Who is Indigenous and Why...

[5602]

I found this posted on a my space blog. I thought it got right to the point.


http://blog.myspace.com/odwirafo



Saturday, January 27, 2007


The Only True Indigenous People are Afurakani/Afuraitkaitnit (African) People

Mikyia mo (Greetings),

Below is a modified excerpt from an e-mail I sent to someone and ultimately to their associates because of a discussion they were having within which the notion of "indigenous" came up. Because these individuals did not have a proper understanding of "indigenous" or what makes a migrant to a new land "indigenous" they assumed that "native americans" after having lived in America for thousands of years can justifiably be called indigenous. This is inaccurate. "Native" Americans are nothing more than migrant asians. This includes all of the white hispanics/latinos/latinas (puerto ricans, mexicans, brazilians, taino, arawak, meshika, etc.) The only indigenous people in america or anywhere on this Earth are Afurakanu/Afuraitkaitnut (Africans~Blacks).
--

....So, let me give a brief definition of indigenous from the Afurakani/Afuraitkaitnit (African) perspective as opposed to the judeo-christian-islamic or western pseudo-scientific perspective. (Obviously for the purpose of justifying invasions, whites and asians will seek to include themselves in the title "indigenous" somehow.)

Afurakanu/Afuraitkaitnut have been on Earth for millions of years. Even krakkkas admit to finding 200,000 year old skeletons of the Aeta type in Tennessee. The Aeta are called negritos in the Phillipines.

These diminutive Blacks are the "indigenous" ones. Asians and whites migrated here later.

What about the time factor?

How long does it take for one to be in a locale to consider themselves indigenous---if we want to use that term? 10,000 years? 40,000?

Answer: What makes one indigenous, or connected to a landmass----after migration----is:

1) Developing a relationship with the local Nature Divinities of that area
2) Having offspring AFTER that relationship has been cemented

We know that Afurakanu/Afuraitkaitnut (Africans) live in harmony with nature. That's our culture. But how?

Example: A group of people from Kamit migrate to ancient America. They live here for years. They are not indigenous. However, at some point the Obosom (Spirit-Force/Deity) living-operating through of the Mississippi River, possesses one of the women and one of the men during ritual dance, song, etc. When Deity possession occcurs, the infusion of energy transforms the "DNA" of the individuals possessed. Their bodies on a cellular level, and their spirits, now resonate at a frequency which is in harmony with this Obosom/Deity Whom they had never been in contact with in Kamit. This local river Obosom possesses them regularly from then on. These people become initiated into the priest/esshood of this Obosom, while some others get possessed at rituals, but never become initated as priests/esses. These people, who have been possessed by the Obosom, and whose bodies and spirits now resonate at a frequency that is different (slightly) than before eventually have children. These children are not only born on the land, but they have DNA which is in harmony with the Energy of the Obosom of the Mississippi river. These are the first people whose spirits and bodies are in harmony with this landmass. These individuals, and their descendants can now be called "indigenous".

If the ritual connection to the Deity never happens, people (Black or non-Black) could live in an area for thousands of years and never be truly/fully connected to the environment. They can not therefore be truly indigenous. The environment is not just physical--it is also non-physical. We respect the life-force moving through the environment just as much as we respect the plants, animals and minerals, oceans, streams, and mountains of the physical environment.

Only Afurakanu/Afuraitkaitnut have the capacity to be possessed by the Abosom (Forces of Nature). This is why only Afurakanu/Afuraitkaitnut have the capacity to be transformed into "indigenous" people of america or other places (including asia) after having migrated there.

The Abosom, Orisha, Vodou, Arusi (Forces of Nature) do not possess asians, migrant asians, europeans, etc. The only time spirit possession occurs amongst these populations is when it is that of a deceased relative. They will often pass that ancestral possession off as "Deity" possession---which is a lie. If we fall for it, we come to believe that "native" americans live in harmony with nature. No, they can imitate what they learned from their contact with us thousands of years ago, but the Abosom only possess us. We are the children of the Abosom. The creation of the human being was the creation of Afurakanu/Afuraitkaitnut. That happened millions of years ago and then the creation of human beings was over. The recent (20,000 years ago) appearance of non-Afurakani/non-Afuraitkaitnit individuals did not come into being via Divine fiat. It was the result of spiritual divergence and physical/genetic degeneration.

Crack cocaine exists in the world, but it was not Created by the Supreme Being. Asians, europeans, arabs, etc. exist, but the melanin-recessive was not created by the Supreme Being. The Deities (Orisha, Abosom, Vodou, Arusi), Children of the Supreme Being do not regard them (asians, europeans, arabs, indians, etc.) as Their children, any more than the Deity of the Coca bush regards the perverted derivative product (crack) as Its "offspring" or "child".

This is what is necessary to understand the term "indigenous". The whites and their offspring will never consider the whole picture, because it writes them out of the "history" they've manufactured for themselves. However, we need to properly define identity. Why?

Because spending 6-7 minutes learning the proper definition of identity will change the way an Afurakani/Afuraitkaitnit (African) person makes decisions politically.

One who may have thrown all of their support behind Hugo Chavez (a migrant asian) for example and rallied other Afurakani/Afuraitkaitnit (African)-Venezuelans to do the same, may change their attitude and begin to rally Afurakani/Afuraitkaitnit-Venezuelans to focus on truly indigenous (Afurakani/Afuraitkaitnit) organizations and issues.

For more details on this subject, please go to our MAAKHERU page on our website to listen to the audio webcast archive:

Who is Afurakani/Afuraitkaitnit and Who is Not

www.odwirafo.com/maakherupage.html

Ma asomdwoee-Hetep (Peace),
Ra Nehem

[rebelAfrika]

If this is the "Afurakani/Afuraitkaitnit" defenition of "indigenous" then I disagree with the "Afurakani/Afuraitkaitnit" definition. It is a definition that is almost "eurocentric" in it's total disregard, rejection, and ommition for all humanity that is not African. It is a definition that is absurdly self-absorbed and self-centered. It is a definition that I believe to be ahistorical and actually "anti-African" in it's essence (while appearing to be pro-African in it's form).

[5602]

In what way?

[Ra_Nehem]

Originally Posted by rebelAfrika

If this is the "Afurakani/Afuraitkaitnit" defenition of "indigenous" then I disagree with the "Afurakani/Afuraitkaitnit" definition. It is a definition that is almost "eurocentric" in it's total disregard, rejection, and ommition for all humanity that is not African. It is a definition that is absurdly self-absorbed and self-centered. It is a definition that I believe to be ahistorical and actually "anti-African" in it's essence (while appearing to be pro-African in it's form).

Mikyia mo (Greetings):

Afurakani/Afuraitkaitnit simply means "African/Afrikan". The definition posted here is the "African" definition of indigenous.

You have yet to fully study your own culture. When you do, you will recognize the reality that the only absurdity here is your embrace of the assumptions (beliefs) about "humanity" promoted by the whites and their offspring.

We cannot study Afuraka/Afuraitkait (Africa) in a cursory fashion and then make statments/draw conclusions that are 100% inaccurate.

Ma asomdwoee-Hetep (Peace)....

[Moorish Rebel]

This topic has already been discussed and I believe a couple of our indigenous cousins has already killed this arguement in this thread ....Were BLACK people the Original People of the so-called amerikkkas?