Africans who contributed to America

People Forum

contributers to development of america. were they in your history books?

Benjamin Bannecker - built the 1st clock and laid the design for Wasington DC

Norbert Rillieux- design the sugar refining industry

Lewis Temple- invented the harpoon

Jan Matzeligen- invented machine for mass production of shoes

Elijah McCoy- developed self-lubricating systems for cars and ships

Among Granville T. Woods- inveted railway telegraphy, overhead conductory system for elecetrical system for electerical railways and the 3rd rail for subway systems

Lewis Latimore- develop process that makde electric lamp run better than Edison

Dr. Ernest E. Just was 1st to discover that cell's nucleus was not the only determinant of heredity ..... etc

I'm just courious where you found that information.

Malcolm xx, I did learn about famous Americans like Harriet Tubman, Booker T. Washington, George Washington Carver and Frederick Douglass, among others.

Well, my point is this. The Information is out there, otherwise you wouldnt know it.
It's just there is so much information in books you have to look at what is higher up on the list to be inclueded. Like Ive never seen the inventor of toilet paper in a history book. Theres lots of inventors and people of great accomplishments that aren't mentioned, but the info is still out there.

I know I learned of several famous black Americans in school.

But my question is how can you be sure history books aren't mentioning several black americans with out lots of additional research. I dont know of any history books that say something like Benjamin Bannecker, a black man, built the 1st clock and laid the design for Wasington DC.

That was the point I was making, Nymphadora. Not a single book or Internet site will state, "Benjamin Bannecker, a black man, built the 1st clock and laid the design for Washington, D.C." because he didn't do either of those things. Bannecker constructed a working wooden clock that kept accurate time and struck the hours for over 50 years, and was a technical assistant in the calculating and first-ever surveying of the Federal District, which is now Washington, D.C.

I know Viper, I'm just elaborating on my earlier while colaborating with yours.

Don't you mean "mixed-race" or of "African ancestry" or " African-Americans"? Just kidding.....don't spaz out but most African's (people from the continent of AFRICA) don't identify with the African-Americans who were slaves or descendants of slaves in America.

Would you like me more if I was? What does it matter? I'm telling you because I know it for a fact as told to me by my friend who is more of a scholar on Black History than you would ever know. I might also add that I have African (Somalian, Ethiopian and Kenyan) friends who share their perspectives with me from time to time. I also read books too. Books with pictures..... Surprise!

There are Africans who will disagree with you as well. I'm strictly speaking on your comment about Africans vs African-Americans. Had you said "African-Americans or Blacks Who Contributed To America" I would not debate that. Yes, there are scholars who know more than you who would find a difference between those Blacks who are of African-origin (born in Africa) and those who were of African descent born in America.

That was my point. Sorry if you missed it malcom_xx.

I am a descendant of the African Slaves and I prefer the term "Black American" because my history is distinct from recent African immigrants.

I'm decended from an African slave too, but I'm not American, nor am I at all black. I'm not sure what to do about this problem...


malcolm, those weird angry smiley faces you gave viper for pointing out the true extent of Benjamin Bannecker's contribution, rather than your very rushed, vague explanation is just pointless. From it I get the feeling that you hate black people. But that's just me.

It's not because you post information that we aren't aware of. It's because the information you post is only half true the large majority of the time. You take your own personal opinion and twist it around and try to make an issue out of something and then post it as fact.

your opinion is your opinion, everone is entitled to them. But dont sate it as fact, that is what people have a problem with.

ok srry i posted pretty much the same thing but you guys posted while i was still typing.

I'll let it slide this time; just don't let it happen again!

[QUOTE]malcolm xx said this in post #26 :


I post only facts.

[B] good one Malcolm. You are incapable of posting facts, you posted facts hers and Viper came and blwew your facts away, there was the whole Lance Armstrong escapade whcih seemed to be based on your prejudice as opposed to facts, then there was my all time favourite Scotland is harbouring a nuke theory and the whole the World cup has no black coaches incident, the ehwol black jesus film being banned across America was also not fact. Thats just off the top of my head there are I am sure a whole lot more of your facts out there.

Anyway if i had to pick a couplke of famouls African American's that changed the US i would pick Saran Breedlove Walker - she invented the hair straightner and other beuaty products not a big del but the fact that she was the first black female millionaire was a big deal she also left half her fortune to good causes.
Garret Morgan who invented the gas mask and the 3 way traffic signal.

I heard there are a lot of black people in Africa.

-HECK!

Oh one last thing macolm I would not mind seeing this FOI thing you have that says Scotland has nukes for two reasons

1. I find it hard to belive that the British government is in the habit of giving out nuclkear secret to foreigners with an agenda and
2. I want to see this document that says the nukes are Scottish owned.

Well, Scotland is apart of the Crown. If the old lady that represents you has nukes...

-HECK!

Well see it's not that simple Heck you have to remember that Scotland has responsabilities to the UK government in Westminster and devolved issues in Holyrood.

For example immigration, Scottish owned oil and defence = Westminster
Tax, health and crime = Holyrood

So because defence is cvontrolled by Westminster trhese nukes are owned, maintained, rewplaced and controlled by the government in Westminster. The Brisytish government are the legal owners of them not Scotland. Like I said to Malcolm the fighters and tanks and subs are not classed as Scottish so neither should the nukes if they were ever fired it would be by a British government command and we would have little or no say.

Anyway what really annoys me is that Macolm has in the past accused us of making secret nukes.

To settle this once and for all Malcolm go and find out who's name is on the Nuclear Non - Proliferation Treaty is it Scotland or the United Kingdom?

Damn malcolm, what the hell is your problem? I think that Lodgebo knows quite a bit, seeings that he LIVES THERE!!! Drink that DECAF stuff... it will help.

No, he was found not guilty. There's a difference.

And he is liable for the crime and found guilty in civil court, however.

-HECK!

Well, maybe it needs to be stated, multiple times!

And you two are right... just because he was "found" innocent of the murders... which, we all know that he was found that because there was too many things that left people on the jury questioning... he was held liable for it, and found guilty in a civil court. So, that says VOLUMES to those who can see the truth in front of their eyes.

In my opinion it was the overwhelming media behemoth covering the OJ trial that led to him being found not guilty. Too many people rooting for him would have lost it. I'm led to believe that's why he was found guilty in the civil trial. But that's just me.

This thread is a joke. Sorry Malcolm, I know that you are trying to say something positive here, and I appreciate the effort. However, Viper seems to have ellaborated on your points for clarity's sake, which is most important when starting a thread like this. If you want to show black achievements and black intelligence, please be more diligent in the presentation and preparation. I'm telling you, it makes a world of difference.

By preparation, I'm referring to:

research - be sure that what you are posting is verified by several respectable sources, not just the first couple ones that support your viewpoint.

By presentation, I'm referring to:

Expression - express your viewpoint in a manner that shows you are looking for change, but are being REASONABLE in how you are going about it. Be strong, be clear, be ACCURATE, and expect to have some potential detractors and critics or disagreements with people who don't see what you see. Be prepared for the critics and disagreements by doing your best to see them coming FIRST, before they get there, and preparing reasonable arguments that support your view, while not just shrugging off the criticism. You've got to embrace the debate just as much as you embrace the starting of new threads covering topics that are of apparent interest to you.

You can be controversial, but be PREPARED, not only with your topics and research, but also with what comes back from the controversy you incite. It comes with the territory, if you haven't yet taken notice.

That's my advice to you. Take it or leave it, but I think it's good advice, and I think you'll get more positive results by following it.

To clarify, I was referring to the direction the thread went in. Your initial goal probably wasn't to have everybody in here basically bash on you, but that's kinda what happened again. I would suggest that it might be because of how clear Viper was in ellaborating on your original post, which showed everyone that your research was either incomplete, or you were intentionally being vague about the true measure of the contributions from the people you presented. After having been through several of your other threads, it just reinforced some people's belief that you are trying to express not THE truth, but YOUR truth. The reason I called this thread a joke, is because you should have been more thorough either in your research, or in your presentation. I wasn't trying to be mean, just constructively critical.

Also, when I spoke of controversy, I'm referring to FUTURE posts, if you choose to take heed of my advice in those posts you prepare in the future. You can be controversal if you choose to be in those posts, but be mindful that if you are, you most likely will get a backlash from your controversial position, if you present one, by those who vehemently disagree with you. I'm just ellaborating on what it would take to be prepared for an intelligent debate, again meaning to be constructively critical.