4, 1948: Burma

February 4, 1948: Sri Lanka

May 14, 1948: Israel

July 19, 1949: Laos

August 8, 1949: Bhutan

December 24, 1951: Libya

November 9, 1953: Cambodia

January 1, 1956: Sudan

March 2, 1956: Morocco

March 20, 1956: Tunisia

March 6, 1957: Ghana

August 31, 1957: Malaysia

October 2, 1958: Guinea

January 1, 1960: Cameroon

April 4, 1960: Senegal

May 27, 1960: Togo

June 30, 1960: Republic of the Congo

July 1, 1960: Somalia

July 26, 1960: Madagascar

August 1, 1960: Benin

August 3, 1960: Niger

August 5, 1960: Burkina Faso

August 7, 1960: Côte d'Ivoire

August 11, 1960: Chad

August 13, 1960: Central African Republic

August 15, 1960: Democratic Republic of the Congo

August 16, 1960: Cyprus

August 17, 1960: Gabon

September 22, 1960: Mali

October 1, 1960: Nigeria

November 28, 1960: Mauritania

April 27, 1961: Sierra Leone

June 19, 1961: Kuwait

January 1, 1962: Samoa

July 1, 1962: Burundi

July 1, 1962: Rwanda

July 5, 1962: Algeria

August 6, 1962: Jamaica

August 31, 1962: Trinidad and Tobago

October 9, 1962: Uganda

December 12, 1963: Kenya

April 26, 1964: Tanzania

July 6, 1964: Malawi

September 21, 1964: Malta

October 24, 1964: Zambia

February 18, 1965: The Gambia

July 26, 1965: The Maldives

August 9, 1965: Singapore

May 26, 1966: Guyana

September 30, 1966: Botswana

October 4, 1966: Lesotho

November 30, 1966: Barbados

January 31, 1968: Nauru

March 12, 1968: Mauritius

September 6, 1968: Swaziland

October 12, 1968: Equatorial Guinea

June 4, 1970: Tonga

October 10, 1970: Fiji

March 26, 1971: Bangladesh

August 15, 1971: Bahrain

September 3, 1971: Qatar

November 2, 1971: The United Arab Emirates

July 10, 1973: The Bahamas

September 24, 1973: Guinea-Bissau

February 7, 1974: Grenada

June 25, 1975: Mozambique

July 5, 1975: Cape Verde

July 6, 1975: Comoros

July 12, 1975: Sao Tome and Principe

September 16, 1975: Papua New Guinea

November 11, 1975: Angola

November 25, 1975: Suriname

June 29, 1976: Seychelles

June 27, 1977: Djibouti

July 7, 1978: The Solomon Islands

October 1, 1978: Tuvalu

November 3, 1978: Dominica

February 22, 1979: Saint Lucia

July 12, 1979: Kiribati

October 27, 1979: Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

April 18, 1980: Zimbabwe

July 30, 1980: Vanuatu

January 11, 1981: Antigua and Barbuda

September 21, 1981: Belize

September 19, 1983: Saint Kitts and Nevis

January 1, 1984: Brunei

October 21, 1986: The Marshall Islands

November 3, 1986: The Federated States of Micronesia

March 11, 1990: Lithuania

March 21, 1990: Namibia

May 22, 1990: Yemen

April 9, 1991: Georgia

June 25, 1991: Croatia

June 25, 1991: Slovenia

August 21, 1991: Kyrgyzstan

August 24, 1991: Russia

August 25, 1991: Belarus

August 27, 1991: Moldova

August 30, 1991: Azerbaijan

September 1, 1991: Uzbekistan

September 6, 1991: Latvia

September 8, 1991: Macedonia

September 9, 1991: Tajikistan

September 21, 1991: Armenia

October 27, 1991: Turkmenistan

November 24, 1991: Ukraine

December 16, 1991: Kazakhstan

March 3, 1992: Bosnia and Herzegovina

January 1, 1993: The Czech Republic

January 1, 1993: Slovakia

May 24, 1993: Eritrea

October 1, 1994: Palau

May 20, 2002: East Timor

June 3, 2006: Montenegro

June 5, 2006: Serbia

February 17, 2008: Kosovo

July 9, 2011: South Sudan

Notes on Hugo Grotius' Commentary on the Law of Prize and Booty (1604)

The United Dutch East India Company, in October of 1604, commissioned Hugo Grotius to write the Commentary on the Law of Prize and Booty to justify the Dutch capture in 1603 of a wealthy Portuguese merchantman, the Santa Catarina, in the Strait of Singapore. In a clever and intricate defense of international free trade, Groitus introduced the notion of man as a sovereign and free individual with a right to self-defense and, by extension, the right of a company of private merchants to establish a trade empire. Such justification - unprecedented in early modern political and legal philosophy – revolutionized natural law and natural rights theories, just as it gave a new impetus to the discussion of “just war”. These ideas became of central importance during the Enlightenment and were used in all subsequent debate about Western colonization and imperialism. The freedom of the seas – meaning both the oceans of the world and coastal waters – became one of the most contentious issues in international law. The Free Sea, the twelfth chapter of Commentary on the Law of Prize and Booty, transcended its immediate legal and diplomatic contexts and had implications no less for coastal waters than it did for the high seas, for the West Indies, and for intra-European disputes as well as for relations between the European powers and the extra-European peoples. Thus, is established Maritime Admiralty Law which, today, is called the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).

NOTES

1. “It is wrong to inflict injury, but it is also wrong to endure injury. The former is, of course, the graver misdeed, but the latter is also to be avoided . . . the wise man does not belittle himself, nor does he neglect to avail himself of his own advantages, since no other person will use them more properly. . . . Thus, the truly good man will be free from the disposition to accord himself less than his due.

   To be sure, such a disposition, as long as the loss resulting from it affects no one save the individual in error, customarily excites more ridicule than reproach and is called folly rather than injustice. But if at any time private loss brings common peril in its train, then indeed, we must combat it with all our force, lest the public welfare be harmfully affected by the mistaken convictions of individual citizens. Under this head should be placed the weakness of those persons who betrayed their own possessions to the enemy because some conscientious scruple prevented them from fighting.” p. 12

   Note: Here I am thinking about Black Christians and their insistence on “loving they enemy” and always seeking non-violent, civil disobedience in the face of continuous brutal violations of our human rights and the clear historical record of futility of such conscientious scruple that prevents them from responding in kind.

2. "‘To be sure, nothing written is valid between enemies; but customs are observed by all, even when the extreme hatred has been reached.’ In the passage just quoted, the term ‘customs’ is equivalent to Cicero’s concept in the phrase, ‘not written law, but the law sprung from Nature,’ and to that expressed in the words of Sophocles, ‘not those written laws, indeed, but the immutable laws of Heaven..’ . . . . Baldus, who has wisely ruled that in any controversy arising between claimants of sovereign power the sole judge is natural reason, the arbiter of good and evil. Other quite learned authorities uphold this same doctrine. Nor does it differ greatly from the popular maxim that he who seeks for a statutory law where natural reason suffices, is lacking in intelligence. Therefore, it is from some source other than the Corpus of Roman laws that one must seek to derive that pre-eminent science which is embodied, according to Cicero, in the treaties, pacts, and agreements of peoples, kings and foreign tribes, or - to put it briefly - in every law of war and peace.” p. 16

   Note: Here natural law is recognized

The Spiritual Protective Function of the Balanta Placenta Tradition, The United States Birth Certificate and the Spiritual Damage of Slavery

“My dear brother! Good afternoon! As far as I know Balanta, they traditionally bury placenta! But, as everything that concerns life is seen as something sacred, attention and care are given. Therefore, placenta is not buried like any hospital waste. Therefore, the placenta is intervened at home, especially next to the elder's house. For, interpreting that the born cannot be failed to not feel rejected in the clan that is welcoming him in the world. So, since the placenta is the part that gives off this baby, it is buried carefully and with a look of fear of ‘complaint’ that the born can demonstrate. That baby does crying straight and may even come back (to die) because he doesn't like to see his arrival not treated with dignity! All my brothers and I were born and our placenta was integrated next to our father's house. That according to interpretation of Balanta de ÑACKRA, clan TCHIGKNA - BRÂNTCHA TÔNGO. But in other clans there are interpretations and different treatment that can be given. However, the placenta is generally not seen as any garbage.” - your brother M'BANA N'TCHIGNA

To understand the Balanta traditions regarding the placenta, called "Alamah" (Ruler/king) in Balanta Baaji/Kintohe, one must understand the fundamentals of 26 Principles of the Great Belief of the Balanta Ancient Ancestors, especially

“8.       “Illness and death do not have their source in our own vital power, but result from some external agent who weakens us through his greater force. It is only by fortifying our vital energy, through the use of magical recipes, that we acquire resistance to malevolent external forces.”

The placenta is an organ that develops in a mother’s uterus during pregnancy. This structure provides oxygen and nutrients to the growing baby and removes waste products from the baby's blood. The placenta attaches to the wall of the uterus, and the baby's umbilical cord arises from it.

The placenta, therefore, is the vessel or means of transferring the faiyeh or “vital life energy (in the form of oxygen and nutrients)” and the protective shield against disease (removing waste products).

From this natural observation comes the ritual practices regarding the placenta.

The details of the Balanta placenta rituals are a closely guarded secret kept by Balanta women. Principle 2 of the Great Belief states that,

“in respect of a number of strange practices in which we see neither rhyme nor reason, that their purpose is to acquire life, strength or vital force, to live strongly, that they are to make life stronger, or to assure that force shall remain perpetually in one’s posterity.”

Recognizing that the placenta has its own faiyeh (vital force), and further recognizing the nurturing and protective function of the placenta, it was only natural that the placenta became an object of great value and is seen as “something sacred”. The source of this faiyeh is called “N'ghâla".

The baby is seen as the continuation of the vital life force energy of the ancestral lineage. This is explained by Principle 4 of the Great Belief

4.       “The spirits of the first ancestors, highly exalted in the superhuman world, possess extraordinary force inasmuch as they are the founders of the human race and propagators of the divine inheritance of vital human strength. The other dead are esteemed only to the extent to which they increase and perpetuate their vital force in their progeny.”

and Principle 14:

14.   “After these first parents come the dead of the tribe, following their order of primogeniture. They form a chain, through the links of which the forces of the elders exercise their vitalizing influence on the living generation. Those living on earth rank, in fact, after the dead. The living belong in turn to a hierarchy, not simply following legal status, but as ordered by their own being in accordance with primogeniture and their vital rank: that is to say, according to their vital power.”

Thus, all of the spirits of the binham n’yo wule (ancestors) who possess “extraordinary force” and to whom have the power to “increase and perpetuate their vital force in their progeny” are immensely concerned with the birthing moment. The binham n’yo wule connect the newborn to N'ghâla. Placenta rituals, therefore, are the Balanta way of communicating with those binham n’yo wule.

If Balanta people do not show and communicate the proper “dignity” towards the vital life force of the ancestors, the punishment can be reclaiming that vital life force energy, i.e. the death of the baby. Or the punishment can be a diminution of the vital life force, i.e. illness and disease.

It is for this reason that Balanta bury the placenta at or near the parents or elder’s home - it is the site of the highest rank among the living and offers the greatest amount of dignity and primogeniture protection. In addition, large, old trees called “sahe ndang” are naturally observed to be carriers of faiyeh since they can outlive human beings by several generations. Thus, the Balanta people recognize the position of sahe ndang in the earth hierarchy of vital forces. This is why the sahe ndang is often used as the symbol for N'ghâla. As such, the placenta is often buried under a sahe ndang near the family compound.

Again, the protective functions here can not be over-stated. The child could not be born were it not for the protective function of the placenta. Likewise, protection from malevolent forces that diminish faiyeh are central to Balanta spirituality. As the symbol of the child’s protective shield par excellence, the placenta itself must be protected. Harm done to the placenta is thought of as inducing harm to the child it protects. Thus, burial in the family compound and under sahe ndang protect the placenta from being stolen by enemies or evil spirits (eaten by wildlife). Such believe is not relegated to Balanta alone; it is a part of the universal spirituality of original people (people that existed before the differentiation of the races as a result of the Wurm glaciation).

“For example, it is believed that if the placenta is eaten by dogs or pigs, the baby will suffer from manic depression, if eaten by ants the baby will suffer from skin sores, and if eaten by birds the baby may die suddenly. The placenta is always buried face down with the smooth side up. If buried upside down, the baby might vomit during feeding. The ground is chosen as the final resting place because Earth is revered as the creator of all life so it is natural that the placenta should be returned to Her. What better fate is there for the placenta than to emerge from the womb of its natural mother and be immediately engulfed by the enfolding arms of Mother Earth?”

It is within this context of Balanta spirituality that the spiritual damage done to Balanta descendants born into slavery in the United States, can be understood and further strengthen the claim of Reparations on spiritual grounds.

THE HISTORY OF MEDICAL EXPERIMENTATION IN THE UNITED STATES

From the very beginning, medical experimentation were conducted on Balanta and other people taken from their homelands and trafficked across the Atlantic to the United States.

The History of Gynecology in the United States

“After 1808, when a federal ban on importing slaves from other countries took effect, the perpetuation of American slavery became dependent on domestic slave births. That aligned the economic interests of slave owners — who wanted to promote the healthy births of slave children — and the interests of white physicians — who portrayed themselves as helping slaves but also reaped professional benefits because they could experiment on slaves without their consent. As historian Deirdre Cooper Owens has observed, those economic incentives drove medical innovation. Gynecological examinations of black women influenced the country’s slave markets, and “slavery, medicine and medical publishing formed a synergistic partnership” in the establishment of gynecology as a medical specialty in the United States.

Under these incentives, understanding and treating gynecological problems became particularly important. A condition such as vesicovaginal fistula (VVF) threatened a slave woman’s ability to perform hard labor as well as her future reproductive capacity. . . .

J. Marion Sims. . . . compiled pathbreaking accomplishments: designing the vaginal speculum, developing a treatment for vesicovaginal fistula (VVF) and building a successful medical career promoting VVF repair. He would serve as president of the American Medical Association and was dubbed the “father of modern gynecology. . . . The VVF treatment he developed, for example, came as a result of experiments he performed on black slaves. . . . Sims had plenty of motivation to devote four years to experimenting on 14 slaves with VVF whom he housed on his property, including 30 experiments on a single woman named Anarcha. This experimentation resulted in a landmark development in the history of gynecology: successful treatment of VVF with the use of silver wire. But from the perspective of slave owners, this development was more notable because the new treatment meant that healed slaves could retain their economic value. . . .

Racist beliefs associated with slavery also provided perceived ethical justifications for conducting repeated invasive experiments like those Sims performed. Sims carried out his experiments on women’s genitalia from 1845 to 1849 without anesthesia, which had recently been introduced. In addition to their status as enslaved people, black women were considered appropriate subjects for such experiments based on the widespread belief that black people experienced less pain than white people.”

Before we can understand the evil birth practices of the United States against Balanta people, it is necessary to have a brief understanding of the history of the development of the medical establishment in the United States. Here is a short timeline:

1847 - The American Medical Association was founded in 1847 and incorporated in 1897. In the early 1900s the AMA realized that there needed to be some changes in medical education. Medical practice and education in some areas left a lot to be desired (poor training and understaffed medical schools). It created the Council on Medical Education, with the purpose of evaluating countrywide medical training and making improvements where needed. However, they didn’t have enough money to do this. Enter Rockefeller and Carnegie and their funding and popularity. The president of the Carnegie Foundation, Henry Pritchett, met with the AMA and offered to take over the entire Council on Medical Education project. In the 1800′s the American Medical Association (AMA) resented their competitors who drove down the cost of medical care and drew away customers; The AMA called upon the strong arm of government force to vanquish the competition, it did so through regulating medical schools;

1901 - the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research was founded. One of the names on the board of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research was Simon Flexner. It was Simon Flexner’s brother, Abraham Flexnor, who had one of the biggest hands in medical education reform. (Interestingly, Abraham Flexner was born in Kentucky, one of the largest growers and suppliers of hemp during WWII.) Abraham Flexner was on the staff of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Rockefeller had made a massive fortune with Standard Oil and was setting his sights on gaining a monopoly in the drug and pharmaceutical industry. However, first he had to get rid of the competition, which consisted of natural non-allopathic healing modalities – naturopathy, homeopathy, eclectic medicine (botanical and herbal medicine), holistic medicine, etc. Hemp was also a threat to his plans, since cannabis has tremendous medical benefit – it can be used to alleviate pain for numerous diseases and even has anti-cancer properties.

1910 - Rockefeller paid Abraham Flexner to visit all the medical schools in the US at that time. He released the so-called “Flexner Report” in 1910, which called for the standardization of medical education and concluded there were too many doctors and medical schools in America. Rockefeller then used his control of the media to generate public outcry at the findings of the report – which, by means of the classic elite strategy of “Problem, Reaction, Solution” as David Icke calls it, ultimately led Congress to declare the AMA (American Medical Association) the only body with the right to grant medical school licenses in the United States. This suited Rockefeller perfectly – he then used the AMA (which may be better called to the American Murder Association due their widespread use and endorsement of toxic vaccines, drugs, chemotherapy and radiation) to compel the Government destroy the natural competition, which it did through regulating medical schools. After the Flexner Report, the AMA only endorsed schools with a drug-based curriculum. It didn’t take long before non-allopathic schools fell by the wayside due to lack of funding. Thus, Rockefeller had his monopoly on drugs, and Big Pharma and Rockefeller Medicine were born.

1931 - Dr. Cornelius Rhoads, under the auspices of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Investigations, infects human subjects with cancer cells. He later goes on to establish the U.S. Army Biological Warfare facilities in Maryland, Utah, and Panama, and is named to the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. While there, he begins a series of radiation exposure experiments on American soldiers and civilian hospital patients.

1932 - the Tuskegee Study, a scientific research program in which 400 syphilis-infected black men were recruited by the U.S. Public Health Service back in 1932. The participants were all told that they would be treated for their infections, but instead of treating their illness, all medicines were withheld. The black men were then actively prevented from obtaining treatment elsewhere as their bodies, and the bodies of their wives and children, were systematically ravaged by disease. The evil men who conceived that Nazi-style study justified their atrocity by alleging that scientists needed to learn how untreated syphilis progressed in the human body. For a period of forty years, between 1932 and 1972, the genocidal Tuskegee Study continued. It was not until 1972, when one newspaper finally had the courage to break the story to the public, that the Tuskegee Study was finally terminated. Dr. John Heller was the Director of Venereal Diseases at the Public Health Service from 1943 to 1948. Of the men in the Tuskeggee study, he said, ‘The men’s status did not warrant ethical debate. They were subjects, not patients: clinical material, not sick people.”

1935 - The Pellagra Incident. After millions of individuals die from Pellagra over a span of two decades, the U.S. Public Health Service finally acts to stem the disease. The director of the agency admits it had known for at least 20 years that Pellagra is caused by a niacin deficiency but failed to act since most of the deaths occurred within poverty-stricken black populations.

1939 - Margaret Sanger organized her “Negro project”, a program designed to eliminate members of what she believed to be an “inferior race.” Margaret Sanger justified her proposal because she believed that “The masses of Negroes….particularly in the South, still breed carelessly and disastrously, with the result that the increase among Negroes, even more than among whites, is from that portion of the population least intelligent and fit …”

Now we are ready to understand

The United States and the Evil Practice of Issuing Birth Certificates

1.       The United Dutch East India Company, in October of 1604, commissioned Hugo Grotius to write the Commentary on the Law of Prize and Booty to justify the Dutch capture in 1603 of a wealthy Portuguese merchantman, the Santa Catarina, in the Strait of Singapore. In a clever and intricate defense of international free trade, Groitus introduced the notion of man as a sovereign and free individual with a right to self-defense and, by extension, the right of a company of private merchants to establish a trade empire. Such justification -unprecedented in early modern political and legal philosophy – revolutionized natural law and natural rights theories, just as it gave a new impetus to the discussion of “just war”. These ideas became of central importance during the Enlightenment and were used in all subsequent debate about Western colonization and imperialism. The freedom of the seas – meaning both the oceans of the world and coastal waters – became one of the most contentious issues in international law. The Free Sea, the twelfth chapter of Commentary on the Law of Prize and Booty, transcended its immediate legal and diplomatic contexts and had implications no less for coastal waters than it did for the high seas, for the West Indies, and for intra-European disputes as well as for relations between the European powers and the extra-European peoples. Thus, is established Maritime Admiralty Law which, today, is called the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).

2.       There are two kinds of law that rule the entire earth. All governments are ruled by civil law which is called in all countries, the law of the land, and maritime admiralty law, the law of the sea (UCC).  

3.       Consequently, when a ship pulls into port it docks, it is in its ‘berth”. Because it is on the seas it is under Maritime Admiralty Law (UCC). The first thing a captain must do is present a certificate (defined as a paper establishing an ownership claim) of manifest to the port authorities. The Authorities must know how much is on the ship and what is being bought into their economy. This represents the birthdate of that product in the custody (ownership) of the respective nation.

4. After the American Civil War (1861-1865), Congress realized that the country was in dire financial straits, so they made a financial deal with the Rothschilds of London thereby incurring a DEBT. The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 established a constitution for the government of the District of Columbia, an INCORPORATED government under British rule (which is under Vatican rule) known as the UNITED STATES CORPORATION. It operates in an economic capacity as a “Crown colony”.

5. Edward Mandell House was a member of the Cecil Rhodes Round Table Group that sought to establish a graduated income tax, a central bank, creation of a Central Intelligence Agency, and the League of Nations. Between 1901 and 1913 the House of Morgan and the House of Rockefeller formed close alliances with the Dukes and the Mellons. This group consolidated their power and came to dominate other Wall Street powers including Carnegie, Whitney, Vanderbilt, Brown-Harriman, and Dillon-Reed. The Round Table Group wanted to control the people by having the government tax people and deposit the peoples’ money in a central bank. The Group would take control of the bank and therefore have control of the money. The Group would take control of the State Department and formulate government policy, which would determine how the money was spent. The Group would control the CIA which would gather information about people, and script and produce psycho-political operations focused on the people to influence them to act in accord with Round Table Group State Department policy decisions. The Group would work to consolidate all the nations of the world into a single nation, with a single central bank under their control, and a single International Security System.  Edward Mandell House, with the financial backing of the House of Rockefeller’s National City Bank, becomes instrumental in getting Woodrow Wilson elected as President in 1912.  Some of the first legislation of the Wilson Administration was the institution of the graduated income tax (1913) and the creation of a central bank called the Federal Reserve.  An inheritance tax was also instituted. These tax laws were used to rationalize the need for legislation that allowed the establishment of tax-exempt foundations. The tax-exempt foundations became the link between the Group member's private corporations and the University system. The Group would control the Universities by controlling the sources of their funding. The funding was money sheltered from taxes being channeled in ways which would help achieve Round Table Group aims. Edward Mandell House had this to say in a private meeting with President Woodrow Wilson:

“[Very] soon, every American will be required to register their biological property in a national system designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient system of pledging.  By such methodology, we can compel people to submit to our agenda, which will effect our security as a chargeback for our fiat paper currency. Every American will be forced to register or suffer being unable to work and earn a living. They will be our chattel, and we will hold the security interest over them forever, by operation of the law merchant under the scheme of secured transactions. 

Americans, by unknowingly or unwittingly delivering the bills of lading to us will be rendered bankrupt and insolvent, forever to remain economic slaves through taxation, secured by their pledges. They will be stripped of their rights and given a commercial value designed to make us a profit and they will be none the wiser, for not one man in a million could ever figure our plans and, if by accident one or two should figure it out, we have in our arsenal plausible deniability. After all, this is the only logical way to fund government, by floating liens and debt to the registrants in the form of benefits and privileges. This will inevitably reap to us huge profits beyond our wildest expectations and leave every American a contributor to this fraud which we will call “Social Insurance.” Without realizing it, every American will insure us for any loss we may incur, and, in this manner, every American will unknowingly be our servant, however begrudgingly. The people will become helpless and without any hope for their redemption and, we will employ the high office of the President of our dummy corporation to foment this plot against America.”

6.       The federal government first developed a standard birth certificate application form in 1907, five years after the Census Bureau began collecting data. The current system of the states collecting data and reporting it to the federal government developed between 1915, when the federal government mandated that states collect and report the data, and 1933, by which time all of the states were participating. 

7.       Consequently, when you are born you come out of your mother’s water. Therefore, you are subject Maritime Admiralty Law (UCC). Hence the dock(tor) has you sign a berth/birth certificate, a certificate of manifest because you are a corporation-owned item. At this point you become stock in a Maritime Admiralty (UCC) banking scheme. Stock is defined as “capital”. Capital is defined as an “asset”. And an asset is defined as a useful or valuable thing, person or quality. As stock registered with the United States Corporation, you represent a “value” which is calculated by the amount your future labor can produce. Your birth certificate is therefore not proof of your having been born, it is actually a stock share. The proof of your having been born is the placenta. The placenta is the asset that connects your dna to your mother and father. It is the actual evidence of your identity, derived from your genetic lineage. Traditionally, Balanta people bury the placenta near the house of their parents or grandparents, thereby claiming ownership and depositing the genetic evidence in the territory occupied by the parents. In the United States, however, both the spiritual and legal function of the placenta and the importance of claiming/securing it is intentionally omitted from society and the educational system.

8. A “birth” notice is published in the public record and after a period of time, if no one claims the placenta, it is considered “lost at sea” or “dead at sea”. The placenta is disposed or destroyed and there is no “proof” that you have been born. At that moment, the “birth certificate” creates a fictitious “person” as a “corporate asset” owned by the United States Corporation. This asset’s stock certificate (proof of future value) can now be held as collateral to secure the debt which the United States of America owes to the international bankers. Meaning, YOU MUST LABOR WITHIN THE SYSTEM OF THE UNITED STATES CORPORATION TO PRODUCE BOTH VALUE FOR THE CORPORATION AND TO PAY TAXES TO THE CORPORATION.

WHAT DO HOSPITALS DO WITH THE PLACENTA?

According to the Red Bags: A MedXwaste Company website:

“Medical waste includes everything from lab cultures and stocks to donated blood to tissue excised for testing or to remove disease.  Anatomical waste is a specific kind of medical waste, and has specific disposal rules that come with it.  Some of this waste, such as the placenta from healthy mothers or expired blood may not be infectious, but unless it status is known, it is treated as though it were.

Many providers supply special containers for placenta disposal to allow safe containment and transport to a disposal point.  Incineration is the usual process.  If stored in a freezer, several pharmaceutical companies will collect these for research.

Hospitals treat placentas as medical waste or biohazard material. The newborn placenta is placed in a biohazard bag for storage.  Some hospitals keep the placenta for a period of time in case the need arises to send it to pathology for further analysis.  Once the hospital is done with the placenta, it is put on a truck with all the other medical waste accumulated at the hospital for proper disposal.  In some hospitals, placentas are incinerated on site.”

From the Balanta perspective, then, the United States treats the sacred protective shield of newborns as medical waste, the very opposite of the sacred dignity with which it is accorded by Balanta people. The placenta, as medical waste, is INTENTIONALLY incinerated - burned with fire. The consequence of such incineration is the removal of the ritual practice establishing the protective faiyeh of the binham n’yo wule. In other words,

the child’s ancestors are unable to prevent their offspring from falling victim to the dehumanization process created, established and developed in the United States. Spiritually, Balanta descendants born in the United States have been deprived of the spiritual mechanism for ancestral connection and protection.

Today, this results in the ability of the United States Corporation to easily enslave Balanta children at birth through the statutory birth certificate scheme. to learn more about this, read

BALANTA AND THE BANKING SYSTEM: A CASE STUDY OF THE CRIMINAL APPLICATION OF FICTITIOUS CORPORATE STATUTORY LAW

THE FUTURE EVIL USE OF THE PLACENTA

Again, it is the Balanta belief that harm done to the placenta is thought of as inducing harm to the child it protects. According to Russ Scweizer, CEO of AmnioChor,

“The placenta remains the least understood human organ. But thanks to organizations like The Centre For Trophoblast Research, and scientists like Professor Y.W. Loke of Cambridge University, we are beginning to understand the flawless organization and intricate performance of our placenta. [Siphiwe note: an understanding possessed by Balanta for millennia]. For example, few people are aware that the placenta is derived from the baby. It becomes closely embedded in the mother’s womb such that the baby can “borrow” everything it needs to develop. We are learning that many of the medical problems encountered later in life are a direct result of placenta dysfunction. [Siphiwe note: This is exactly what Balanta placenta tradition is concerned with]. The hope is that a better understanding of the placenta will lead to broader knowledge in other critical areas of healthcare.

The Placenta’s 2nd Life Your placenta can continue to provide therapeutic value and have a 2nd life if the afterbirth is not discarded as medical waste. [Siphiwe Note: Hence the Balanta placenta rituals to preserve the placenta’s spiritual therapeutic value which the Western scientists know nothing about.] Components isolated from the placenta, such as the umbilical cord blood, and the amniotic membrane, are already serving a valuable role in medicine today. Research continues to develop the therapeutic value of other components of the placenta. With our skills in cryopreservation, your placenta can be preserved for future applications in personalized medicine. The placenta’s 2nd life encompasses new treatments today and bio-banking for the future. We are rapidly moving into a new paradigm where the placenta is transitioning from biological waste to becoming a biological toolbox for cures.” [Siphiwe note: But the Balanta have always had the paradigm that the placenta is both a biological and spiritual toolbox for cures.]

Thus, the medical experimentation that began during the criminal European Trans Atlantic Trafficking and Enslavement of people from the African continent to the America’s is continuing today. In the same way that the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research wanted a monopoly on medical research for private profit, today there are companies that are seeking a monopoly to profit on the placenta of all people, including the Balanta. They are stealing our traditions and “paradigms” and repackaging them under the guise of scientific and medical “intellectual property” while at the same time continuing the genocide against Balanta people by preventing the ritual practice that enables the spiritual and biological protective powers of the binham n’yo wule.

B’KINDEU & RANSOM: BALANTA PEOPLE REFUSED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CRIMINAL EUROPEAN TRANS ATLANTIC SLAVE TRADE

“Neither the Djola nor the Balanta took any active part in the slave trade. . . . . In Upper Guinea, the Djola and the Balanta were ‘savage cannibals’ because they did not tolerate Europeans. . . . the Balanta refus[ed]to trade with the Europeans. . . . The Balantas did not allow foreigners in their midst. . . . the Balantas, were so hostile that the belief was widespread among the Europeans on the coast that the Balantas killed all white men that they caught. . . .”

- Walter Rodney

The following are excerpts from Volume 3 of Balanta B’urassa, My Sons: Those Who Resist, Remain.

BALANTA BEFORE THE START OF THE SLAVE TRADE

By the time of the arrival of the Portuguese, the first Europeans to make contact with Balanta people, Balanta culture was firmly based in an the Great Belief which mitigated against social hierarchies, state formation, and the resultant inequality that such systems of organization produce. As historian Walter Rodney pointed out,

“It is only the Balantas who can be cited as lacking the institution of kingship. At any rate there seemed to have been little or no differentiation within Balanta society on the basis of who held property, authority and coercive power. Some sources affirmed that the Balantas had no kings, while an early sixteenth-century statement that the Balanta ‘kings’ were no different from their subjects must be taken as referring simply to the heads of the village and family settlements. . . .as in the case of the Balantas, the family is the sole effective social and political unit. . . .”

This is of crucial significance for understanding the spiritual and cultural reality that existed among the Balanta when the Portuguese first invaded their territory as well as for understanding their response to all the attempts to enslave them, beginning with the Nehken Confederation and the war against the Mesintu around 3100 BC and continuing through the resistance against the Mali Empire and the Kaabu Empire afterwards.

THE PORTUGUESE FIRST ATTACK IN GUINEA

It is stated in the Introduction to The Chronicle of the Discovery and Conquest of Guinea Volume II that,

“Here, by the capture of Ceuta (area north of Fez on the African side of the Straight of Gibraltar south of Spain, in 1415), Prince Henry gained a starting-point for his work; here he is said (probably with truth) to have gained his earliest knowledge of the interior of Africa; here especially he was brought in contact with those Sudan and Saharan caravans which, coming down to the Mediterranean coast, brought news, to those who sought it, of the Senegal and Niger, of the Negro kingdoms beyond the desert, and particularly of the Gold land of ‘Guinea.’ Here also, from a knowledge thus acquired, he was able to form a more correct judgment of the course needed for the rounding or circumnavigation of Africa, of the time, expense, and toil necessary for that task, and of the probable support or hindrance his mariners were to look for on their route. . . . Especially could they describe the kingdom of Guinea, centering around the town of Jenne on the Upper Niger, which was the chief market of their Negro trade in slaves, gold and ivory. This kingdom, then, reached almost to the Atlantic on the lower valley of the Senegal, where in earlier times a place called Ulil had been marked by Edrisis and other Arab geographers, as independent of Ghana but important for traffic. Also, the Moors were acquainted with the country of Tokrur, which may be supposed to occupy the upper valley of the Senegal, becoming perhaps in Prince Henty’s time, merely a province of Guinea.”

In 1433 Romanus pontifex, the first in a series of papal bulls issued during the fifteenth century that regulated Christian expansion, sanctioned the Infante’s [Prince Henry] request and Portugal’s alleged mission in Guinea since ‘we strive for those things that may destroy the errors and wickedness of the infidels’.

The Papal Bull Dum Diversas issued by Pope Nicholas V, June 18, 1452, stated,

“we grant to you full and free power, through the Apostolic authority by this edict, to invade, conquer, fight, subjugate the Saracens and pagans, and other infidels and other enemies of Christ, and wherever established their Kingdoms, Duchies, Royal Palaces, Principalities and other dominions, lands, places, estates, camps and any other possessions, mobile and immobile goods found in all these places and held in whatever name, and held and possessed by the same Saracens, Pagans, infidels, and the enemies of Christ, also realms, duchies, royal palaces, principalities and other dominions, lands, places, estates, camps, possessions of the king or prince or of the kings or princes, and to lead their persons in perpetual servitude, and to apply and appropriate realms, duchies, royal palaces, principalities and other dominions, possessions and goods of this kind to you and your use and your successors the Kings of Portugal.”

Gomes Eannes de Azurara, the royal chronicler of the King Don Affonso the Fifth of Portugal, gives the official purpose of the Portuguese invasion of the west coast of Africa. Among other things, he wrote,

“HERE beginneth the Chronicle in which are set down all the notable deeds that were achieved in the Conquest of Guinea, written by command of the most high and revered Prince and most virtuous Lord the Infant Don Henry, Duke of Viseu and Lord of Covilham, Ruler and Governor of the Chivalry of the Order of Jesus Christ. . . . many kinds of merchandise might be brought to this realm, which would find a ready market, and reasonably so, because no other people of these parts traded with them, nor yet people of any other that were known; and also the products of this realm might be taken there, which traffic would bring great profit to our countrymen. . . . to make increase in the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ and to bring to him all the souls that should be saved . . . . “

Here is Gomes Eannes de Azurara’s account of the Portuguese’s first arrival in the land of Guinea:

“Now these caravels having passed by the land of Sahara, as hath been said, came in sight of the two palm trees that Dinis Diaz had met with before, by which they understood that they were at the beginning of the land of the Negroes. . . . . Now the people of this green land are wholly black, and hence this is called the Land of the Negroes, or Land of Guinea. Wherefore also the men and women thereof are called ‘Guineas,’ as if one were to say ‘Black Men.’ . . . they let down their anchors on the seaward side, and the crew of the caravel of Vicene Diaz launched their boat, and into it jumped as many as eight men, and among them was that Esquire of Lagos called Stevam Affonso, of whom we have already spoken . . . .And as all the eight were going in the boat, one of them, looking out towards the mouth of the river, espied the door of a hut, and said to his companions: ‘I know not how the huts of this land are built, but judging by the fashion of those I have seen before, that should be a hut that I see before me, and I presume it belongs to fishing folk who have come to fish in this stream. And if you think well, it seemeth to me that we ought to go and land beyond that point, in such wise that we may not be discovered from the door of the hut; and let some land, and approach from behind those sandbanks, and if any natives are lying in the hut, it may be that they will take them before they are perceived.’ Now it appeared to the others that this was good advice, and so they began to put it into execution. And as soon as they reached the land, Stevam Affonso leapt out and five others with him, and they proceeded in the manner that the other had suggested. And while they were going thus concealed even until they neared the hut, they saw come out of it a negro boy, stark naked, with a spear in his hand. Him they seized at once, and coming up close to the hut, they lighted upon a girl, his sister, who was about eight years old. This boy the Infant afterwards caused to be taught to read and write, with all other knowledge that a Christian should have; . . . so that some said of this youth that the Infant had bidden train him for a priest with the purpose of sending him back to his native land, there to preach the faith of Jesus Christ. . . . and when they had captured those young prisoners and articles of plunder, they took them forthwith to their boat. ‘Well were it, said Stevam Affonso to the others, ‘if we were to go through this country near here, to see if we can find the father and mother of these children, for judging by their age and disposition, it cannot be that the parents would leave them and go far off.’ . . . .And then they all recognized that they were near what they sought. ‘Now,’ said he, ‘do you come behind and allow to go in front, because, if we all move forward in company, however softly we walk, we shall be discovered without fail, so that ere we come at him, whosoever he be, if alone, he must needs fly and put himself in safety; but if I go softly and crouching down, I shall be able to capture him by a sudden surprise without his perceiving me;

And they agreeing to this, Stevam Affonso began to move forward; and what with the careful guard that he kept in stepping quietly, and the intentness with which the Guinea labored at his work, he never perceived the approach of his enemy till the latter leapt upon him. And I say leapt, since Stevam Affonso was of small frame and slender, while the Guinea was of quite different build; and so he seized him lustily by the hair, so that when the Guinea raised himself erect, Stevam Affonso remained hanging in the air with his feet off the ground. The Guinea was a brave and powerful man, and he thought it a reproach that he should thus be subjected by so small a thing. Also he wondered within himself what this thing could be; but though he struggled very hard, he was never able to free himself, and so strongly had his enemy entwined himself in his hair, that the efforts of those two men could be compared to nothing else than a rash and fearless hound who has fixed on the some mighty bull. . . . But while those two were in their struggle, Affonso’s companions came upon them, and seized the Guinea by his arms and neck in order to bind him. And Stevam Affonso, thinking that he was now taken into custody and in the hands of the other, let go of his hair; whereupon, the Guinea, seeing that his head was free, shook off from his arms, them away on either side, and began to flee. And it was of little avail to the others to pursue him, for his agility gave him a great advantage over his pursuers in running, and in his course he took refuge in a wood full of thick undergrowth and while the others thought they had him, and sought to find him, he was already in his hut, with the intention of saving his children and taking his arms, which he had left with them. But all his former toil was nothing in comparison of the great grief which came upon him at the absence of his children whom he found gone – but as there yet remained for him a ray of hope, and he thought that perchance they were hidden somewhere, he began to look towards every side to see if he could catch any glimpse of them. And at this appeared Vicente Diaz, that trader who was the chief captain of that caravel to which the boat belonged wherein the others had come on land. And it appears that he, thinking that he was only coming out to walk along the shore, as he was wont to do in Lagos town, had not troubled to bring with him any arms you may well imagine, made for him with right good will.

An although Vicente Diaz saw him coming on with such fury, and understood that for his own defense it were well he had somewhat better arms, yet thinking that flight would not profit him, but rather do him harm in many ways, he awaited his enemy without shewing him any sign of fear. And the Guinea rushing boldly upon him, gave him forthwith a wound in the face with his assegai, with the which he cut open the whole of one of his jaws; in return for this the Guinea received another wound, though not so fell a one  as that which he had just bestowed. And because their weapons were not sufficient for such a struggle, they threw them aside and wrestled; and so, for a short space they were rolling one over the other, each one striving for victory. And while this was proceeding, Vicente Diaz saw another Guinea one who was passing from youth to manhood; and he came to aid his countryman; and although the first Guinea was so strenuous and brave and inclined to fight with such good will as we have described, he could not have escaped being made prisoner if the second man had not come up; and for fear of him he now had to loose his hold of the first. And at this moment came up the other Portuguese, but the Guinea, being now once again free from his enemy’s hands, began to put himself in safety with his companion, like men accustomed to running, little fearing the enemy who attempted to pursue them. And at last our men turned back to their caravels, with the small booty they had already stored in their boats. . . . after that deed was thus concluded, it was the wish of all the three captains to endeavor to make an honorable booty, adventuring their bodies in whatsoever peril might be necessary; . . . .From there they began to make proof of the Guineas, in search of whom they had come there, but they found them so well prepared, that though they essayed to get on shore many a time, they always encountered such a bold defense that they dared not come to close quarters. . . . Then he returned to the ship and there described to Rodrigueannes and the others all that he had found. ‘We,’ said he, ‘should be acting with small judgment, were we wishful to adventure a conflict like this, for I discovered a village divided into two large parts full of habitations you know that the people of this land are not so easily captured as we desire, for they are very strong men, very wary and very well prepared in their combats. . . . ”

And thus started the war against the people of Guinea and the Balanta.

It should be noted, as Herman L. Bennett does in African Kings and Black Slaves: Sovereignty and Dispossession in the Early Modern Atlantic,

“As the Portuguese shifted their gaze southward under Henrique’s influence, their motive was commerce not conversion. Henrique wanted ‘to know the land’ so that ‘many kinds of merchandise might be brought to this realm, which would find a ready market.’ At this historic moment, however, commerce could not enter posterity as the sole motive behind a noble’s behavior. Thus, in listing five reasons why the Infante manifested an interest in ‘the land beyond,’ Zurara wrote that Henrique’s final reason represented a ‘great desire to make increase in the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ.’”

Christianity was used by the “Ruler and Governor of the Chivalric of the Order of Jesus Christ” as a pretext to justify the invasion and enslavement of the great Balanta people.

DESCRIPTION OF THE BALANTA PEOPLE

1506 Earliest account of the Balantas in written records, Valentim Fernandes, Descripcam, “There was very little stratification in Balanta society. Everyone worked in the fields, with no ruling class or families managing to exclude themselves from daily labor.”  

1594 Andre Alvares Almada, Trato breve dos rios de Guine, trans. P.E.H. Hair - “The Creek of the Balantas penetrates inland at the furthest point of the land of the Buramos [Brame]. The Balantas are fairly savage blacks.”

1615, Manuel Alvares commented, “They [Balantas] have no principle king. Whoever has more power is king, and every quarter of a league there are many of this kind.” and “They are all great thieves, and they tunnel their way into pounds to steal the cattle. They excel at making assaults . . . taking everything they can find and capturing as many persons as possible.”

1627 Alonso de Sandoval wrote that “Balanta were ‘a cruel people, [a] race without a king.”

1684 Francisco de Lemos Coelho says that “much of the territory of the Balanta ‘has not been navigated, nor does it have kings of consideration.’”

Late seventeenth century, Capuchins noted that ‘Balanta and the Falup’ cause notable damages and seize every day the vessels that pass by . . . and this even though the vessels are well armed.’”

B’KINDEU & RANSOM: THE BALANTA STRATEGY TO RESIST THE CRIMINAL EUROPEAN SLAVE TRADE

In Upper Guinea and the Significance of the Origins of Africans Enslaved in the New World, Walter Rodney writes,

“Portuguese slave traders regarded the river Cacheu as a slaver's paradise, for within the narrow compass of that river basin, they encountered five peoples - Djola, Papel, Banhun, Casanga, and Balanta each of whom was divided into several political units. Neither the Djola nor the Balanta took any active part in the slave trade, but they were nevertheless to be found among slave cargoes because they were exposed to attacks and man stealing by their neighbors. The Bijago, who resided in the islands off the Cacheu and Geba estuaries, were particularly noted for their piratical activities, and steadily supplied the Portuguese with Djola, Papel, Balanta, Beafada and Nalu captives. Bijago hostilities were at their height at the turn of the seventeenth century, when the raids of their formidable war canoes forced the three Beafada rulers of Ria Grande de Buba to appeal to the king of Portugal and the Pope for protection, offering in turn to embrace Christianity. Long after this peak period, the inhabitants of the tiny Bijago islands were still supplying over 400 captives per year, all taken from the coastal strip between the Cacheu and the Cacine. Of course, the Europeans were goading all of the parties involved. While some crudely plied the Bijago with alcohol, others more subtly guided the Beafada, Papel, Casanga and Kokoli rulers along the road to internecine conflict. The most significant partnership was between the Europeans and the Mandinga, among the latter of whom were the principal agents of the trans-Atlantic slave trade in Upper Guinea. . . . In Upper Guinea, the Djola and the Balanta were ‘savage cannibals’ because they did not tolerate Europeans . . . ."

John Horhn writes in They Had No King: Ella Baker and the Politics of Decentralized Organization Among African Descended Populations,

"However, at no time was the concentration of wealth in the hands of members of the b’alante b’ndang (or any other group) ever so pronounced that it led to the crystallization of an elite class. Furthermore, the Balanta were extremely mistrusting of outsiders not from their own lineage or tabancas. This was true even when applied to members of their own ethnic group and resulted in a culture that held loyalty to the tabancas above all else. Therefore, it was impossible for outside forces to gain influence over Balanta culture without direct conquest and the commitment of military resources.”

In Planting Rice and Harvesting Slaves: Transformations along the Guinea-Bissau Coast, 1400-1900, Walter Hawthorne writes,

"Faced with the proliferation of violence associated with slave raids, Balanta living in dispersed morancas or households, began concentrating into tabancas in secluded areas near coastal rivers where they could better defend themselves. . . . Oral narratives and early written accounts indicate that before they were circumcised, Balanta males snatched cattle from distant communities to prove themselves brave warriors and to augment herd sizes. In a region plagued with violence, demonstrating prowess as a warrior was indeed important. Quemade N’dami explained, ‘There were those who did not steal. They had colleagues who had many cows and therefore sat as inferiors in relation. Balanta insulted them telling them that they were not men but were women. They slept [rather than raided] every night and were cowards.’ Illustrating the importance of cattle raiding historically, some narratives of migration center on conflicts over stolen cattle. The centrality of cattle theft is also evident in rituals carried out to this day. For example, when a Balanta woman gives birth to a male child, a cord is often placed in the doorway of the house, signifying that the child will have the courage to steal many cows. Finally, Portuguese and French officials on the coast left many complaints about Balanta stealing cattle at the same time they were capturing people. ‘They are all great thieves,’ Manuel Alvares noted in the early seventeenth century, ‘and they tunnel their way into pounds to steal the cattle. They excel at making assaults . . . taking everything they can find and capturing as many persons as possible.’

In oral narratives, Balanta refer to ‘raids’ broadly as b’ostemore and to raids aimed specifically at taking captives as b’kindeu, ‘the hunting of people’. These narratives claim that the Balanta organized b’ostemore to quickly overwhelm enemies and seize as many material objects and people as possible. Elder Chefe Lima explained, ‘Ostemore is taking something or someone by force during the day or night. Here, you attack someone or some group and take everything that he has, or they have.’ And N’sar N’Tchala spoke of the ‘hunting of people’:

‘In times long past, there were. . . people who practiced kindeu. When they encountered a person, they could kill him or capture him and carry him back to the tabanca. "

It is evident that as Balanta were drawn into the Atlantic economy, they adapted cattle raiding skills . . . .”

Hawthorne also writes in Strategies of the Decentralized,

"One strategy was to seize captives and to ransom them back to the villages from which they had come. Myriad Balanta communities that were reluctant to have direct trade contacts with Europeans pursued this strategy. Indeed, oral narratives and travelers’ accounts are rife with descriptions of how captives were ransomed. For example, in 1927, Alberto Gomes Pimentel wrote that when the Balanta seized people they were often held until ‘relatives’ paid some price for the freedom of their kin. Cattle, he said, were often demanded as payment, but other items were also requested. Oral narratives also give us a picture of what might have been a typical transaction. Speaking of Balanta raids, one informant said that ‘prisoners were tied to the branch or trunk of a cabecceira tree for some time. Those of strength communicated to the families of the prisoners that they should pay a ransom for the prisoners if they were to be freed.’ Others spoke of the exchange of captives for a ransom. Through ransoming, some Balanta communities avoided entry into the regional trade in slaves but managed to increase the wealth of their communities and to gain valuable items such as iron, that they needed for defense against slave raiders.”

Returning to Planting Rice and Harvesting Slaves: Transformations along the Guinea-Bissau Coast, 1400-1900, Walter Hawthorne writes,

"To obtain the captives necessary for purchasing iron, b’alante b’ndang needed strong young men to stage . . . raids. However, convincing young men to remain in the tabancas of their birth to make war for their fathers presented challenges. An expanding Atlantic market offered employment opportunities outside natal communities, principally in coastal ports or interior trade entrepots. Hence, b’alante b’ndang struggled to limit the ability of young men to establish contacts with ‘outsiders’ – lancado and Luso African merchants. . . .

Further, young male fighters composed the corps who defended communities against attack and raided distant groups for captives who could be traded for valuable imports. If young men could be retrained, their success in agricultural and military pursuits would enrich communities, making them stronger vis-à-vis neighboring communities. Neighbors would then be more likely to attempt to establish ties by offering daughters as marriage partners, further increasing community size and strength. Retaining young men, then, was the key to tabanca success. . . . . A second way to ensure that young men would remain in the tabancas of their birth was denying them contact with outsiders, particularly merchants who needed laborers in area ports and therefore offered youths alternatives to village life. When contact with outsiders was necessary, b’alante b’ndang worked through women. Hence, as was the case in many of the defensive communities of Brame, Floup and Biafada, Balanta relied on women to carry out exchanges with area merchants. Women are today the most important links between Balanta and outsiders, and oral narratives speak of the importance of women as traders [Siphiwe note: Balanta women did not engage in selling people to Europeans so there is no record of Balanta participating in the trans-Atlantic slave trade.] . . . Before the late seventeenth century, then, Balanta typically sold captives ‘to other black neighbors.’ Since such transactions took place in locations that Europeans did not dare visit, little has been recorded about them. Though records do not mention Balanta trading slaves to Biafada, Brame, and Papel, they may have marketed captives to merchants from these groups." i.e as "ransom".

Oral narratives are not the only places we can find evidence . . . Occupying lands next to some of the most important interregional trade routes (the Rio Geba, Rio Cacheu, and Rio Mansoa), Balanta staged frequent attacks on merchant vessels. During such assaults, Balanta seized passengers to sell back to the communities from which they had come, ‘to black neighbors,’ who took them to Bissau or Cacheu . . .

If Balanta staged raids on villages and merchant vessels, what did they do with those they seized? Like people in other parts of Africa, Balanta exercised several options with captives. They sold, ransomed, killed, and retained them, and they did these things for reasons inexorably linked to the logic of Balanta communities.

Balanta typically divided captives into two groups: whites and Africans. Whites were often killed, dismembered, and displayed as trophies by bold young men who returned to their villages with members of their age grades to celebrate a victory. Capuchin observers noted this behavior:

‘The Balanta only hold the blacks to sell them, but as for the whites that they seize, unfailingly, they kill them. Immediately, they cut them to pieces, and they put them as trophies on the points of spears, and they go about making a display of them through the villages as a show of their valor, and he who has murdered some white is greatly esteemed.’

Barbot also left a description of Balanta killing white merchants. The inhabitants of the banks of the Rio Geba, he wrote, ‘are more wild and cruel to strangers than themselves; for they will scarce release a white man upon any conditions whatsoever, but will sooner or later murder, and perhaps devour them.’ La Courbe told a similar story. Balanta, he warned, ‘are great thieves. They pillage whites and blacks indiscriminately whenever they encounter them either on land or at sea. They have large canoes and they will strip you of everything if you do not encounter them well armed. When they capture blacks, they sell them to others, with whites they just kill them.’

There are several reasons Balanta captured people and then ransomed them for cattle. First, in raids it was often easier to grab people than cattle, especially if they were in their fields, far from their villages, and without weapons. Second, seizing people might have been a way of warning outsiders to stay away from Balanta communities – a way of warning outsiders to stay away from Balanta communities – a way of demonstrating strength and discouraging slavers from attacking. Third, the raiding of distant communities for captives and trading of captives for cattle dovetailed with Balanta social and cultural norms. Balanta did not stage raids for reasons growing out of the logic of mercantile capitalism. They staged them because of the logic of their own society. For Balanta, cattle were a key indicator of success. As Nam Nambatcha stated, ‘Cattle were important for Balanta since the cow was the thing most highly valued by Balanta. . . . He who had no cows felt bad.’ In a society that historically had no standardized currency, cattle were the primary store of wealth. Therefore, when iron supplies were adequate, when cattle stocks were low . . . Balanta likely chose to ransom the victims of their raids. Fourth, Balanta captrued people and then ransomed them because it might not have been possible for Luso African and grumete merchants to sell locally born Mandinka and Papel at ports for export. Mandinka and Papel were close partners with Luso Africans in the slave trade. Many had friends and kin in Bissau or Cacheu who would have objected forcefully to their enslavement. Hence, ransoming was sometimes the only option. . . .

Thus, it is clear, that the Balanta actions during the slave trade was to

refuse contact with the Europeans, kill Europeans who came into our territory, and capture and ransom any of the neighboring people who tried to capture Balanta.

Ours was a very wise and skillful response to the criminal European trans Atlantic slave trade which is one of the reasons the number of Balanta dna results in the African Ancestry community is so low. It is because of the Balanta ancestors refusal to participate in the criminal European trans Atlantic slave trade and to develop their own strategy and response to it, that so many Balantas were NOT captured.

THE MILITARY LEGACY OF THE BALANTA

In contrast to the Bijagos, Papel, and Mandinka, who made alliances with Europeans and engaged in their slave trade, the Balanta refused such an arrangement, and instead went on the attack, utilizing second-strike capacity. In defense of their freedom, scholar Walter Hawthorne describes the Balanta military skill,

“In part, the Balanta and other coastal groups resisted enslavement by exploiting the advantages offered by the region in which they lived. Put simply, the coast offered more defenses and opportunities for counterattack against slave-raiding armies and other enemies than did the savanna-woodland interior. In the early twentieth century, Portuguese administrator Alberto Gomes Pimentel explained how the Balanta utilized the natural protection of mangrove-covered areas – terrafe in Guinean creole – when they were confronted with an attack from a well-organized and well-armed enemy seeking captives or booty: ‘Armed with guns and large swords, the Balanta, who did not generally employ any resistance on these occasions. . . . pretended to flee (it was their tactic), suffering a withdrawal and going to hide in the ‘terrafe’ on the margins on the rivers and lagoons, spreading out in the flats some distance so as not to be shot by their enemies. The attackers. . . . then began to return for their lands with all of the spoils of war’. Organizing rapidly and allying themselves with others in the area, the Balanta typically followed their enemies through the densely forested coastal region. At times, the Balanta waited until their attackers had almost reached their homelands before giving ‘a few shots and making considerable noise so as to cause a panic.’ The Balanta then engaged their enemies in combat, ‘many times corpo a corpo’. . . .

Having assembled in what the Capuchins called ‘a great number,’ Balanta warriors struck their stranded victims quickly and with overwhelming force. ‘Upon approaching a boat,’ the Capuchins said, ‘they attack with fury, they kill, rob, capture and make off with everything.’

SUCH ATTACKS HAPPENED WITH A GREAT DEAL OF REGULARITY AND STRUCK FEAR IN THE HEARTS OF MERCHANTS AND MISSIONARIES ALIKE. OTHERS ALSO COMMENTED ON THE FREQUENCY OF BALANTA RAIDS ON RIVER VESSELS.

On March 24, 1694, Bispo Portuense feared that he would fall victim to the Balanta when his boat, guided by grumetes, ran aground on a sandbar, probably on the Canal do Impernal, ‘very close to the territory of those barbarians.’ . . . .

Faced with an impediment to the flow of trade to their ports, the Portuguese tried to bring an end to Balanta raids. But they were outclassed militarily by skilled Balanta age-grade fighters. Portuguese adjutant Amaro Rodrigues and his crew certainly discovered this. In 1696, he and a group of fourteen soldiers from a Portuguese post on Bissau anchored their craft somewhere near a Balanta village close to where Bissau’s Captain Jose Pinheiro had ordered the men to stage an attack. However, the Portuguese strategy was ill conceived. A sizable group of Balanta struck a blow against the crew before they had even left their boat. The Balanta killed Rodrigues and two Portuguese soldiers and took twelve people captive.

Hawthorne’s continues in Strategies of the Decentralized,

“In 1777, Portuguese commander Ignacio Bayao reported from Bissau that he was furious that Balanta had been adversely affecting the regional flow of slaves and other goods carried by boats along Guinea-Bissau’s rivers. It was ‘not possible,’ he wrote, ‘to navigate boats for those [Balanta] parts without some fear of the continuous robbing that they have done, making captive those who navigate in the aforementioned boats.’ In response, Bayao sent infantrymen in two vessels ‘armed for war’ into Balanta territories. After these men had anchored, disembarked, and ventured some distance inland, they ‘destroyed some men, burning nine villages’ and then made a hasty retreat back to the river. Finding their vessels rendered ‘disorderly,’ the infantrymen were quickly surrounded by well-armed Balanta. Bayao lamented that ‘twenty men from two infantry companies’ were taken captive or killed. Having sent out more patrols to subdue the ‘savage Balanta’ and having attempted a ‘war’ against this decentralized people, the Portuguese found that conditions on Guinea- Bissau’s rivers did not improve.’

Viewing the regional slave trade as a threat to their communities, the Balanta continued their raids on merchant vessels transporting captives and other goods. Such raids would tax Portuguese patience throughout the nineteenth and well into the twentieth century . . . . Thus, by garnering weapons and iron in regional markets and from Luso-African merchants, many Balanta communities, like those of other decentralized coastal societies, were not only able to stand up to threats posed by the slaving armies of Kaabu and Casamance, they were also able to withstand assaults by Portuguese who were attempting to profit by insuring the smooth running of the coastal trade routes that moved captives to area ports.”

SO IT IS CLEAR THAT THE NATURAL, HISTORICAL AND CORRECT RESPONSE TO AN ATTACK ON BALANTA PEOPLE IS TO RETREAT FROM THE FIRST STRIKE AND COUNTER-ATTACK WITH A RETALIATORY SECOND-STRIKE.

CONCLUSION

Thus, by engaging in b’kindeu, ransom, and second strike military attacks, the Balanta people resisted the European invaders and successfully refrained from participating in the criminal European trans Atlantic slave trade, leaving behind perhaps the most honorable legacy of an African people during this period.

From Nhacra to North Carolina: The Story of Brassa Nchabra and The Blake Family, 1760 to 1890

My son, we have now come to that pivotal moment where we begin to recount the actual events in the history of our family in America. The telling of the story begins with your great, great grand Uncle Eustace Blake, who, on August 9, 1974, stated,

"Our forefathers were George, Jack, Yancey. Yancey Blake married Melissa Page. Yancey begat nine children by Melissa. Two boys and seven girls. Boys: Yancey Jr and John Addison (grandfather of Eustace). During the civil war a group of Federal Soldiers came past the house of my grandfather (Yancey Blake), Yancey Blake Jr. joined them and was never heard from anymore.”

Picture of a young boy photographed by Brassa Mada (Siphiwe Baleka, the great, great, great, great, great grandson of Brassa Nchabra) during his return visit to his homeland in January, 2020.

Brassa Nchabra

Around 1758, Brassa Nchabra was born in the village of Unche, in Nhacra, the homeland of the Binham Brassa people who, today, are called “Balanta”. He lived in what is called the three rivers or southern rivers area that encompasses the territory south of the Casamance River to the Cacheu River and Bissau on the West African coast of the modern-day country of Guinea Bissau.

Portuguese map of the Balanta homeland, 1844

Brassa Nchabra’s family was free. They paid no tribute or taxes to any chief or king. They recognized no state structure or authority having any coercive power over them. There was no law restricting them in any way except for Natural Law which had the following three requirements:

1. Balanta must not injure or kill anyone;

2. Balanta must not steal or damage things owned by someone else;

3. Balanta must be honest in interactions and must not swindle anyone.

At the time, the Balanta people raised cattle and dominated the local markets because they were the best farmers in the area. They lived a life of freedom and economic dominance.

Brassa Nchabra’s community was at war with the Christians from Portugal and England who invaded their homeland and who employed Bijago, Fula and Mandinka manhunters to ambush Balanta women and children heading to the markets. During the 1760’s, Brassa Nchabra was captured, most likely in such an ambush, and sold to English slave traders. Since all slave trading in the area was done under the authority of the Portuguese Crown who gave a monopoly of the trade to a single company called Companhia General do Grao Para e Maranhao, the English slave traders were considered as illegal pirates violating European law.

Now imagine the terror and trauma of the young boy Brassa Nchabra, no more than 8 or 12 years old, being kidnapped from his family and put in chains while witnessing the brutalization, violence and rape of the other captured victims. . . .

Building at the Fortress of Cacheu, built in 1588, were slaves were imprisoned.

Inside slave holding pen at Fortress of Cacheu.

Shackles used at Fortress of Cacheu.

Pit where the rebellious Balanta were held.

The Sally's Ship account book offers a meticulous record of a slave ship’s voyage in 1764, describing the date of each purchase of an enslaved African and precisely what was traded for him or her. Unfortunately, it offers little information about his ship's exact whereabouts. It is unclear where the Sally first made landfall when it arrived in Africa on November 10, 1764, but by December it was at James Fort, the primary British "factory," or slave trading post, on the Upper Guinea coast, near the mouth of the Gambia River. The ship seems then to have proceeded south along the coast of what is today Guinea-Bissau, stopping briefly at the city of Bissau before anchoring somewhere near the mouth of the Grande River. This was Portuguese territory, supposedly off limits to ships from other countries, but there were a few British factories in the area and British slave ships often stopped there on the way down the coast.

According to the Voyage of the Slave Ship Salley 17654-1765 website:

“Slave ships typically worked their way up and down a stretch of coastline. The Sally, in contrast, seems to have spent most of its time in one place, apparently the site of a small British factory. Judging from the account book, the Sally operated as a kind of rum dispensary, supplying passing slave ships with the rum they needed to conduct business on the coast and receiving in exchange manufactured goods like cloth, iron, and guns, which were in turn exchanged for supplies or captives. When food stocks ran low, the Sally's captain, Esek Hopkins, bartered with locals or dispatched one of the Sally's boats up the coast to Bolor, a rice-trading settlement on the Cacheu River.

Slaves slowly trickled in, usually one or two at a time, some purchased from local slave traders, others from passing slave ships. On several occasions, Hopkins dispatched a boat to "Jabe" – probably Geba, a trading center up the Geba River – to purchase small lots of captives. By the time the Sally finally embarked for the West Indies, in August 1765, Hopkins had acquired a total of 196 Africans, some of whom he then sold to other traders. Nineteen Africans had already died on the ship, and a twentieth was left for dead on the day the ship departed. . . .

August 28, 1765: Slaves Rose on us was obliged fire on them and Destroyed 8.

Four more Africans died in the first week of the Sally's return voyage. On August 28, desperate captives staged an insurrection, which Hopkins and the crew violently suppressed. Eight Africans died immediately, and two others later succumbed to their wounds. According to Hopkins, the captives were "so Desperited" after the failed insurrection that "Some Drowned them Selves Some Starved and Others Sickened & Dyed. . . .

The Sally reached the West Indies in early October, 1765, after a transatlantic passage of about seven weeks. After a brief layover in Barbados, the ship proceeded to Antigua, where Hopkins wrote to the Browns, alerting them to the scope of the disaster. Sixty-eight Africans had perished during the passage, and twenty more died in the days immediately following the ship's arrival, bringing the death toll to 108. A 109th captive would later die en route to Providence. . . .

November 16, 1765: Sales of Negroes at Public Vendue.

When they dispatched the Sally, the Brown brothers instructed Hopkins to return to Providence with four or five "likely lads" for the family's use. The rest of the Sally survivors were auctioned in Antigua. Sickly and emaciated, they commanded extremely low prices at auction. The last two dozen survivors were auctioned in Antigua on November 16, selling, in one case, for less than £5, scarcely a tenth of the value of a ‘prime slave.’”

Brassa Nchabra survived the brutal middle passage across the Atlantic and was brought to Charleston, South Carolina just prior to the American Revolution.

In Charleston, the sale of Brassa Nchabra created his first “profit” for the enslavers. The National Parks Service Historic Website reports that,

“Henry Laurens was born in Charles Town in 1724. He was the grandson of French Huguenot immigrants who were members of the Reformed Church that was established by John Calvin in 1550.3 They fled to England and then Ireland after the revocation of the Treaty of Nantes finally immigrating to New York City. In 1715 the Laurens family settled in Charles Town where they became very wealthy.

Henry, the first son in the family, was educated in Charles Town and worked in a local counting-house. He was sent to England by his father to learn a trade . He trained under a prominent British merchant. He returned to South Carolina in 1747. At this time, planters were able to ship their rice directly to ports south of Cape Finisterie in Spain. This made Charles Town the busiest port in America. In 1748 Henry opened an import export business in Charles Town, Austin and Laurens. He made contacts while in London that he entered the slave trade with, Grant, Oswald & Company (the company that controlled the slave outpost Bunce Castle located in Sierra Leone). His company contracted to receive, catalog and market slaves by conducting public auctions in Charles Town. They handled the sale of over 8,000 Africans. The firm also traded in Carolina Gold rice, indigo and deerskins, tar, pitch, silver and gold. They also sent Colonial merchandise to England on returning ships. For this the company received 10% commission on slave cargoes. The expenses incurred while providing for the slaves between landing and the sale and accountability for debts were the responsibility of Austin and Laurens. They were expected to remit accounts after the sales were made regardless of when they were actually paid. They allowed planters up to six months to pay them. Laurens reported netting between 8% and 9% from his share of the sales of slave cargoes. Henry was a slave merchant documented to have been involved in the sale of over 68 cargoes of slaves . . .”

The Asuten and Laurens contract represents the start of the official “lawful” sanction of Brassa Nchabra’s trafficking, enslavement and genocide in the South Carolina colony that would become part of The United States of America.

According to the Negro Law of South Carolina (1740), Section I declared

“all Negroes and Indians (Free Indians in amity with this Government, Negroes, mulattoes and mestizos, who are now free excepted) . . . and all their issue and offspring, born or to be born, shall be . . . hereby declared to be, and remain forever hereafter, absolute slaves. . . .to be chattels personal, in the hands of their owners and possessors, and their executors, administrators, and assigns, to all intents, constructions and purposes whatsoever; . . . Provided always, that if any Negro, Indian, mulatto or mustizo, shall claim his or her freedom, it shall and may be lawful for such Negro, Indian, mulatto or mustizo, or any person or persons whatsoever, on his or her behalf, to apply to the justices of his Majesty's court of common pleas, by petition or motion, either during the sitting of the said court, or before any of the justices of the same court, . . . And the defendant shall and may plead the general issue on such action brought, and the special matter may and shall be given in evidence, and upon a general of special verdict found, judgment shall be given according to the very right of the cause, without having any regard to any defect in the proceedings, either in form or substance; . . . And if judgment shall be given for the plaintiff, a special entry shall be made, declaring that the ward of the plaintiff is free, and the jury shall assess damages which the plaintiff's ward hath sustained, and the court shall give judgment and award execution, against the defendant for such damage, with full costs of suit; but in case judgment shall be given for the defendant, the said court is hereby fully empowered to inflict such corporal punishment, not extending to life or limb, on the ward of the plaintiff, as they, in their discretion, shall think fit; . . .Provided always, that in any action or suit to be brought in pursuance of the direction of this Act, the burthen of the proof shall lay on the plaintiff, and it shall be always presumed that every Negro, Indian, mulatto, and mustizo, is a slave, unless the contrary can be made appear . . . .”

However, Section 4 stated that

“The term Negro is confined to slave Africans (The ancient Berbers) and their descendants. It does not embrace the free inhabitants of Africa, such as the Egyptians, Moors, or the Negro Asiatics, such as Lascars. . .”

Thus, by this statute, B’rassa Nchabra, who was a free inhabitant at the time of his capture and came from a family lineage and people that had never been enslaved and were not subjects of any political authority, was wrongfully enslaved in Charleston through illegal English maritime activity and statutory law and South Carolina statutory law.

Being so young and unable to speak English, he could not make a case in defense of his freedom upon arrival in Charleston.

[Siphiwe Note: Here, the English in South Carolina were following after the Portuguese. Herman L. Bennett, in African Kings and Black Slaves: Sovereignty and Dispossession in the Early Modern Atlantic, “

. . . . Portuguese awareness of differences among Africans. Accordingly, it was the Moor, who, because of his superior status, valued freedom more than blacks. The Portuguese quickly equated status with sovereignty and the lack thereof with the legitimate enslavement of certain individuals. Though the Portuguese captured both Moors and the ‘black Mooress,’ they had already started distinguishing between sovereign ‘Moorish’ subjects and those ‘Moors,’ ‘Negros,’ and ‘black’ that they could legitimately enslave. Zurara observed that the ‘black Mooress,’ unlike the valiant yet vanquished ‘Moor,’ represented the ‘legitimately’ unfree. . . . As the Portuguese encountered more of Guinea’s inhabitants the terms ‘Black Moors’ ‘blacks,’ “Ethiops,’ ‘Guineas,’ and ‘Negroes,’ or the descriptive terms to which a religious signifier was appended such as ‘Moors. . . [who] were Gentiles’ and ‘pagans’ gradually constituted the rootless and sovereignless – and in many cases, simply ‘slaves’. . . . the Portuguese introduced a taxonomy that distinguished Moors from blackamoors, infidels from pagans, and Africans from blacks, sovereign from sovereignless subjects, and free persons from slaves. ]

B’rassa Nchabra was forced to accept the name “George” - named after the infamous slave owner and traitorous leader of the Sons of Liberty terrorist group, George Washington.

George was subject to the following laws in South Carolina which today are considered violations of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Section 3, 24 and 36. George was not allowed to leave plantation without permission or being accompanied by a white man. The punishment was “whipping on the bare back, not exceeding twenty lashes”. If George refused to submit or undergo the examination of any white person, it was lawful for any such white person to pursue, apprehend, and moderately correct George; and if he resisted, defended himself, or struck a white person, he could be lawfully killed.

Section 7, 23 and 43. George was not allowed to gather together with other slaves nor possess arms, ammunition or stolen goods. Gathering together with more than seven slaves was punishable by up to twenty lashes on the bare back.

Section 16. If George set fire to, burned or destroyed any sack of rice, corn or other grain, tar kiln, barrels of pitch, tar turpentine or rosin, take or carry away any slave or maliciously poison or administer any poison to any person the penalty was death.

Section 17. Any attempt at insurrection or enticing a slave to run away was punished by public execution to deter other.

Section 21. George could be forced to whip or kill another slave, and if he refused, the punishment was whipping on the bare back, not exceeding twenty lashes.

Section 30 and 31. George was not allowed to buy, sell, deal, traffic, barter, exchange or use commerce for any goods, wares, provisions, grain, victuals, or commodities, of any sort or kind whatsoever. All such goods would be seized and the punishment  was a public whipping on the bare back, not exceeding twenty lashes.

Section 32. Alcohol was forbidden.

Section 34. George was not allowed to have a boat, canoe, horse, cattle, sheep or hogs.

Section 36. George was not allowed to beat drums, blow horns, or use any other loud instruments.

Section 40. George was not allowed  to have or wear any sort of apparel whatsoever, finer, other, or greater value than Negro cloth, duffels, kerseys, osnabrigs, blue linen, check linen or coarse garlic, or calicoes, checked cottons, or Scotch plaids.

Section 41. George was not allowed to rent or hire any house, room, store or plantation, on his own account.

Section 45. George was not allowed to read or write.

These laws sanctioned the “lawful” use of terroristic force in the form of corporeal punishment - whippings and death. They deliberately sought to kill members of the enslaved group; cause serious bodily and mental harm to members of the enslaved group; and inflict on the enslaved group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part. The effect was to produced trauma in George, the victim and the targeted community that imprinted the brain with a familiarity heuristic that said,

“don’t leave the plantation without permission, be obedient, serve the master, never strike back or revolt if you want to survive. You must learn to tolerate slavery.”

For the first time in the history of the Brassa Nchabra lineage, such trauma and SUBSERVIENCE was imprinted in their ancestral genetic memory forever altering brain function and behavior.

Around 1788, George had a son named Jack, the first person in the history of Brassa Nchabra’s family, to be born into slavery or any kind of servitude. The fate of George is unknown, but Jack was brought to Wake County, North Carolina and given to Dempsey Blake, the great, great grandson of the pirate Robert Blake.

The Slaveholding Blake Family

Robert Blake was himself a rebellious traitor, fighting against his King during an English civil war and defeating Royal General Prince Rupert in 1650. For this, Robert Blake was given legal sanction for his mercenary actions by being designated Commander-in-Chief of the English Fleet. He stole $14 million worth of goods from a Spanish fleet and used this money and his status to send his sons to America and establish lucrative plantations. His descendants would become some of the largest slave owners in America.

Thomas Blake, grandson of the traitorous pirate Robert Blake, came to Virginia Colony before 1664 and settled in Isle of Wight County. He was a man of affairs, owning considerable property and received numerous grants of land, some of which were for transporting emigrants to Virginia for colonization. . . . On April 10th, 1704, Thomas deeded 100 acres to his son, William Blake, both then being of the Upper Parish of said County, Isle of Wight, Va, just north of the border with North Carolina. . . . At the time Thomas gave William a deed for 100 acres, Nicholas Sessums gave a similar deed for a 100 acres to his daughter, Mary Blake, and his son-in-law William Blake as marriage gifts. . . . Nicholas Sessums was a man of much property, owned 1000 acres of land and numerous slaves . . . .

William Blake’s son, Joseph Blake moved to Wake County, North Carolina.

His father, William Blake, while still alive, deeded to Joseph negroes named Sampson, Jack (and son) and Ned.

Joseph Blake also had the following male slaves - Toby, Bristol, Prince, Billy, Mayro, [unreadable], Jack, Manny - and female slaves - [Sappo? and child], Dianna, Barbara, Maria and child, [Shena?], Betty, Dolly, Judy and [unreadable].

Joseph Blake had a son named Dempsey Blake in 1757. On August 19, 1771, Joseph Blake died. Probate records show that his wife Mary hired out four slaves and that there was a close connection to Walter Blake.

By 1790, in the state of North Carolina, there were 288,204 white people, 100,572 slaves, and 4,975 free people of color. In Wake County, there were 10,192 people including 7,549 white people, 2,463 slaves and 180 free persons of color. Many slaves in Wake County tried to escape. In 1814, Dempsey Blake offered a ten dollar reward for an escaped slave named Allen.

Jack Blake

It is not known what happened to Brassa Nchabra, but his son Jack was given to Dempsey Blake. From the above records, Joseph Blake did, indeed, own a slave named Jack who had a son, but this Jack would be too old and doesn’t fit our timeline. However, there may be some connection. Nevertheless, in 1819, Dempsey Blake deeded to his son Asa Blake “the negro named Jack.” This is my great, great, great, great grandfather.

That same year, 1819, Yancey Blake was born, according to the 1870 Census which lists Yancey Blake as 51 years of age. In Yancey’s household is Lydia Blake, aged 70 (born about 1799-1800), who most likely was his mother.

In 1850 Asa Blake deeded to his beloved wife Catherine “Siddy/Liddy” Hartsfield-Blake, the “negro Jack and Yancey. and also a negro woman [C]ealy and Matilda“ . Yancey would have been about 30 years of age and Jack would have been between 50 and 65 years of age.

Perhaps it is from Siddy/Liddy Blake that Yancey’s mother “Lydia” Blake is named. Lydia would have been about 50 years of age. However, according to the 1860 Slave Schedule for Wake County, NC, there was a slave owner named Lydia Blake.

By 1853, according to the Marriage Register for Wake County, it appears Catherine “Siddy/Liddy” Hartsfield-Blake emancipated Jack, though no emancipation record has yet been found. Emancipating a slave was very difficult at that time. A slave had to be over the age of fifty and the owner had to petition the court, prove “meritorious service beyond general duties” and pay $500 to $1,000 dollars. Emancipated slaves were then forced to leave the state withing 90 days.

Historian John Hope Franklin writes in The Free Negro in North Carolina, 1790-1860,

“The effort of North Carolina to discipline the free Negro and to prevent his overturning the established order resulted in the reduction of the free Negro’s position to one of quasi-freedom . . . The same circumscriptions that served to hamper the free Negro in the legal and economic spheres were present as he sought a place in the social life of the state. The walls of restriction that almost completely encircled him cut many of the lines of communication between him and the larger community.”

Ira Berlin states in Slaves without Masters: The Free Negro in the Antebellum South,

“once free, blacks generally remained at the bottom of the social order, despised by whites, burdened with increasingly oppressive racial proscriptions, and subjected to verbal and physical abuse.”

John Spencer Bassett states in Slavery in the State of North Carolina,

“Slaveholders disliked and feared free negroes because they demoralized the quiet conduct of the slaves. These negroes were under no direct control of the white man. They might aid the slaves in planning a revolt, in disposing of stolen property, in running away, and in any other act of defiance. Privilege after privilege was withdrawn from them. At first they had most of the rights and duties of the poor white man; they fought in the Revolutionary armies, mustered in the militia, voted in the elections, and had their liberty to go where they chose. At length they lost their right to vote; their service in the militia was restricted to that of musicians; and the patrol came more and more to limit their freedom of travel. Taxes and road duty alone of all their functions of citizenship were at last preserved . . . .The legal status of the free negro was peculiar. Was he a freeman, or was he less than a freeman? The former he was by logical intent; yet he was undoubtedly denied . . . many rights which mark the estate of freemen. . . . In the triumph of the pro-slavery views, about 1830, the free negro was destined to lose the franchise. The matter came to a head in the Constitutional Convention of 1835. . . . [I]t was argued that a free negro was not a citizen, and that if he had ever voted it was illegally. Being called freemen in the abstract did not confer on them the dignity of citizenship any more than it made citizens of the slaves. . . . A slave was not a citizen. When was a freed slave naturalized? And until naturalized could he be a citizen? . . . The cold logic of the views of the majority was stated by Mr. Bryan, of Carteret, as follows:

‘This is, to my mind, a nation of white people, and the enjoyment of all civic and social rights by a distinctive class of individuals is purely permissive, and unless there be a perfect equality in every respect it cannot be demanded as a right. . . . I do not acknowledge any equality between the white man and the free negro in the enjoyment of political rights. The free negro is a citizen of necessity and must, as long as he abides among us, submit to the laws which necessity and the peculiarity of his position compel us to adopt.’

Mr. McQueen, of Chatham, continued the argument: the Government of North Carolina did not make the negro a slave, said he. It gave the boon of freedom, but did that carry the further boon of citizenship? . . . More relentless still was Mr. Wilson, of Perquimons. He said:

‘A white man may go to the house of a free black, maltreat and abuse him, and commit any outrage upon his family, for all of which the law cannot reach him, unless some white person saw the act committed - some fifty years of experience having satisfied the Legislature that the black man does not possess sufficient intelligence and integrity to be entrusted with the important privilege of giving evidence against a white man. And after all this shall we invest him with the more important rights of a freeman? . . .

After the discussion had continued two days, the matter was carried against the free negro by a vote of 65 to 62. . . .

After the severe laws of the third and fourth decades of the nineteenth century opinion changed. It was that it was as late as 1844 that the Supreme Court undertook to fix the status of the free negroes. It then declared that ‘free persons of color in this State are not to be considered as citizens in the largest sense of the term, or if they are, they occupy such a position as justifies the Legislature in adopting a course of policy in its acts peculiar to them, so that they do not violate the great principles of justice which lie at the foundation of all law. . . . There were more free negroes in North Carolina in 1860 than in any other State except Virginia. . . . They took the poorest land. Usually they rented a few acres; often they bought a small ‘patch’ and on it dwelt in log huts of the rudest construction. . . .”

According to the Marriage Register for Wake County, the first thing Jack Blake did with his freedom was to marry Cherry Blake on October 10, 1853. Again, if Jack was between the ages of 20 and 30 when Yancey was born (in 1819), then that would make the birth of Jack sometime around 1788 and 1798. Thus, Jack would be in his 50’s or 60’s at the time of his marriage to Cherry Blake, and qualified for emancipation.

Here is the list of all the slaveholders named Blake in Wake County, North Carolina according to the

1860 Federal Census Slave Schedule

The Civil War

On December 20, 1860, South Carolina issued its Declaration of Secession from the United States of America. On April 12, 1861, the South Carolina Militia bombarded Fort Sumter forcing the surrender of the United States Army. This was the first battle initiating America’s Civil War. On May 20, 1861, Raleigh hosted a Secession Convention, which resulted in N.C. breaking from the Union. On January 1, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln, issued the Emancipation Proclamation ending slavery. The use of Negro troops in the Union army later in the year, made American Negroes feel sure that a new day had dawned for them.

Raleigh largely escaped the devastation of direct action until 1865, as Major General William T. Sherman's Union forces entered N.C. and maneuvered their way towards the capitol while pursuing General Joseph E. Johnston's Confederate Army of Tennessee. Skirmishes took place in and around Raleigh near Morrisville and Garner. On April 12, Governor Vance sent a commission, including former governors David Swain and William A. Graham to meet with Sherman to offer the surrender of the city. The official surrender took place the next day, with the promise that the town would be spared the destruction dealt to Columbia, S.C. According to Eustace Blake, “During the civil war a group of Federal Soldiers came past the house of my grandfather (Yancey Blake, son of Jack Blake), Yancey Blake Jr. (Jack Blake’s grandson) joined them and was never heard from anymore.” (see below).

The North Carolina Slave Narratives records have many eyewitness accounts from the point of view of slaves. Below are some of the testimonies from former slaves living in Wake Co. at the time:

Jane Lee (b. 1856)

“I wus borned de slave of Marse Henry McCullers down here at Clayton on de Wake an’ Johnson line. . . . Marse Henry had six or seben [slaves]. . . . I ‘members de Yankees comin’ good as iffen hit wus yesterday. Dey comed wid a big noise, chasin’ our white folks what wus in de army clean away. De chase dem to Raleigh an’ den dey kotch ‘em, but dey ain’t had much time, ter do us any damage case dey wus too busy atter der Rebs. De woods wus full of runaway slaves an’ Rebs who desered de army so hit wus dangerous to walk out. Marse Henry give us a speech about hit an’ atter I seed one rag-a-muffin nigger man dat wus so hongry dat his eyes pop out, I ain’t took no more walks. Atter de war we moved on Mr. Ellington’s place wid daddy an’ dar I stayed till I married . . . .”

CLARA JONES (b. 1852) 408 Cannon Street, Raleigh, North Carolina, Wake Co

"I doan know how old I is but I wus borned long time ago case I wus a married 'oman way 'fore de war. We lived on Mr. Felton McGee's place hear in Wake County. I wurked lak a man dar an' de hours wus from sunup till dark mostly. He ain't had but about fifty slaves but he makes dem do de wurk of a hundret an' fifty. We ain't had no fun dar, case hit takes all of our strength ter do our daily task. Yes'um we had our tasks set out ever' day.

One day, right atter my fifth chile wus borned, I fell out in de fiel'. Marster come out an' looked at me, den he kicks me an' 'lows, 'a youngin' ever' ten months an' never able ter wurk, I'll sell her'.
"A few days atter dat he tuck me an' my two younges' chilluns ter Raleigh an' he sells us ter Marse Rufus Jones. Marse Rufus am a good man in ever' way. He fed us good an' he give us good clothes an' we ain't had much wurk ter do, dat is, not much side of what we had ter do on McGee's plantation. We had some fun on Marse Rufus' plantation, watermillion slicin's, candy pullin's, dances, prayer meetin's an' sich. Yes mam, we had er heap of fun an' in dat time I had eleben chilluns.

My husband, William, still stayed on ter Mister McGee's. We got married in 1860, de year 'fore de war started, I think. I can't tell yo' much 'bout our courtin' case hit went on fer years an' de Marster wanted us ter git married so's dat I'd have chilluns. When de slaves on de McGee place got married de marster always said dat dere duty wus ter have a houseful of chilluns fer him.

When de Yankees come Mis' Sally, Marse Rufus' wife cried an' ordered de scalawags outen de house but dey jist laughs at her an' takes all we got. Dey eben takes de stand of lard dat we has got buried in de ole fiel' an' de hams hangin' up in de trees in de pasture. Atter dey is gone we fin's a sick Yankee in de barn an' Mis' Sally nurses him. Way atter de war Mis' Sally gits a letter an' a gol' ring from him. When de news of de surrender comes Mis' Sally cries an' sez dat she can't do widout her niggers, so Marse Rufus comes in an' tells us dat we can stay on. William moves ober dar, takes de name of Jones an' goes ter farmin' wid a purpose an' believe me we makes our livin'. We stay dar through all of de construction days an' through de time when de Ku Kluxes wus goin' wild an' whuppin's all de niggers

De white folks went off to de war; dey said dey could whup, but de Lord said, 'No', and dey didn't whup. Dey went off laffin', an' many were soon cryin', and many did not come back. De Yankees come through, dey took what dey wanted; killed de stock; stole de horses; poured out de lasses and cut up a lot of meaness, but most of 'em is dead and gone now. No matter whether dey were Southern white folks, or Northern white folks, dey is dead now.”

JANE LASSITER (b. about 1857) 324 Battle Street Raleigh, N.C. Wake Co

"I am 'bout 80 years old. I am somewhere in my seventies, don't zackly know my age. I wus here when de Yankees come an' I 'member seein' dem dressed in blue. I wus a nurse at dat time not big enough to hold a baby but dey let me set by de cradle an' rock it. We lived in little ole log houses. We called 'em cabins. They had stick an' dirt chimleys wid one door to de house an' one window. It shet to lak a door. We did not have any gardens an' we never had any money of our own. We jest wurked fer de white folks. We had plenty sumptin to eat an' it wus cooked good. My mother wus de cook an' she done it right. Our clothes wus homemade but we had plenty shiftin' clothes. Course our shoes wus given out at Christmas. We got one pair a year an' when dey wore out we got no more an' had to go barefooted de rest of de time. You had to take care of dat pair uv shoes bekase dey wus all you got a year. The slaves caught game sometime an' et it in de cabins, but dere wus not much time fer huntin' dere wus so much wurk to do. Dere wus 'bout fifty slaves on de plantation, an' dey wurked from light till dark. I 'member dey wurkin' till dark. Course I wus too small to 'member all 'bout it an' I don't 'member 'bout de overseers. I never seen a slave whupped, but I 'members seein' dem carryin' slaves in droves like cows. De white men who wus guardin' 'em walked in front an' some behind. I did not see any chains. I never seen a slave sold an' I don't 'member ever seein' a jail fer slaves. Dere wus no books, or larnin' uv any kind allowed. You better not be ketched wid a book in yore han's. Dat wus sumptin dey would git you fer. I ken read an' write a little but I learned since de surrender. My mother tole me 'bout dat bein' 'ginst de rules of de white folks. I 'members it while I wus only a little gal. When de Yankees come thro'.

Dere wus no churches on de plantation an' we wus not 'lowed to have prayer meetings in de cabins, but we went to preachin' at de white folks church. I 'member dat. We set on de back seat. I 'member dat. No slaves ever run away from our plantation cause marster wus good to us. I never heard of him bein' 'bout to whup any of his niggers. Mother loved her white folks as long as she lived an' I loved 'em too. No mister, we wus not mistreated. Mother tole me a lot 'bout Raw Head an' Bloody Bones an' when I done mean, she say, 'Better not do dat any more Raw Head an' Bloody Bones gwine ter git yo'.' Ha! ha! dey jest talked 'bout ghosts till I could hardly sleep at nite, but de biggest thing in ghosts is somebody 'guised up tryin' to skeer you. Ain't no sich thing as ghosts. Lot of niggers believe dere is do'. We stayed on at marsters when de surrender come cause when we wus freed we had nothin' an' nowhere to go. Dats de truth. Mister, dats de truth. We stayed with marster a long time an' den jest moved from one plantation to another. It wus like dis, a crowd of tenants would get dissatisfied on a certain plantation, dey would move, an' another gang of niggers move in. Dat wus all any of us could do. We wus free but we had nothin' 'cept what de marsters give us.”

CHANA LITTLEJOHN 215 State Street Wake Co

"I remember when de Yankees come. I remember when de soldiers come an' had tents in Marster's yard before dey went off to de breastworks. My mother wus hired out before de surrender an' had to leave her two chilluns at home on Marster's plantation. When she come home Christmas he told her she would not have to go back any more. She could stay at home. This wus de las' year o' de war and he tol' her she would soon be free. . . . "I doan reckon I wus ten years old when de Yankees come, but I wus runnin' around an' can remember all dis. Guess I wus 'bout eight years old. I wus born in Warren County, near Warrenton. I belonged to Peter Mitchell, a long, tall man. There were 'bout a hundred slaves on de plantation. "We had gardens and patches and plenty to eat. We also got de holidays. Marster bought charcoal from de men which dey burnt at night an' on holidays. Dey worked an' made de stuff, an' marster would let dem have de steer-carts an' wagons to carry deir corn an' charcoal to sell it in town. Yes sir, dis wus mighty nice. We had plank houses. Dere wus not but one log house on de plantation. Marster lived in de big house. It had eight porches on it.
"Dere wus no churches on de plantation, an' I doan remember any prayer meetin's. When we sang we turned de wash-pots an' tubs in de doors, so dey would take up de noise so de white folks could not hear us. I do remember de gatherin's at our home to pray fur de Yankees to come. All de niggers thought de Yankees had blue bellies. The old house cook got so happy at one of dese meetin's she run out in de yard an' called, 'Blue bellies come on, blue bellies come on.' Dey caught her an' carried her back into de house.
"When de overseer whupped one o' de niggers he made all de slaves sing, 'Sho' pity Lawd, Oh! Lawd forgive!. When dey sang awhile he would call out one an' whup him. He had a sing fur everyone he whupped. Marster growed up wid de niggers an' he did not like to whup 'em. If dey sassed him he would put spit in their eyes and say 'now I recon you will mind how you sass me.'
"We had a lot o' game and 'possums. When we had game marster left de big house, and come down an' et wid us. When marster wan't off drunk on a spree he spent a lot of time wid de slaves. He treated all alike. His slaves were all niggers. Dere were no half-white chilluns dere. "De black folks better not be caught wid a book but one o' de chilluns at our plantation, Marster Peter Mitchell's sister had taught Aunt Isabella to read and write, an' durin' de war she would read, an' tell us how everythin' wus goin'. Tom Mitchell, a slave, sassed marster. Marster tole him he would not whup him, but he would sell him. Tom's brother, Henry, tol' him if he wus left he would run away, so marster sold both. He carried 'em to Richmond to sell 'em. He sold 'em on de auction block dere way down on Broad Street.

TINA JOHNSON

"We comed ter Raleigh 'fore things wuz settled atter de war, an' I watches de niggers livin' on kush, co'nbread, 'lasses an' what dey can beg an' steal frum de white folkses. Dem days shore wuz bad."

Reconstruction

On April 26, 1865, Sherman received the unconditional surrender of Johnston's army at Bennett family farm in present-day Durham. The next day the announcement was made public in Raleigh. 

On September 29, 1865, almost 150 delegates attended The Convention of the Colored People of North Carolina held at the Loyal AME Church in Raleigh, North Carolina. The President of the convention stated,

“There had never been before and there would probably never be again so important an assemblage of the colored people of North Carolina as the present in its influence upon the destinies of this people for all time to come. They had assembled from the hill-side, the mountains, and the valleys, to consult together upon the best interests of the colored people, and their watchwords, “Equal Rights before the Law.”

The Business Committee made a report

“declaring the first wants of the colored people to be employment at fair wages, in various branches of industry. To secure lands and to cultivate them, and lay up their earnings against a rainy day. Advising the colored people to educate themselves and their children, not alone in book learning but in a high moral energy, self-respect, and in virtuous, Christian, and dignified life.”

A second convention of colored people in Raleigh was held from October 2-5, 1866. The representatives for Wake County included J. H. Harris, of Wake, President of the State Equal Rights League, Marcillus Orford, H. Locket, Charles Ray, William, . Laws, S. Ellerson, J. R, Caswell, Moses Patterson and Williamm. High.

W. E.B. DuBois explains in Black Reconstruction in America: 1860 - 1880:

“When President Johnson called North Carolina whites into consultation concerning his proposed plan of Reconstruction, many of them were highly indignant, some even leaving the room. They did not propose to share power even with the President but wanted to put their own legislature back in power. . . . Here, as in other states, there came the preliminary movement of planters to secure control of the Negro vote. . . . The idea was to forestall any attempt of Northern white leaders and capitalists to control the Negro vote. The Negroes, however, had thought and leadership, both from the free Negro class, who had education, and from colored immigrants from the North, many of who had been born in North Carolina but had escaped from slavery.

During the year 1865, Negroes circulated petitions asking the President for equal rights. . . . A commission was appointed to report on new legislation for the freedmen. This commission reported in 1866 and the General Assembly passed a bill which defined Negroes and gave them the civil rights that free Negroes had had before the war. An apprenticeship law disposing of young Negroes ‘preferably to their former masters and mistresses’’ was passed and Negroes could be witnesses only in cases in which Negroes were involved. In 1867 there were acts to prevent enticing servants, harboring them, breach of contract, and later seditious language and insurrection. . . .

When the Reconstruction Act was under consideration in Congress, the North Carolina Negroes sent a delegation to Washington . . . . In September, 1867, after the Reconstruction Act had passed, the Negro leaders called another convention in Raleigh. . . . This Raleigh convention asked for full rights and full protection and the abolition of all discrimination before the law. . . .

Among the colored people there was growing a strong feeling about the land. Some wanted the land confiscated and given to small farmers. But many of the Northern capitalists opposed this. Harris advocated taxation of large estates so that the land could be sold and opportunity given Negroes to buy . . . By 1868, the ex-planters in North Carolina had begun to organize themselves as Democrats . . .

North Carolina presents quite a different situation and method of Reconstruction . . . . The war left the state in economic bankruptcy. The repudiation of the Confederate debt closed every bank, and farm property was reduced in value one-third. The male population was greatly reduced and the masses were in distress. . . . Thus, the Reconstruction problem in North Carolina, while it had to deal with ignorance and inefficiency, was only to a very small extent a Negro problem. . . . The real fight in North Carolina was between the old regime and the white carpetbaggers, with the poor whites as ultimate arbitrators, and Negro labor between, struggling for existence . . . .

In 1800, North Carolina had 337,764 whites and 140,339 Negroes; in 1840, 484,870 whites and 268,549 Negroes. In 1860 there were 629,942 whites and 361,544 Negroes. There were 30,000 free Negroes in 1860, a class who had in the past received some consideration. Up until 1835 they had had the right to vote and had voted intelligently. . . . In general, however, Emancipation was not attended by any great disorders, and the general tide of domestic life flowed on. . . .

Many things show that in North Carolina land and capital were bidding for the black and white labor vote. Capital with universal suffrage outbid the landed interests. The landholders had one recourse and that was to draw the color line and convince the native-born white voter that his interests lay with the planter-class and were opposed to those of the Northern interloper and the Negro. . . . The Ku Klux Klan increased their activities and the Congressional Investigating Committee reported 260 outrages, including 7 murders and the whipping of 72 whites and 141 Negroes. . . . But the strategy of North Carolina became increasingly clear: to drive out Northerners who dared to take political leadership of Negroes and to unite all whites against Negroes on a basis of race prejudice and mob law. Thus under ‘race’ they camouflaged a dictatorship of land and capital over black labor and indirectly over white labor. The Albermarle Register said: This paper in the future is in favor of drawing the line between whites and blacks regardless of consequences.’ . . . .

The Freedmen’s Bureau issued rations to white people as well as colored, and many were kept from starvation. . . .

On August 19, 1867, the North Carolina Freedmen's Bureau Ration Records,1 865-1872 lists Jack Blake receiving 30 rations for 1 adult male, 1 adult female, and 3 male children.

On May 8, 1868, Jack Blake is listed as receiving 40 rations for 1 adult male and 1 adult female.

According to the Historic and Architectural Resources of Wake County, North Carolina (ca. 1770-1941)

“The war's immediate affects in Wake County were a decline in agricultural production and loss of men. The Confederate Congress had imposed a tax-in-kind on farmers, requiring the payment of one-tenth of most food crops (much of which rotted in warehouses when rail facilities were out of service or tied up transporting soldiers) and also allowed armies to impress provisions with only a promise of payment. Wake County farms in the path of Sherman's Union troops in the spring of 1865 suffered additional losses in livestock and provisions. Between 1860 and 1870, the number of horses in the county dropped by 2,000, milk cows by 1,700, working oxen by 400, sheep by 4,000, and swine by 23,000. Over 60,000 acres of previously cleared land suffered neglect and grew up in brush and new timber, with a corresponding decline of about one-half the production of corn, sweet potatoes, and tobacco. Cotton, oats, and mules were the only agricultural products to exceed prewar levels, suggesting a growing dependence on the fleecy white staple in the immediate postwar years. . . . After slaves were emancipated in 1865, many left their owners and went to work for other planters and farmers or sought a limited number of nonagricultural jobs available in Raleigh and elsewhere. Others remained with former masters and worked for wages. Research conducted by Ransom and Sutch shows that blacks in the postwar South began refusing to work from sunrise to sunset six days a week as they had been coerced to do as slaves.”

By the time of the 1870 Census, Jack Blake (listed as John Blake) and Cherry (listed as Charry) are listed as having 2 sons, John Blake b. 1851 age 19) and Jack Blake (b. 1858 age 12), and one daughter, Sarah Blake (age 15).

Further consideration must be given to the fact that a standard Certificate of Death for a “Jack Blake”, age 55, filed on 11-6-1930 lists “Matilda Blake” as his mother. That means that Matilda had a son named Jack in 1875 (by a man named “Henderson - see below) . It is possible, therefore, that the Matilda given to Siddy (or Liddy, maiden name Hartsfield) Blake by her husband Asa Blake (Dempsey’s son), was the daughter of Jack, father of Yancey because Jack was having children in the 1850’s and Matilda, born around that time, would be of child-bearing age in 1875..

Matilda Blake, age 30, listed in the 1870 Census

Thus, Matilda, the daughter of Jack (and heretofore unknown sister or half-sister of Yancey), named her first son after her father (Jack), the son’s grandfather. Alternatively, Matlida was not related to Jack and Yancey, but was much younger than Yancey, possible a child. In this case, Matilda could have grown up with Yancey Jr.

In addition, North Carolina marriage records show that in 1879, twenty-one-year-old Jack Blake (born around 1858), son of “Henderson” Blake and Matilda Blake, married Amelia Evans in Wake County, North Carolina. This “Henderson” Blake could be Yancey Blake Jr. who ran off to join the Union Army and registered as “Henderson” Blake (see below).

However, this same Jack Blake, now 23 years old, marries Della Hayes two years later in 1881. One of the listed witness in the above Marriage Register for Wake County is “M A Page”. Remember, Uncle Eustace, when he gave the family oral history, said, “Yancey Blake married Melissa Page. Yancey begat nine children by Melissa. Two boys and seven girls. Boys: Yancey Jr and John Addison . . . “

In addition, a standard Certificate of Death from April 24, 1932 in Wake County, North Carolina, for Nona Blake Webster, age 35, lists Jack Blake and Nona Blake as parents. This Nona Blake Webster would have been born in 1897, thus she would be the daughter of Jack Blake (and wife Nona), son of Matilda (who had a son named Jack in 1875.), daughter of Jack or childhood friend of Yancey Jr. given to Asa Blake from his father Dempsey Blake.

Putting it all together in chronological order:

1788-1789: Estimated birth of Jack Blake

1819: Jack Blake given to Asa Blake

1819: Jack Blake age 20 to 30, and Lydia Blake, age 20 have a son Yancey Blake

1847: Yancey has a son named Yancey Jr.

1850: Jack and Yancey Blake along with Matilda given to Catherine “Siddy” Hartsfield-Blake (did Yancey Jr. stay with his mother?)

1850: Yancey Blake and Sabrie Jones have a daughter named Rena Blake

1851: Jack and Cherry Blake have a son named John Blake

1852: Yancey and Sabrie have a daughter named Mallissa (Lissa)

1853: Yancey and Sabrie have a daughter named Lucy Ann

1853: Emancipated Jack Blake marries Cherry Blake (was she free, slave or emancipated?)

1855: Jack and Cherry Blake have a daughter named Sarah Blake

1855: Yancey and Sabrie have a daughter named Nancy Hellon Blake (maybe 1858?)

1856: Yancey and Sabrie have a son Dorsey

1858: Jack and Cherry Blake have a son Jack Jr.

1858: Yancey and Sabrie/Melissa Page have a son John Addison Blake (my 3G grandfather)

1860: Yancey and Sabrie/Melissa Page have a daughter Bettie Blake

1862: Yancey and Sabrie/Melissa Page have a daughter Martha Blake

1863: Yancey and Sabrie/Melissa Page have a daughter Sallie Blake

1866: Yancey and Sabrie/Melissa Page have a daughter Fannie Blake

1867: Jack Blake receives 30 rations for 1 adult male, 1 adult female, and 3 male children (John- age 16; Jack - age 9; and Sarah - age 12).

1868: Jack Blake receives 40 rations for 1 adult male and 1 adult female

1870: Jack Black, listed as “John Blake” in the 1870 Census with wife “Charry” and children John, Sarah and Jack. “John’s” age is listed as 65 but is possible it could be a typo since Jack’s birth day is estimated around 1788 and not 1805….

1880 Census: Cherry “Charry” Blake is listed with son Jack. Thus, her husband Jack died sometime between 1870 and 1880.

1880 Census for Cherry Blake and son Jack

Yancey Blake

Yancey Blake does not appear in the 1860 Census. He would have been 41 years old. This suggests that although Jack Blake was emancipated soon after 1850 by Siddy Blake, Yancey didn’t qualify for emancipation since he was not over the age of 50. Thus, he was most likely still enslaved in 1860.

According to the Historic and Architectural Resources of Wake County, North Carolina (ca. 1770-1941)

“There were seventeen farmers and thirty-seven other members of Wake's free black population who owned real estate in 1860. Four farmers in this class had holdings ranging in value from $2,500 to over $20,000, while seventeen were small-scale slaveowners. Most in this class worked as farmhands. Others were blacksmiths, millers, shoemakers, or carpenters, with a few women listed as seamstresses. A late nineteenth-century historian of free blacks In North Carolina described their houses as "flimsy log huts, travesties In every respect of the rude dwellings of the earliest white settlers. . . .

Slave and free laboring classes shared the same basic work schedule--sunup to sundown with a midday break of an hour or two. At night or in early morning, slaves often tended to vegetable gardens, potato patches, or livestock and some raised their own produce for consumption or trade. Women had such night-time duties as carding, spinning, weaving, and sewing. 'Disobedience or merely failing to work hard enough to please one's master or mistress often resulted in cruel beatings, but slaves could escape such treatment by running away and hiding for several days.”

Unfortunately, in 1861, North Carolina lawmakers barred any black person from owning or controlling a slave, making it impossible for a free person of color to buy freedom for a family member or friend. Thus, Jack Blake was prevented from obtaining the freedom of his children and grandchildren. Thus, Yancey Jr., Jack’s grandson, ran off the plantation and in 1865 enlisted in the 40th U.S. Colored Troops as “Henderson Blake”.

An interesting connection, remember, is that in 1879, twenty-one-year-old Jack Blake (born around 1858), is listed as the son of “Henderson” Blake and Matilda Blake. Did Henderson Blake return after the war? Could Yancey Jr., in fact, be Henderson Blake, who married his childhood friend Matilda?

Again, the 1870 Census lists Yancey Blake, 51. as a farmer.

Ella Arrington Williams-Vinson states that the Blakes owned land in Cary, North Carolina prior to the Civil War in her book, Both Sides of the Tracks II: Recollections of Cary, North Carolina 1860 -2000: “ THE COLORED FAMILIES – All landowners before the 1860’s were the Bateses, Hawkinses, Blakes, Nicholases, Roths, and Joneses – the earliest Colored families in Cary….”. This would suggest that Jack Blake owned land after his emancipation in 1853.

On Christmas Eve, 1874, Yancey Blake received a grant of land, 12 acres, from William and Martha Young.

Again, according to the Historic and Architectural Resources of Wake County, North Carolina (ca. 1770-1941)

“The North Carolina General Assembly of March 1867 passed a crop lien law entitled, ‘Act to Secure Advances for Agricultural Purposes,’ while Conservative Democrats from the antebellum ruling elite were still in power. Soon blacks and whites alike became entrapped by this system that consumed most of the small producer's profits when settlement time came in late fall. As stated earlier, small landowners sometimes lost their~ property when they could not pay creditors or tax collectors. Tenants often fell into a condition of quasi-enslavement when their landlord was also their creditor.

Yancey’s wife Melissa Page died in 1875 and within two years of receiving the land grant of 12 acres, by 1876, Yancey and Jack R Howell were indebted to R Howell in the amount of “eighteen hundred pounds of mid ling cotton […] for which he hold my note to be due on the first day of Nov. in 1876 and to [incur? the payment of the farm] we do hereby convey to him the articles of personal property to wit …. our ….crop of cotton and corn . . . .”

The 1880 Census lists, Yancey, age 60, widower, living with daughters Bettie (20), Sallie (19) and Fannie (14).

1880 Census

As late as 1884, The Branson’s North Carolina Business Directory, Raleigh, Cary Township list Yancey Blake as owning 12 acres of land worth $66 and a Business Directory lists Yancey Blake as one of two colored farmers in Wake County.

In 1885, Yancey signed a contract for $25 loan, using his crop as collateral.

Yancey Blake Crop Lien to Barbee & Barbee in 1885

The following year, on March 17th, 1886, Yancey made another contract with Catherine Ellis. He was indebted to her in the amount of $25 with interest at 8% per anum. To pay the debt, Yancey conveyed to her a tract of land, the 12 acres he received in 1874.

However a year later, Yancey was still indebted to J P Adams in the amount of $9.10 for which he promised to pay 200 lbs. of cotton “raised on my own land adjoining the land of J.P Adams and M. [Martha] Young.”

The Historic and Architectural Resources of Wake County, North Carolina (ca. 1770-1941) states,

“The initial impact of the crop lien system and the resulting shift to cotton growing was more marked in eastern Wake than in southern and western sections. For instance, cotton farmers in Wake Forest Township in the northeast had a 39 percent rate of tenancy among 157 whites and 95 percent among 188 blacks in 1880, whereas only 12 percent of 211 white and 32 percent of 76 black cotton producers in southwestern Wake's Buckhorn Township (including those around New Hill) were tenants that year. Wake Forest area farmers, with richer, more valuable soils and a higher concentration of non-landowning former slaves, tended to take greater financial risks and produced larger crops (generally at least 10 to 20 bales per farm and often as many as 50 to 60 bales)' Meanwhile, in Buckhorn Township described (in the early twentieth century) as a place where people neither starved nor became rich, the majority raised only 1 or 2 wo bales each, while all but nine produced no more than 10 bales each. . . . Sharecropping arrangements provided neither management skills nor opportunities for advancement, particularly for blacks, as store accounts drained most capital they might have invested in homes or farms. Moreover, competition from India following the Civil War gradually drove down cotton prices from 25 cents per pound in 1868 to only 5 cents by 1894, with no corresponding decreases in costs of fertilizer, bagging, machinery, and railroad transportation. As more and more farmers in Wake County and elsewhere in the South came to depend on cotton to pay their bills, the deeper they fell into debt and tenant farming. ”

Around this time, Yancey died and John Addison became the sole surviving son to carry on Yancey’s lineage. However, the lineage of Jack Black continued through Yancey’s brothers Jack and John.

YANCEY BLAKE FAMILY TREE

John Addison Blake

Jack’s other grandson, John Addison Blake, married Mintia Hooker on November 15, 1878. He fell victim to Reverend Charles Colcock Jones’s plan to make the rebellious slaves docile by “Christianizing” them through a deliberate campaign to teach them Christian subservience. John Spencer Basset, writing in 1899 in his book, Slavery in the State of North Carolina, states,

“It was, indeed, in a harsh spirit that the law came at last to regulate the religious relations of the slave. In the beginning, when the slaves were just from barbarism and freedom, it was thought best to forbid them to have churches of their own. But as they became more manageable, this restriction was omitted from the law and the churches went on with their work among the slaves. . . . The change came openly in 1830, when a law was passed by the [North Carolina] General Assembly . . . .It was enacted that no free person or slave should teach a slave to read or write, the use of figures excepted, or give to a slave any book or pamphlet. This law was no doubt intended to meet the danger from the circulation of incendiary literature, which was believed to be imminent; yet it is no less true that it bore directly on the slave’s religious life. It cut him off from the reading of the Bible - a point much insisted on by the agitators of the North - and it forestalled that mental development which was necessary to him in comprehending the Christian life. The only argument made for this law was that if a slave could read he would soon become acquainted with his rights.

A year later a severer blow fell. The Legislature then forbade any slave or free person of color to preach, exhort, or teach ‘in any prayer-meeting or other association for worship where slaves of different families are collected together’ on penalty of receiving not more than thirty-nine lashes.’ The result was to increase the responsibility of the churches of the whites. They were compelled . . . to take on themselves the task of handing down to the slaves religious instruction in such a way that it should be comprehended by their immature minds and should not be too strongly flavored with the bitterness of bondage. With the mandate of the Legislature the churches acquiesced.

As to the preaching of the dominant class to the slaves it always had one element of disadvantage. It seemed to the negro to be given with a view to upholding slavery. As an illustration of this I may introduce the testimony of Lunsford Lane. This slave was the property of a prominent and highly esteemed citizen of Raleigh, N.C. He hired his own time and with his father manufactured smoking tobacco by a secret process. His business grew and at length he bought his own freedom. Later, he opened a wood yard, a grocery store and kept teams for hauling. He at last bought his own home, and had bargained to buy his wife and children for $2500, when the rigors of the law were applied and he was driven from the State. He was intelligent enough to get a clear view of slavery from the slave’s standpoint. He was later a minister, and undoubtedly had the confidence and esteem of some of the leading people of Raleigh, among whom was Governor Morehead. He is a competent witness for the negro. In speaking of the sermons from white preachers he said that the favorite texts were ‘Servants, be obedient to your masters,’ and ‘he that knoweth his master’s will and doth it not shall be beaten with many stripes.’ He adds, ‘Similar passages with but few exceptions formed the basis of most of the public instruction. The first commandment was to obey our masters, and the second was like unto it; to labor as faithfully when they or the overseers were not watching as when they were.’ . . All this was natural. To be a slave was the fundamental fact of the negro’s life. To be a good slave was to obey and to labor. Not to obey and not to labor were, in the master’s eye, the fundamental sins of a slave. . . . [Says Lunsford Lane] ‘There was one hard doctrine to which we as slaves were compelled to listen, which I found difficult to receive. We were often told by the minister how much we owed to God for bringing us over from the benighted shores of Africa and permitting us to listen to the sound of the gospel . . . . ‘ On the other hand, many of the more independent negroes, those who in their hearts never accepted the institution of slavery, were repelled form the white man’s religion . . .

Through the teachings of the church many were enabled to bend in meekness under their bondage and be content with a hopeless lot. There are whites to whom Christianity is still chiefly a burdenbearing affair. Such quietism has a negative value. It saves men from discontent and society from chaos. But it has little positive and constructive value. The idea of social reform which is also associated with the standard of Christian duty was not for the slave.

John Addison, having had three generations of fear, terror, and trauma encoded in his DNA, became the first forcibly converted Christian in the history of Brassa Nchabra’s family lineage.

Thus is the early history of the Brassa Nchabra family in the United States. Both me and my cousin #jacobblake, are the great, great, great, great, great grandsons of Brassa Nchabra.

In 1876 United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 held that the federal government would not protect the recently emancipated slaves against murderous violence perpetrated by ordinary White civilians. One hundred years of lynching followed. In 1883, the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 held that the 14th Amendment did not protect the “social” rights of black people in the United States, such as the right to visit restaurants and theatres. In 1896, Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 held that imposing the indignity of racially segregated public facilities and services upon black people in America was constitutional. One year after Plessy v. Ferguson, the United States, in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, at 693, undertook to explain how the U.S. Government could impose U.S. citizenship upon the descendants of Brassa Nchabra without their consent: “The Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country…” However, there was no protection by the U.S. Government before or after Wong Kim Ark, in law or in practice. It would not be until the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts of 1964 and 1965 - nearly a hundred years after Brassa Nchabra arrived in Charleston, SC - that the descendants of Brassa Nchabra would have access to equal protection under the law.

JOIN THE LINEAGE RESTORATION MOVEMENT