"The Black Man, Is Crazy!"

I think part of the problem here is simple misunderstanding (or willful ignorance).

There's a difference between the idea of calling one's self something (black) and having it mean something positive, having it mean something negative and having it mean nothing at all. Although most "self-talk" can have great impact, other words might not have such import.

I definitely can see where SatansQue is coming from. In my opinion, if a person relates negativity to the word "black", and then calls himself "black", all the while trying to tell himself that it's a good thing, I don't think the subconscious mind is going to buy that. I suppose it's possible to "fool" the subconscious, but it's really, really difficult.

It's like heavy people saying "fat is beautiful". They may want to believe that and they may try to make it so, but deep down, they're still ashamed, embarrassed and they WANT not to be fat. (I'm not saying being black is the same as being fat, truthseeka, I'm just using an example.)

On the other hand, I'm sure there are fat people who have great self-esteem and don't care about it. They accept themselves for who they are and love themselves, and no amount of name-calling would bother them, because they know who they are.

So, while I agree that "black" is generally a negative thing to call one's self, I'm sure that there are those who can carry the word as part of their identity and feel good about it (or at least have themselves convinced that they feel good about it). I say, more power to them. If that's what they want to do, if that's how they feel about themselves, who am I to say they shouldn't? Each person should decide what to call themselves. Words have power, yes, but each of us can decide how much power and what kind of power these words have.

On the other hand, I don't think SatansQue is saying that if you say you're a King, you'll be a King. And if you call yourself rich, you'll instantly be rich.

Originally posted by truthseeka
The Magnificent Eviscerator, Emperor of Torturopolis?

Of course, truthseeka is taking that idea to the extreme, and of course, it loses the meaning on the way. It's one thing for one man to call himself something, but quite another for an entire race of people to assume an identity of a word that has such negative connotations.

I think it's possible to take the word "black" and change the negative power it has, but I don't think it's easy. Simply saying "black is beautiful" or "black power" and trying to convince one's mind that it's now a positive thing, in the face of all the negative connotations, isn't practical in my opinion. Especially since it's in reaction to the perceived "white power" or "white privilege" that so many people just accept as reality. It's like saying, "White people have power but Black people have power, too"! It implies an inferior position. It's the "slavery mindset".

Transcending the Slavery Mindset
Frederick Douglass realized that “whites” were not his problem, but slavery was. This is a key point to consider in analyzing race relations today. Too many blacks believe that whites are “the problem” with respect to race relations and bringing racism to an end. Many perplexed whites believe that blacks are their own problem.

I would suggest blacks that believe whites are “the problem” are indeed their own problem. Blacks who don’t subscribe to the blame mindset are generally silent on the issue. They have productive lives to live and responsibilities to attend to.
...
Like slavery, racism is a mindset: one that can be “worn” by individuals of any color or ethnicity and without need for social complicity.

Until we are willing to call black racists to task for their divisive rhetoric and faulty logic as quickly as we are willing to call white racists to task, there will be racism. Until we are ready to take action against inhumanity by and against persons of any color, we will continue to have fear and apathy, which the slavery mindset needs in order to live. Until we are willing to seek the proverbial fountain of knowledge and drink from it, and until we are willing to see love, truth, and wisdom as our personal liberators, we won’t be freed.

Pretty high and mighty, aren't you, Lucifer?

You're either TOTALLY right or wrong, no in between. And you're the ONLY one who knows what words mean. And words can have only ONE meaning.



All you keep doing is rehashing the "black is bad" crap. Even when I gave you HISTORICAL examples of black being used merely as a descriptor for people of African descent, you keep chanting "black is bad, and you're bad too."

Ah, if I could only see you in your devil outfit as you push Christian mythology on people...

Originally posted by SatansQue
But here's the thing about you: I'm only playing at being the devil, but you are the real thing. Because your whole approach to this discussion from your very first words, have been deception, and trickery.

You don't actually care about the underlying quest for truth, all you really cared about was trying to discredit me, as someone who claims to know the truth. I have no problem with that, but like most COWARDS, instead of approaching me like a man, and asking me straight up, then dealing with the answer, you try and sneak up from behind.

Hey, I thought TRUTHSEEKA was the devil who doesn't care about truth?!?! And here you are, telling someone else the same thing you told me.

And I felt so SPECIAL...

Originally posted by truthseeka

All you keep doing is rehashing the "black is bad" crap. Even when I gave you HISTORICAL examples of black being used merely as a descriptor for people of African descent, you keep chanting "black is bad, and you're bad too."

Truthseeka can i ask you a question

If i put before you two classes of water one clear and the other black although drinkable, which would you choose?

And if you choose the black one then why?

( i did see this in a movie one time and thought it was thought provoking)

Originally posted by truthseeka

Originally posted by SatansQue
But here's the thing about you: I'm only playing at being the devil, but you are the real thing. Because your whole approach to this discussion from your very first words, have been deception, and trickery.

You don't actually care about the underlying quest for truth, all you really cared about was trying to discredit me, as someone who claims to know the truth. I have no problem with that, but like most COWARDS, instead of approaching me like a man, and asking me straight up, then dealing with the answer, you try and sneak up from behind.

Hey, I thought TRUTHSEEKA was the devil who doesn't care about truth?!?! And here you are, telling someone else the same thing you told me.

And I felt so SPECIAL...:

I really don't get the connection, to my quote out of context. I believe if you actually read the entire thread, perhaps you'll understand the context: but I doubt it.

None-the-less, I do want to apologise for the comment about you being satan, I was of course joking, which is why I put the LOL!! after I said it.

But the urge to lower myself to your level of insult laden discouse, I'm afraid got the better of me. And for that I appologise to everyone participating in this thread, as well as to Karby, for suggesting that "he must be out of his mind".

What can I say but, the devil made me do it. LOL!!!! (I'm joking)

And as for the costume seeka, and my preaching with it on, yes, I actually went there a few years ago, and holy smoke, did it get ugly! You can bet your sweet ca-jollies I won't do that again.

I wanted to highlight this point:

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I definitely can see where SatansQue is coming from. In my opinion, if a person relates negativity to the word "black", and then calls himself "black", all the while trying to tell himself that it's a good thing, I don't think the subconscious mind is going to buy that. I suppose it's possible to "fool" the subconscious, but it's really, really difficult.

If we go back to the original adaptation of black to define a culture in the 1960s, how did it begin really? With certain quote, black leaders leading the masses in chants, James Brown's song, etc., but it wasn't like people had looked up the word in the dictionary, contemplated it, and then made a conscious decision to change the meaning of the word. It was all very organic. I was there, I saw it happening in my own neighborhood - across the country.

So it's interesting that if you look at the murder rates, Black on black from the FBI report, beginning in 1976, and the number 5,630 murders, it's logical to assume that we didn't go from 0 murders a few years before, and then suddenly jumped to 5,630, but that it would have been more of a gradual rise.

Especially when you see the number of murders staying in the 5,000 range through 1996. So perhaps, speculating of course, the full impact of adopting black as a discriptive, without a whole lot of thought to the impact of the meaning of the word on angry, frustrated people, beginning in say 1963, untill 1995 - that's 32 years, which is considered the about the length of a generation. So the immediate impact, of becoming such a negative symbol, with little understanding, could have led to the high numbers of murders represented during that time period.

Then suddenly, in 1996 like clockwork, generation wise, it drops off to the 3,000 levels, suggesting speculatively of course, that the newer generation, with more intelligence, while even though they may still identify as black, that the initial negative aspect of the word, is muted somewhat. But we're still talking 3,000 black on black murders for what, 16% of the population?

Like I say, it's all specualtive. But here are the numbers.


Murder Victim/Offender Relationship 1
by Race, 1976-2005
[single victim/single offender]

1976 5,630
1977 5,733
1978 5,817
1979 6,005
1980 6,165
1981 5,811
1982 5,386
1983 5,210
1984 4,357
1985 4,635
1986 5,398
1987 4,719
1988 4,791
1989 5,064
1990 5,279
1991 5,433
1992 5,522
1993 5,782
1994 5,527
1995 4,764
1996 3,854
1997 3,646
1998 3,309
1999 2,869
2000 2,927
2001 3,087
2002 3,137
2003 3,147
2004 3,067
2005 3,289



[edit on 25-6-2007 by SatansQue]

Alright, Hellboy...

Though I'm going to offer a valid response to your black hatred, remember that I STILL don't take you seriously. You could say that the poster I referenced earlier inspired me.

I am black and beautiful, O daughters of Jerusalem, like the tents of Kedar, like the curtains of Solomon. Do not look at me because I am blackened, because the sun has looked upon me.

--The Song of Solomon, 1:5-6 (trans. from the Greek LXX

Christian mythology aside, this CLEARLY shows that pride in blackness is WAY older than 40+ years.

In Greek the term for blacks was "Ethiopians" (aithoiphoi). This term applied to all the black peoples across the top of Africa and into Nubia, present day Sudan. Homer praised the Ethiopians for their justice and their piety. Xenophanes compared the physical characteristics of Thracians and Ethiopians without a hint of racial discrimination. Terence, a black writer from Carthage, was given the same recognition as the white Roman Horace. These black (p. 43) Africans were respected as great soldiers, craftsmen, writers, priests, and musicians. In fact, no occupation was denied to them, and both blacks and whites worshipped together at the same temples. There were also no laws against intermarriage and mixed couples were common. Among artists Ethiopian subjects were popular, and they were portrayed sympathetically, as you can see in the pictures above and below.

Gee, imagine that. In these days, black was a descriptor with no negative connotations, just like I said.

Most modern Christians are ignorant of the fact that Moses married a black woman. Zipporah was her name, and she is variously identified as Midianite, Ku#e, and Ethiopian. In Numbers 12 Miriam and Aaron rebuked Moses for marrying this woman, but Yahweh reacted, as he was prone to do, quite decisively: Miriam was made white with leprosy and remained "as one dead . . . and half consumed" for seven days. A caveat is in order here: it is not clear if Aaron and Miriam objected to Zipporah because she was black, or just because she was a foreigner. In the last analysis, however, the point comes to the same....The Protestant bishop Joseph Hall continues the traditional reading: "Moses married a (p. 44) Blackamoor; Christ, his church. It is not for us to regard skin, but the soul."(1) Apart from the allegorizing, there is a fascinating color reversal in this story. In Miriam's punishment Yahweh celebrates black as beautiful by making white ugly: the decayed flesh of her leprous white skin.

Would you look at that? Biblegod himself implies that black is beautiful.

Following the model of Moses' wife, the church fathers offer a similar interpretation of the liaison between King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba. The black queen Sheba is a symbol of the Gentile church being wed to her groom Solomon as Christ. Again black is beautiful, and all Christians, whatever their race or status, are represented collectively by a black woman. The use of allegory is powerful: black women are made to represent all the people in the church. Note that under a Protestant literal hermeneutic this interpretative force is lost. In fact, modem Protestant racists could explain away the conversion of a few blacks as anomalies—exceptions that proved the rule.

Would you look at that? A black woman representing the Christians. What were they THINKING, letting an evil (synonymous with black, as Satan points out ) woman represent the Christians?

Hey, there's even something here that gives your idea credence, albeit a little:

Most ancient peoples, including blacks, color-coded good and evil in the way that Hebrews and early Christians did. Black was the color of sin, evil, and death; and white was the symbol of goodness, God, and eternal life. The Jains of ancient India, who were black people before white Aryan Hindus intermarried with them, thought that the evilest soul was literally black. As good Jains worked off their karmic debt, their soul color would turn from black to dark blue to dove-grey to flaming red to yellow and finally to white. As early as the Epistle of Barnabas, the Christian devil appears as a black Ethiopian, and later Christian art portrays those who crucify Christ as black—for example, one painting shows the impenitent thief as black and the penitent one as white. But, with few exceptions, demons and evil people in Christian art do not have Negroid features. Instead, they are white people or monsters painted the color of evil. Until the seventeenth century people consistently refused to do what modem racists do: identify the color of sin and color of skin and systematically discriminate on that basis.

Sure, black is evil and white is good has been around for a while. But guess what? This is a reference to SPIRITUALITY! It is NOT a reference to skin tone or people of African descent. I need to go Mike Jones here...

This is a reference to SPIRITUALITY! It is NOT a reference to skin tone or people of African descent.

I said...

This is a reference to SPIRITUALITY! It is NOT a reference to skin tone or people of African descent.

I said...

This is a reference to SPIRITUALITY! It is NOT a reference to skin tone or people of African descent.

The last part in the passage, I absolutely LOVE. Here again for emphasis:

Until the seventeenth century people consistently refused to do what modem racists do: identify the color of sin and color of skin and systematically discriminate on that basis.

He says modern racists sync skin color and black as evil, then proceed to blast people with dark skin as evil. Gee, that sounds a LOT LIKE what you've been doing in this thread.



Internalization of racism. Such a tragedy to interact with a real life example...:shk:

Source

show me one perfectly sane human.

Puhleeze!

I know you all think effed up things your heads your not willing to admit to readily.

Thread reminds me of a Boondocks episode "The Itis"

Huey says the food is destructive (pork organs etc, and explains the movie soul food, which I never saw so yeah that brought me up to speed on that lulz) anyways his grandfather says something like "boy its your culture" To which he replied " Than the culture is destructive"



imo stereotyping people is destructive, and living up to any stereotype is destructive.

dare to be different.

Ha, haven't seen Boondocks in a while. Gotta look for that episode on YouTube.

Yeah, tripe's not one of my favorite foods. And I won't stay in a house if someone's cooking chitlins.

Good humor in that show.

SatansQue,

First of all, I just want to thank you for starting this thread, not because I agree with you , but because these conversations need to be had. That said, I'm not sure what the purpose of the thread was, aside from offending (black/ colored/ whatever) people.

I've referred to myself as a 'black American' for most of my life, and, while I carefully considered your semantic argument, it's a bit literal for my tastes. You see, language is only as important or useful as its general comprehension, so, although 'black' may have meant all those negative things you cited, it no longer does.

Case in point: I'm black, and I don't drag people from their cars and beat them.

Also, as karby noted, correlation does not totally prove your point when it comes to black-on-black murder rates (but the crack epidemic does, might want to consider that possibility).

Originally posted by SatansQue
But the ugly came out, as it often does when "Black" youths gather in groups.

When I first read the OP, I felt the same way truthseeka does, but, on second look, you're not actually bashing black people: Your target is black youth, and now it all makes sense to me.

I've noticed a disturbing trend in our scattered communities, akin to gnawing off one's leg in an attempt to escape a trap: Older "colored" people are scared of the young people they've created, but what they fail to grasp is that the very same teenagers they're disparaging now are their future (in the sense of 'the future of the race') and that the more they push us away, the more lost we become. (Check out karby's first siggy)

Originally posted by reaper2
Almost all hip-hop, gangsta or not, is delivered with a cocky, confrontational cadence that is fast becoming—as attested to by the rowdies at KFC—a common speech style among young black males.

Apparently, that cocky, confrontational style is an American trait, as evidenced by our original seizure of the country, our attempted enslavement of the Native peoples, our actual enslavement of Africans, our repeated clandestine incursions into foreign territory, our "nation-building" (which is what they call it when we install puppet regimes), and more recently, the general "F* you" attitudes of both our president and vice-president.

hip-hop sends the message that blacks are . . . uncivilized. I find it striking that the cry-racism crowd doesn’t condemn it.

I agree, but you have to have noticed that the leader of the "cry-racism crowd", as it's characterized on ATS, Al Sharpton has begun a concerted effort to curb some of the more objectionable lyrics. It's been in the news.

Originally posted by karby
right now, the only thing you're doing is putting on a minstrel show for those who want you destroyed regardless of where you were born. and i can assure you, that even though they aren't posting they are enjoying this little spat very very much.

You are so right, it's not even funny. :shk:

Originally posted by Soraia
I don't buy media exaggerating it on purpose to bring down 'the black man', sorry.

Here's the research that karby referenced. I couldn't locate the whole article (for free), but here's the abstract.

We conducted a content analysis of a random sample of local television news programming in Los Angeles and Orange counties to assess representations of Blacks, Latinos, and Whites as lawbreakers and law defenders. 'Intergroup' comparisons of perpetrators (Black and Latino vs. White) revealed that Blacks and Latinos are significantly more likely than Whites to be portrayed as lawbreakers on television news. 'Interrole' comparisons (lawbreakers vs. law defenders) revealed that Blacks and Latinos are more likely to be portrayed as lawbreakers than as defenders, whereas Whites are significantly more likely to be portrayed as defenders than as lawbreakers. 'Interreality' comparisons of lawbreakers (television news vs. crime reports from the California Department of Justice) revealed that Blacks are overrepresented as lawbreakers, and Latinos and Whites are underrepresented as lawbreakers on television news compared to their respective crime rates obtained from the California Department of Justice for Los Angeles and Orange counties. Interreality comparisons of law defenders (television news vs. county employment records) revealed that Whites are overrepresented, Latinos are underrepresented, and Blacks are neither over- nor underrepresented as police officers on television news compared to employment reports.
Overrepresentation and underrepresentation of African Americans and Latinos as lawbreakers on television news

The WW2 history belonged to the people of the day, and that's where it should stay.

Unless, of course, the Israelis want more land, or the Jewish diaspora wants more *gasp* reparations... right?

What I don't understand is how Germans, with the negative history they have had and created, and in spite of taking responsibility, have managed to move on and create a different image of themselves. Within 50-odd years. Whereas Black America, although they did nothing wrong (until now), are still acting like they are still at square one.

False analogy. You said it yourself, the Germans actually took responsibility.

You know what I don't understand? Why, in your example, you compare black Americans to the Germans? Wouldn't the oppressed group be identified with the Jews?

PS, If you'd taken truthseeka's advice and looked up Black Wall Street, or its eventual demise in the orgy of flames, violence, and looting known as the Tulsa Race Riot, you would realize, we've been pushed back to square one many times, usually one-by-one, but sometimes in spectacular displays of human greed or bloodlust, unleashed on a crowd.

Truthseeka,
Thank you for those beautiful quotes! You know, there is something absolutely fabulous about seeing oneself as the Queen of Sheba's contemporary 'sister'... You've brightened a very long, humid, and harrowing day.

HarlemHottie

Soraia
The WW2 history belonged to the people of the day, and that's where it should stay.

Unless, of course, the Israelis want more land, or the Jewish diaspora wants more *gasp* reparations... right?

Umm, Israelis didn't get their land from Germany. And no, what I meant was that you can't blame people of today for what other people did over 50 years ago, or 100 years ago. You can't put the blame on individuals who have nothing to do with anything - no matter what race, culture or whatever. I couldn't look at the people around me as perpetrators, just because they belonged to the same group. I get the impression many blacks make this mistake, not just "white" people. They can be extremeley dismissive and judgemental. Rarely have I seen someone step up and criticize black people, black americans rather, and still be fully accepted, or even really listened to. Which is why I am also verry wary of black politicians. The only way they will be accepted if they continue to push the same stuff.

As to the media - actually, most people I know are smart enough to know what the media is really about...
Media is in the business of casting stereotypes. That's what sells, see the hip-hop/rap industry. Full of stereotypes. My bone of contention is why blacks have to sell a negative stereotype of themselves in order to make the quick buck. That to me is selling out. But what do I know, I've internalized racism, lol

HarlemHottie

Soraia
What I don't understand is how Germans, with the negative history they have had and created, and in spite of taking responsibility, have managed to move on and create a different image of themselves. Within 50-odd years. Whereas Black America, although they did nothing wrong (until now), are still acting like they are still at square one.

False analogy. You said it yourself, the Germans actually took responsibility.

Umm, no. Not a false analogy...I was referring to image. Actually, all my posts refer to the image blacks themselves create about themselves. I dunno, but Germans, in american media (movies, etc.), up to a time where usually represented as cold, robotic, evil Nazis. Germans created their own image, like most people. And others capitalized on it. Nowadays, I don't see that typecast so much.
A thought just popped into my head - actually, blacks are selling out by buying BMW's, Mercedes and Audi. They should boycott. Germans would have gassed them without a thought in the 40's.

As to the responsibility - exactly

HarlemHottie
You know what I don't understand? Why, in your example, you compare black Americans to the Germans? Wouldn't the oppressed group be identified with the Jews?

Once again, I am referring to a negative image. Solely image. How much worse can it get for a people that were on top to find themselves at the absolute bottom of the bucket, an entire country of robotic, inhuman, crazy mass-murderers. That is also a very negative image, the worst one I could think of off of the top of my head for the white race. Quick thought - What I do find amusing, is that most blacks see their race as so powerless, and themselves so victimized, that they could never think of identifying with a perpetrator, but it is quite easy for them to identify with victims. We wouldn't (or we couldn't ?) harm a fly. lol

As to the setbacks. Of course. Life is full of setbacks. That is normal and to be expected. No one gets a free ride. You have to fight for what you want, the question is the method, it should match the fight. Otherwise, obviously, you won't get your desired results. And I repeat again, I'm discussing the stand of today, 2007, not 1921.


---cont'd

[edit on 26-6-2007 by Soraia]

As to the meaning of this thread....I don't think SQ meant to hurt anyone. I don't think he hurt or offended anyone. I think he really cares about others besides himself, and is deeply frustrated at the state of things, and the obvious willful ignorance that is going on within certain groups of the black community. He is venting, analysing and criticizing, and as usual, for some blacks, that has no value.

I understand what SQ is saying about the power of words...even if I didn't agree with him, I wouldn't pretend I didn't know what he is talking about. Maybe, just maybe he has a point. Stranger things have happened. I believe in the power of the subconscious, and I think as long as you affirm personal things for yourself, that doesn't affect others, you can use whichever lingo you want. Your own vocabulary. But once you start affirming things which affect others as well, and their views, and their interactions with you, you're invariably tapping into a collective consciousness.

And the stuff that we all have compiled there. And then things get a little more basic, black is bad, white is good. We've been affirming that for centuries. Just because we start now, since 1960 to say black is good, doesn't mean that's what's gonna happen. Other people don't start thinking black is good, because they don't care enough to affirm this with you. And then they do not react the way you would like them to, but to a centuries old programming. Black power is then something threatening. And for blacks, their fears associated with this affirmation is materialized, not their desired outcome. And they become the image they try to change.

Back to the media, I still don't think that this is done from the point of trying to destroy black people. It's done as they do it with everyone else. Greed, profit, and because they can. Just like in the music biz, or all other media.

[edit on 26-6-2007 by Soraia]

[edit on 26-6-2007 by Soraia]

[edit on 26-6-2007 by Soraia]

[edit on 26-6-2007 by Soraia]

Originally posted by Soraia
Rarely have I seen someone step up and criticize black people, black americans rather, and still be fully accepted, or even really listened to.

I've seen this oversimplified view way too much on this board. I know several black people who make their livings telling other black people what's wrong with them, and not in the way you and the OP are doing it. Speaking to the black community is just like speaking to any other: they have to be willing to hear your message, and you have to give them a path to reaching the preassigned goal.

Otherwise, it's just talking about people, largely behind their backs. If you really want to see some change, and think you have some good ideas, I suggest you check out that link BH gave you (hey BH!) a few pages back, the Black State of the Union.

I have to admit, I've been confused (about you) this whole thread. I've seen you refer to black Americans as both "we" and "they." Which is it? I'm not asking because your response will negate or validate your opinion; I'm asking because I'm trying to understand your perspective, and what you're seeing.

Which is why I am also verry wary of black politicians. The only way they will be accepted if they continue to push the same stuff.

The same could be said of 99% of American politicians... how long did you say you've been here? (j/k)

most people I know are smart enough to know what the media is really about...

Me too, and I know a lot of regular, plain, ol' black folk... However, a large part of post-Industrialization/ American culture is based in consumerism. Should black Americans be held to a higher standard than all the other Americans who buy all that crap?

My bone of contention is why blacks have to sell a negative stereotype of themselves in order to make the quick buck. That to me is selling out.

I see your point, really, and I even agree to a certain extent. At times, I'm shocked at the language they use, and I'm only 26! Not an "old-fogey," by any means, unless you're in high school.

OTOH, let's look at who we're talking about. The blacks in question are rappers, the majority of whom are male. I've already shown you how the news media depicts them (as criminals), and the purpose of the paper I cited, in its entirety, was to explain how those images translate into real-life experience.

Based on other research, scattered across PTS (if you need links, let me know), we already know, as proven by real-life statistics, not conjecture, that black men are stopped more, arrested more, and may, eventually, get more jail time than the white guy stopped or pulled over for the same, exact "crime". We also already that the majority of young black men will acquire a poor, public school education, and will likely have served jail time by the time they're 30. know,

So, really, is it any wonder that they would pursue the one avenue still open to them? That requires neither an education nor a clean criminal record? One person gets a record deal, and suddenly all his childhood friends are dripping in diamonds, with viable careers of their own? I'd call those pretty good odds, considering.

Of course, we'd like to get them out of the cycle, but the government certainly isn't going to help, and there aren't enough community activists to go around. So, now what? Like I said before, people like you, with strong opinions, need to involve themselves in the solution, instead of dwelling on the problem.

Soraia
...Germans, in american media (movies, etc.), up to a time where usually represented as cold, robotic, evil Nazis. Germans created their own image, like most people. And others capitalized on it.

So, you're saying that, after the war, when Germany was trying to pull itself together, the Germans managed to convince the Americans to refashion their image, into a kinder, gentler Germany?

Would you mind explaining that process to me, or giving me a link? It sounds implausible, but I make a point to learn something new everyday. Enlighten me.

As to the responsibility - exactly

Forgive me, I still fail to get your point. Responsibility for the violence of our neighborhoods for the last twenty years? Any community ravaged by a cheap, extremely addictive narcotic looks exactly the same: broken families, ridiculous increase in crime, etc. (Check out the effects of the Opium Wars on China)

I am in no way making excuses, I'm simply stating facts. If you don't believe me, I'd be happy to point you in the right direction.

How much worse can it get for a people that were on top to find themselves at the absolute bottom of the bucket, an entire country of robotic, inhuman, crazy mass-murderers. That is also a very negative image, the worst one I could think of off of the top of my head for the white race.

Except that, um, everything about the situation was different, most importantly, the fact that the Germans had: 1) an actual country, from which to draw the resources requires to remake an image; 2) a sense of nationalistic identity, however mismanaged, from which to rebuild a society after a break-down; and 3) once the Allies left, the freedom and self-determination to, at least, have some measure of control over their image.

What I do find amusing, is that most blacks see their race as so powerless, and themselves so victimized, that they could never think of identifying with a perpetrator, but it is quite easy for them to identify with victims.

It's both unnecessary and degrading to the quality of the debate for you to extrapolate an entire psychosis onto a group of people, simply because I didn't understand your unexplained analysis. Really.

He is venting, analysing and criticizing, and as usual, for some blacks, that has no value.

That's all well and good, but when you're both finished, we could really use some people to help the 'doers' with the real work... you know, in the 'hood, with the people you're talking about.

edit for grammar

[edit on 26-6-2007 by HarlemHottie]

That's exactly it...I honestly don't see why people in the hood need any help - not in North America. Slay me for saying that. Once again, check your globe, and ask yourself, where else on this planet besides Europe and maybe Australia, that you could live in peace and have a minimal chance of realizing yourself. That's a pretty small percentage of the world. If blacks don't do it here, they have nowhere to go.

And, honestly, I didn't say the identifying with victim instead of perpetrator because of what you wrote, but because it's popped into my mind many times before.

As to criticism, either you can take it or you can't, it doesn't matter how it's packed, it's the content. -Actually, I find truthseeka to be way more offensive, but since you agree with him, he isn't. Of course.
And umm, I don't talk to people behind their backs on a broad topic like this...
I've heard all the excuses and indoctrinated beliefs before..., because I've discussed it before. Some have shunned me, some have agreed. I'll live.

How long I've been here? Once again, I repeat myself, I grew up in both countries. It is possible in one short life.

I say you and they, true, because I try to distinguish where I see myself, where I agree and where I don't. Small point to pick on, and irrelevant to what I'm trying to say.

True with politicians, all scum, but I actually thought blacks wanted to change things for themselves. My bad.

As to consumerism, yeah, blacks should be held to a higher standard, because first they perpetrate the image, then complain about the usually negative effects. Then don't complain. Or complain to the right source.

I am, concerned about a solution, and I am not afraid of my opinion. Maybe you don't agree, but someone else reading this may. Someone else may see things from a different perspective than before.

My point with the germans is that, actually, after the war, they had no sense of identity. They had no country, every major city had been bombed to the ground, absolutely bombed out. Every city was occupied by either the americans, french, british or russians. They set up the laws in the country. They held tribunals, war criminals were executed. At first, they had no rights. People starved to death, and there were mass exodusses from one side of Europe to the other, entire villages walking for weeks. Everyone hated their guts, they were spat upon by all their neighbouring countries. This was all their own doing, they reaped what they had sown, they fashioned their own image. People reacted to that negativity, well, negatively.

To this day, germans debate on what germans are, who they are. They had the choice, they could have focussed on their past in a negative, unproductive way, or move on.

Forget about the germans being white. What I'm trying to say, is that they had an extremely bad image, and although they, to this day, still have some rotten apples, these bad apples don't affect the many. But they could have, if germans had reacted differently. Nowadays, instead of protecting and making excuses, and giving a million and one reasons, which in the end don't help, they just don't tolerate it. They don't care about the economic, historical or societal background of young nazis in eastern germany. They know the reasons, but they maintain that it is still no excuse to do the wrong thing. They talk openly, honestly about what is happening, and squash trends like that as much as they can, wherever they can.


As to degrading a debate...please. I have never knowingly, attacked, belittled or demeaned anyone in their arguments to try to get my point across, nor taken anything anyone else has said extremely personal.

One more thing - affirmations don't work if they're done once a week at the club. If the rest of the week is affirming the neg. effects of being black, well...guess what?



[edit on 26-6-2007 by Soraia]

This is slightly off topic from the current discussion, but has to do (I believe) with the original post.

Why is it that we even have the labels "black" and "white" for certain Americans? Why do we distinguish them (us) by skin color? I believe it's ridiculous. How about we call Native Americans "red people"? Why don't we call Chinese immigrants "yellow people" And Arabs or Hispanics "brown people"?

No other people in the US are called out by the color of their skin! They're either Italian, German, Canadian or simply American (which has enough crap attached to it already!).

The words "black" and "white" have come to mean more than color, though. There is so much stigma attached to both as far as cultural assumptions, and I don't want any part of the label and I don't want to label other people with that stigma, based on their skin color.

"Black youth" has come to be synonymous with "the hip-hop culture". But that's wrong! There are older people, black and white people who are heavily involved in the hip-hop culture! And there are plenty of black youth who aren't involved in the hip-hop culture. So I will no longer call them "black youth", I will call them what they are; the hip-hop culture, regardless of age or skin color.

Why are some Americans (the ones who hail mostly from Africa and Europe) the only ones distinguished by their color instead of their heritage?

When you think about it, there should be NO distinction between "black" and "white" Americans! Especially not based on color! It just hit me last night how absolutely insane this is!

So, I have decided that I'm no longer going to identify myself and other fellow countrymen with a color. It's really the most demeaning and divisive thing I can think of. I am not "white". That means nothing. That tells you NOTHING of who I am. In fact, it lays a bunch of stereotypical BS out there for people to assume about me, that isn't true! I am an American. And if we need the details, I'm of Scotch-Irish and Native American descent. How important is the color of my skin and how much is this label playing into and FEEDING racism???

(Hi HH! Good to see you!)

Edited to add a couple thoughts.

[edit on 26-6-2007 by Benevolent Heretic]

Seeka,

You did a real fine job referencing the past to find places where people who lived thousands of years ago loved them some blackies. Aside from the fact that I don't accept the deity of the old testament as God, what you have demonstrated, even though you can't see it, is a world you refer to as the "Glory" days, where the first thing people saw was the color of the skin.

Aparently in your view the Greeks term for "All the black people arcoss the top of Africa as Ethiopians" is a good thing, divesting an entire, diverse people of all individuality.

It seems that with everything you quote, what is more important to you is what others think. How others percieved your so-called blackness. What you don't see, is their refusal to just see people of color, as just human beings, without having to make a point of the color of the skin.

What you can't see, is that by even making a point of it, that the same folks you're appaulding, are categorizing anyone with dark skin as a seperate entity, or group; skilled, talented yes, but "not like us", based on one, single factor.

I have another word for you, it's called evolution: "A process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher more complex, or better state - growth."

Let me show you the completion of the evolutionary process of people of color, because you either missed it, or it just wasn't import to you, so once again:



"I am a man"

See, those 4 words, represented for me, the true "Glory days" because for the first time in the history of people of color, people of color chose to merge the physical, and the spiritual into one undeniable truth, that we are Men, and we are Women, and nothing else matters, but to be treated as such. The single uniting common denominator - equalizer of all races, all people.

And before you begin to pick apart the words used to define evolution, to say that I am describing black people as, "lower, simpler, or worse", no, I'm not. I am describing the whole concept of looking at human beings and reading the outter, as an indication that one is dealing with that, which is in any way, shape, or form different from all the rest.

This kind of "thinking" is; "lower, simpler, or worse" on the evolutionary scale.

Again:

Historian Barbara J. Fields said this about race, in a 1982 essay:

“"Race" is not a "physical fact" but a "notion that is profoundly and in its very essence ideological."
From: Veiled Visions, The 1906 Atlanta Race Riot and the Reshaping of American Race Relations by David Fort Godshalk

Which is exactly what this whole discussion is about - Ideology, not the color of skin.

To go from the simplistic, higher evolved, "I am a man" to "I am a black man" represents the devolution in thinking, and ideology of those who would reach back to a place in time, when we were different, not like the rest, and obviously "Black" as you pointed out, in the eyes of all those folks in the past who you worship.

And you know what? When the time came to get some slaves, where were all your friends? They were all saying, "Yeah, I gotta get me one of them pretty black folks to do my work for me."

The glory days? Look how fast we rose from slavery, 244 years? Please, that's a drop in the bucket in terms of world history. The men, and women who who got their asses beat, spit upon, shot, lynched, and murdered, not to mention all the other degradations they faced along the way, speaks volumes for the kind of charater and heroic commitment to FAITH they had in themselves, and in God.

Originally posted by HarlemHottie
SatansQue,
First of all, I just want to thank you for starting this thread, not because I agree with you

, but because these conversations need to be had. That said, I'm not sure what the purpose of the thread was, aside from offending (black/ colored/ whatever) people.

Offend? Once again:



From, "I am a man" to "What's up dog" - "My nigga" - "My bitch" - "My whoe" - "I am Black"

I wonder who would be more offensive to all those brave, heroic men and women who got their asses beat for you, just to be looked upon as a woman?

Originally posted by SatansQue
Seeka,

You did a real fine job referencing the past to find places where people who lived thousands of years ago loved them some blackies. Aside from the fact that I don't accept the deity of the old testament as God, what you have demonstrated, even though you can't see it, is a world you refer to as the "Glory" days, where the first thing people saw was the color of the skin.

Ah, more fun.

This is not the time I meant. I meant the period when Kemet ruled the known world.

Aparently in your view the Greeks term for "All the black people arcoss the top of Africa as Ethiopians" is a good thing, divesting an entire, diverse people of all individuality.

I didn't say it was a good thing. I said it WASN'T a bad thing (your entire point in this thread), but merely a DESCRIPTION. Nice try with your deflection.

It seems that with everything you quote, what is more important to you is what others think. How others percieved your so-called blackness. What you don't see, is their refusal to just see people of color, as just human beings, without having to make a point of the color of the skin.

Is that your best? That's the point of ANYTHING you quote. You just type in your own words when it's you talking.

And, not seeing someone's skin color is clearly ridiculous. I have friends from all over the planet. If they're not black, I obviously can tell. It's just not an issue past recognition of a phenotypic variation.

I thought SatansQue the Great could wrap his head around this concept. Ah well, back to slaying demons as a demon, Dante style (video game hero, if you didn't know. But he's actually half demon, not demon in disguise. But he can transform...alright, enough of that. ).

What you can't see, is that by even making a point of it, that the same folks you're appaulding, are categorizing anyone with dark skin as a seperate entity, or group; skilled, talented yes, but "not like us", based on one, single factor.

This is what I meant by learn something. Traditionally, the Greeks referred to ANY outsider as "barbarian," EVEN if they were fellow Europeans. Remember what I said about Aristotle's view on pale skin and blue eyes.

More to the point, the Greeks had MUCH BETTER race relations than the present-day Western societies that based themselves on Greco-Roman society. The reason is crucial: the Greeks KNEW that black people (Kemetians) laid much of the foundation for Greek civilization.

I have another word for you, it's called evolution: "A process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher more complex, or better state - growth."

Let me show you the completion of the evolutionary process of people of color, because you either missed it, or it just wasn't import to you, so once again:



"I am a man"

See, those 4 words, represented for me, the true "Glory days" because for the first time in the history of people of color, people of color chose to merge the physical, and the spiritual into one undeniable truth, that we are Men, and we are Women, and nothing else matters, but to be treated as such. The single uniting common denominator - equalizer of all races, all people.

First time in history is a lie. You figure out why, I'm tired of rehashing it.

And before you begin to pick apart the words used to define evolution, to say that I am describing black people as, "lower, simpler, or worse", no, I'm not. I am describing the whole concept of looking at human beings and reading the outter, as an indication that one is dealing with that, which is in any way, shape, or form different from all the rest.

Why should I do that? I tend to think biology when I think evolution anyway.

Trying a bit too hard there, Bub.

And you know what? When the time came to get some slaves, where were all your friends? They were all saying, "Yeah, I gotta get me one of them pretty black folks to do my work for me."

Another blatant lie. As another poster said, YOU supposedly have a direct line to God?

The Europeans during the slave trade abandoned the views on race of the Greeks (getting tired of saying this too), and were influenced by Portugal and Spain to get revenge on black people for the Moorish conquest.

Try to keep up, black man.

All you had to do was concede that black is NOT always an insult. But you chose to tell more lies. Good stuff, once again.

Originally posted by truthseeka
I tend to think biology when I think evolution anyway.

Of course you do seeka.

Which is why this entire thread is just way over your head.

And for a person who isn't taking me seriously, my god; seems you've taken a lot of valuable time away from playing video games to follow me all over ATS.

Oh, and about Dante...... never mind what's the use? Go play your video game.

[edit on 26-6-2007 by SatansQue]

Originally posted by truthseeka
And, not seeing someone's skin color is clearly ridiculous.

He didn't say that he doesn't SEE someone's skin color. He said:

Originally posted by SatansQue
What you don't see, is their refusal to just see people of color, as just human beings, without having to make a point of the color of the skin.

That's a big difference. Not seeing someone's skin color is ridiculous, but seeing a person as a human being without making a point of his skin color is quite another concept, and quite doable. For most of us, anyway.

I have friends from all over the planet. If they're not black, I obviously can tell.

But do you call them "Brown people" or "yellow people" or "red people"??? Do you say, "I know this yellow guy, a friend of mine..." or "This red lady I know..."

And I know you're ignoring me and won't answer me, but at least other people can see my questions and wonder about them, too...

I thought SatansQue the Great could wrap his head around this concept.

And I thought you weren't taking him seriously. You sure do make a point of answering every post he makes for not taking him seriously... I don't think I believe you when you say you don't take this seriously. I think you're very serious about it.