pri·mo·gen·i·ture
ˌprīmōˈjenəˌCHər,ˌprīmōˈjenəˌCHo͝or/ noun
noun: primogeniture
[ol]
[li]the state of being the firstborn child.[/li][ul]
[li]the right of succession belonging to the firstborn child, especially the feudal rule by which the whole real estate of an intestate passed to the eldest son.[/li]noun: right of primogeniture; plural noun: rights of primogeniture The status of being the firstborn child among several children of the same parents. A rule of inheritance in through which the oldest male child has the right to succeed to the estate of an ancestor to the exclusion of younger siblings, both male and female, as well as other relatives.
More on primogeniture… Primogeniture the eldest child’s exclusive right to inherit his father’s property—provides a means for keeping an estate unified. It tends to be found in agricultural societies where a person’s status and economic prosperity is tied to ownership of land. In medieval Western Europe, the land-owning aristocracy developed practices and laws meant to prevent the splitting of estates and the titles and privileges that went with them.
The lord of a manor would typically pass down his undivided lands, titles, and rights over peasants to his eldest son. Usually the younger sons received support from their families, allowing them to pursue careers in the military, church, or state bureaucracy. Daughters received a dowry upon their marriage in lieu of any rights over their father’s estate. Over time, many landholding peasants also adopted forms of primogeniture, although they appear to have often exercised the rule flexibly. One of the best known local adaptations is the stem family of rural Ireland in which the head of the household and his wife shared their home with one married son (usually the eldest) and his descendants. Other sons were expected to move away upon marriage .
The primogeniture system came under attack from several quarters in the Western world in the latter part of the eighteenth century in part because of a growing resistance against the privileges of the landed aristocracy and a desire to release land into the open market. It was first abolished in New England and then all of the United States following the American Revolution.
The French Revolution brought the system to a halt in France, and the Napoleonic Code, which specified minimal amounts of estates to be given to each child, prevented its resurrection. In England, laws were modified first to allow life tenants to mortgage or sell their lands. In 1925, the British Parliament abolished primogeniture as the governing rule in the absence of a valid will. It was and is still possible in many places for parents to reserve most or all of an estate for an eldest child in their will. Many countries have enacted estate taxes meant to encourage parents to share their property among their descendents as well as a means of securing government revenues. Various countries, however, have at times amended or created new laws meant to discourage or prevent the partitioning of farms as part of public policies aimed at maintaining a viable rural economy.
The reason I put this out there, is for all those house niggers, who claim the mzungu colonised us to save us from ourselves, to understand the mzungu’s desperate need for new lands and resources
All the aristocrats in laikipia, the lord delameres etc were essentially paupers with titles and had to seek new lands to fend for themselves.
They didn’t colonize us to save us from ourselves. They colonized us for economic and financial reasons.
My points is that negros are intellectually and spiritually inferior and that colonization was the best thing that ever happened to them.
You and I would not exist were it not for colonization because negros pre colonization could not maintain a population a fraction of the size we currently have.
Not enough food, shitty primitive medicine, we would be small tribes living in huts obsessed with cattle were it not for white man or arab man
I differ. why the fuck do you feel the need to call yourself a negro??? No we did not need colonisation. we would have grown with our own challenges of increase in population, decrease in food coz of diminished resources of hunting and gathering and change in climate. culture is dynamic and would have responded to our present needs. Later a need to form stronger governance as communities grew. Intercommunity relations would have necessitated a form of bargain to maintain cohesion and fight off common enemies. we would be facing the 21st century challenges better from a need to adapt. however, the mzungu came and interrupted our growth. Indoctrinated people with a domicile form of christianity that was meant to turn us to willing slaves supporting their economies. example is your self hate and white worship. nature always balances off. our process would have been slow, but we would be a better society.
Thought we laid that ghost to rest?
I do believe I provided comprehensive evidence on black african presence in ancient egypt which you claimed was white and you went mute.:D:D Only in Japan. - News & Politics - Kenya Talk
You say all this completely ignoring that arabs enslaved 30 million east Africans? Wasn’t that a common enemy?
Why haven’t negros caught up yet?
Why do they still worship white jesus and ape the white mans government.
Why do they still call themselves Kenyans when that was a mistranslation of a kikuyu word for mt.kenya.
Why does kenya still exist when it was just a colonial outpost
YOU are a negro. we aint. all this shit happened coz we were half colonised. read my comment again. if they had not w would not be. now that they made people like you hate themselves, how can you imrpove on what you hate? they won.