Monarchy Forum
Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,502
Reply with quote  #1 
A branch of the Al Bu Said dynasty ruled Zanzibar until 1964, having been a British protectorate for much of the 20th century until achieving independence. However, the revolution that overthrew the monarchy in 1964- the last Sultan still living in the UK today with his family- stood out for one thing. Namely, the racist and genocidal nature of the revolution, resulting in the slaughter of Arabs and Indians. Yet this is all but overlooked today!




And yet, Zanzibar still commemorates their revolution today. Utterly reprehensible.
KebraNagastParty

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 115
Reply with quote  #2 

DavidV why don't you be honest about the history of Zanzibar.  The Africans who lived there were brought there as slaves under the Arab ruled dynasty.  They were brutally treated by the Arab rulers and the Indians, which help to spark the revolution that overthrew the monarchy.  Please be truthful when discussing  Zanzibar, and why the revolution happen there.


__________________
Give me monarchy or give me death.
head_statue

Registered:
Posts: 171
Reply with quote  #3 
The revolution was not done by the native africans of zanzibar. It was conducted by a bunch of ragtag mainlander africans from tanzania led by a Ugandan, John Okello. Okello and his men were monsters and were not driven by any ideology like communism, they just wanted to butcher and kill.

Okello and his ugandan people were never enslaved by the zanzibari arabs. After Okello succeeded in the revolution, the opposition Afro Shirazi party, made out of native zanzibaris and which was pro marxist and pro soviet, took over and brushed Okello aside. They were happy that Okello did the dirty work for them and overthrew the Sultan.

Okello appeared to believe in one of those syncretic african religions which mixed christianity with native beliefs and he believed he was sent by God to massacre the Arabs. Just another nutcase like Joseph Kony. He wrote an autobiography and boasted aobut how many arabs he killed.

As for the Indians, they were there because Zanzibar was a british protectorate. There were indian communities in many east african countries, they were expelled form Uganda by Idi Amin.

The Al bu said dynasty is still ruling in Oman today, and I think that the last Zanzibari sultan Jamshid is living in England and his children live in Oman.
KebraNagastParty

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 115
Reply with quote  #4 
First of all you have made some critical errors with your arguement.  One you stated that native Zanzibarians did not participant in the revolution.  Two you stated that members of the Afro Shirazi in which the majority of the party members were native Zanzibarians.  The fact is yes Mr. Okello is from Ugandan, and yes he did arive on the island and he was and active participant in the revolution.  But many of the participants were Zanzibarians. 

Once again please do your research before you make any comment.  One know the history of Zanzibar before you make fallcy statements.  The Africans there in Zanzibar were mistreated by the elite ruling class their, which was the Arabs and some Indians as well.  You have to understand what fuel the revolution and why it had happen.  To me your comments are very one sided to one group.  Yes I am a monarchist, but when and monarchy mistreats its people then justice must be served.  I find this to be a problem with many monarchist, they will support a monarch even though that monarch has committed crimes against his or her people.  We as monarchist can not and should not support such misuse of the monarchial institution.



Quote:
Originally Posted by head_statue
The revolution was not done by the native africans of zanzibar. It was conducted by a bunch of ragtag mainlander africans from tanzania led by a Ugandan, John Okello. Okello and his men were monsters and were not driven by any ideology like communism, they just wanted to butcher and kill.

Okello and his ugandan people were never enslaved by the zanzibari arabs. After Okello succeeded in the revolution, the opposition Afro Shirazi party, made out of native zanzibaris and which was pro marxist and pro soviet, took over and brushed Okello aside. They were happy that Okello did the dirty work for them and overthrew the Sultan.

Okello appeared to believe in one of those syncretic african religions which mixed christianity with native beliefs and he believed he was sent by God to massacre the Arabs. Just another nutcase like Joseph Kony. He wrote an autobiography and boasted aobut how many arabs he killed.

As for the Indians, they were there because Zanzibar was a british protectorate. There were indian communities in many east african countries, they were expelled form Uganda by Idi Amin.

The Al bu said dynasty is still ruling in Oman today, and I think that the last Zanzibari sultan Jamshid is living in England and his children live in Oman.


__________________
Give me monarchy or give me death.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,502
Reply with quote  #5 
Julius Nyerere did, as credit to him, display an honesty rare amongst modern leaders. When he stepped down in 1985 he conceded that "he had failed" in his socialist goals.
Jak

Registered:
Posts: 1
Reply with quote  #6 
First of all you have made some critical errors with your arguement. One you stated that native Zanzibarians did not participant in the revolution. Two you stated that members of the Afro Shirazi in which the majority of the party members were native Zanzibarians. The fact is yes Mr. Okello is from Ugandan, and yes he did arive on the island and he was and active participant in the revolution. But many of the participants were Zanzibarians.

Once again please do your research before you make any comment. One know the history of Zanzibar before you make fallcy statements. The Africans there in Zanzibar were mistreated by the elite ruling class their, which was the Arabs and some Indians as well. You have to understand what fuel the revolution and why it had happen. To me your comments are very one sided to one group. Yes I am a monarchist, but when and monarchy mistreats its people then justice must be served. I find this to be a problem with many monarchist, they will support a monarch even though that monarch has committed crimes against his or her people. We as monarchist can not and should not support such misuse of the monarchial institution.


Seeng as we are talking about being accurate and providing evidence, I would be much obliged if you could show evidence that 1) "many of the participants" were native Zanizbaris and 2) to the extent that natives did participate that they were politically or idepoligically motivated.

Further please provide proof of your claims that the Zanzibari monarchy committed crimes against its people!

It is only in the interests of those who have benefitted from this illegal coup and subsequent illegal recolonisation of Zanizibar by the mainland to continue to propagate such lies in order to cover up their association of high crimes against the people of Zanizbar and against a sovereign nation withoit any consultation with their people or even their fellows in government.

The so called Union will not sustain for it is built through duress and sustained by narrow self interests. The people of Zanzibar got a very raw deal. Zanzibar was once a shining beacon of progress and progressiveness in Africa and the world. Now it is but a poor subsidiary of Tanganyika and will always be under the status quo.

__________________
The Truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth
VasilyBloksin17

Registered:
Posts: 56
Reply with quote  #7 
I wonder what people like David thinks about Haiti ruling White Dominican Republic as a monarchy? Will he support his viewpoint as well?
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,734
Reply with quote  #8 
Firstly, the Dominican Republic is by no means white. The bulk of its people are considered mixed-race, with substantial minorities classed as either white or black. Overall, the ethnic makeup is roughly 50% white, 40% black, 10% Native American. Secondly, David has written tirelessly, exhaustively and supportively on native monarchies of every possible ethnicity, with scarcely a corner of the globe missed. The imputation of racism displays complete ignorance of his actual work and viewpoints. To echo you on another thread: Vasily, shut up.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,502
Reply with quote  #9 
Looks like we got ourselves a Communist troll on our hands.
Queenslander

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 602
Reply with quote  #10 
Sadly I'd say so too.
__________________
Yours Sincerely Queenslander
VasilyBloksin17

Registered:
Posts: 56
Reply with quote  #11 
The red menace strikes back.
VasilyBloksin17

Registered:
Posts: 56
Reply with quote  #12 
"Firstly, the Dominican Republic is by no means white. The bulk of its people are considered mixed-race, with substantial minorities classed as either white or black. Overall, the ethnic makeup is roughly 50% white, 40% black, 10% Native American. Secondly, David has written tirelessly, exhaustively and supportively on native monarchies of every possible ethnicity, with scarcely a corner of the globe missed. The imputation of racism displays complete ignorance of his actual work and viewpoints. To echo you on another thread: Vasily, shut up."


Today it's mix race, back then there was a huge white pop. And the Haitians ruled them for 22 years.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,734
Reply with quote  #13 
And that was under a republic led byJean-Pierre Boyer, son of a white father and black mother. None of the various Haitian monarchies ruled all Hispaniola. I don't know what the demographics of Spanish Haiti (as the eastern two-thirds of the island had briefly been known just before the union with the Republic of Haiti) may have been in 1822, but they were considerably less white by the time 1844 arrived, following over two decades of tyranny, misrule and expropriation directed mainly at whites, though blacks too suffered enough that they joined in the eventual independence movement. You could well say that the whites suffered no worse than blacks had done as slaves, less in fact, and would be correct. But wrong + wrong still does not = right.

More generally, had there been a black monarchy ruling well over all its people, the ethnic makeup of those people would be seen as irrelevant here. All black, fine. All white, fine. A mixture, fine. No one would care, they would support that monarchy just the same if it provided good governance. You seem to have made up your mind before arriving here that we're all racists. Have a read around. You will find that we're not, and that racists are made most unwelcome. Which you in due course may be too, but that won't be because we're white supremacist reactionaries. It will be because of your offensive behaviour and unjust attacks on forum members. I suggest you desist from both forthwith, as the only way to show us that you are not in fact a troll.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.