 |
StrategyTalk.org
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
FC Mellon
Joined: 15 Apr 2002
Posts: 4477
Location: SoCal
|
 Posted: Sun May 04, 2008 4:48 pm Post subject: I wish I wish I could make that swish..I wish I wish I wish |
 |
|
sidenote:
Parvati asked: | Quote: | | Ever thought your "misspent youth" success-record could have something to do with your psychic gifts, FCM? ... such as unconscious ability to give a teetering ball or its trajectory a kinda mental push?? Wherever we have a natural talent we seem to need to put it to use... |
Sorry Parvati I have taken so long to answer your question(s). I really struggled with answering because of some different events in my past which I have shared with another/others and when a couple of them started having thoughts that I was something I am/was not....I realized that any time some things defy our laws of physics some can become quite uneasy with the presence of someone who just demonstrated an ability...whether natural or pure BS luck(..and trust me..it was pure BS LUCK!!), that it can/does alter the view of reality for some whose minds may not be intact.  Yes, as probably everyone, including yourself, on some occassions, I have intentionally given things an extra mental nudge hoping to alter the outcome of my miscue(s) in life when I needed that extra edge....and like your daughter I have been able to be luckier than I should have been. 
p.s. ..but I have to admit..it was not alway unconscious.....and not always that seldom!  hee hee
_________________
elitism--humanity's greatest enemy and greatest regret... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
parvati_roma
Joined: 30 Mar 2004
Posts: 8380
Location: Italy
|
| Posted: Sun May 04, 2008 6:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hunch correct... figures!
_________________
“Against barbarity, poetry can resist only by confirming its attachment to human fragility like a blade of grass growing on a wall while armies march by.” Mahmoud Darwish |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johnwilkins
Joined: 15 Apr 2002
Posts: 4858
Location: West Coast
|
| Posted: Sun May 04, 2008 9:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dave myers wrote: | | ... "racial imagery is central to the organization of the modern world... at what cost regions and countries export their goods, whose voices are listened to at international gatherings, who bombs and who is bombed, who gets what job, housing, access to health care and education, what cultural activities are subsidised and sold, in what terms they are validated- these are all largely inextricable from racial imagery... |
True, but they are not even remotely exclusive to racial imagery... so why don't we discuss that too?
| dave myers wrote: | | ...the myriad minute decisions that constitute the practices of the world are at every point informed by judgements about people's capacities and worth, judgements based on what they look like, where they come from, how they speak, even what they eat, that is, racial judgements... race is not the only factor governing these things and people of goodwill everywhere struggle to overcome the prejudices and barriers of race, but it is never not a factor, never not in play... |
Neither is class, which puts you into direct juxtaposition to monsieur Karl Marx...
| dave myers wrote: | | ...and race in itself- insofar as it is anything in itself- refers to some intrinsically insignificant geographical/physical differences between people, it is the imagery of race that is in play... |
Not really... Honkey mofo's like me would have been sweating you before the age of quinine if our bodies would have held up... Not intrinsically insignificant, I'd say... ability to survive malaria, yellow fever, cholera, etc. has a wee bit to do with it...
| dave myers wrote: | | ...there has been an enormous amount of analysis of racial imagery in the past decades, ranging from studies of, say, blacks or american indians in the media to the construction of the fetish of the racial other in the texts of colonialism and post-colonialism... yet until recently a notable absence from such work has been the study of images of white people... |
Dave... you be talkin bout cho momma...
| dave myers wrote: | | ...indeed, to say that one is interested in race has come to mean that one is interested in any racial imagery other than that of white people... yet race is not only attributable to people who are not white, nor is imagery of non-white people the only racial imagery... |
Dave... you are forgetting that the Japanese considered themselves a master race too...
| dave myers wrote: | | the point of seeing the racing of white's is to dislodge them/us from the position of power, with all the inequities, oppression, privileges and sufferings in its train, dislodging them/us by undercutting the authority with which they/we speak and act in and on the world"... |
But it powers cannons, artillery and such... keep it close to home and it is no harm... make some distance, and you curse your neighbor... if not yourself...
_________________
"A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mircea
Joined: 15 Mar 2008
Posts: 93
|
| Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 10:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| davemyers wrote: | | ...the myriad minute decisions that constitute the practices of the world are at every point informed by judgements about people's capacities and worth, judgements based on what they look like, where they come from, how they speak, even what they eat, that is, racial judgements... race is not the only factor governing these things and people of goodwill everywhere struggle to overcome the prejudices and barriers of race, but it is never not a factor, never not in play... |
Except that the Yao (and many other African tribes) enslaved blacks, proving that race was not a factor and not in play. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
davemyers
Joined: 11 Apr 2008
Posts: 151
Location: P.NW.
|
| Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 4:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
...john... my 'soul'... is a-flutter... thank-you so much for your demonstration of ethnic 'sensitivity'... by 'speaking my language' in your most recent posting... perhaps now we can re-engage our conversation, earnestly...
_________________
...in life, do what-ever you want to do, but do it perfectly... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johnwilkins
Joined: 15 Apr 2002
Posts: 4858
Location: West Coast
|
| Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 5:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dave myers wrote: | | ..john... my 'soul'... is a-flutter... thank-you so much for your demonstration of ethnic 'sensitivity'... by 'speaking my language' in your most recent posting... perhaps now we can re-engage our conversation, earnestly... |
Your language? I thought you were bi-racial... and why would it be yours? Aren't you speaking my language with each post? And if so, should I gin up a head of steam and infer that you are being ethnically in/sensitive? In many parts of the "white" world, people appreciate it when you attempt to speak their native language. Take a walking tour of Paris or Rome--everyone speaks English to some degree--but many of the locals appreciate it when you make a reasonable attempt at their local language (i.e., not botched with your nose in an English-to-Whatever dictionary that it just appear pathetic). They aren't offended, nor do they take it as an affront that implies ethnic insensitivity. Your dialog is just so much more of political correctness. At any rate, it's about time you've responded with something other than reposting someone else's articles. A conversation is a two-way street, and your ideas are more relevant than just re-posting the ones you may find interesting.
Ebonics is a topic germane to the debate on race in America. Near to my residence, the Oakland California school district (I was born in Oakland) wanted funding to teach Ebonics as a first class English dialect. You've sidestepped this, just as you have sidestepped reverend Wright's remarks on how blacks and whites learn differently. I think if we're having a conversation, you should comment to some degree--especially at a time when there is some contention within the black community regarding Obama and Wright.
I don't think "ethnic sensitivity" is a topic upon which you can claim much sensitivity. You are attacking the entirety of Western civilization and its history based in part upon skin color and making no distinction for who has held slaves, who has not, who has oppressed people on the basis of race and who has not. You have ignored some of their finest accomplishments. You have been given many of the distinctions common to different European peoples from posters on this board who know quite a bit about it... yet you continue to present this "white/non-white" dialectic--see any lack of sensitivity there?
As I have already pointed out to you, and others have as well... "white" people only exist in the U.S. It's time for you to move beyond Ohio and Florida, and perhaps take an overseas tour to see what other parts of the world are really like. Television doesn't do it justice, and neither do left wing college professors...
Here's an example of identity politics turned upside down...
The Rise of the Rest
A very interesting article on a "non-American" narrative... but the interesting part is how people interpret these events when America isn't striding as confidently due to economic downturn and war-fatigue (war reporting fatigue is probably a more accurate depiction)... when America is striding confidently, all of these facts are evidence that the U.S. model is spreading and destroying native cultures to create a McDonald's-style world.
| Quote: | | American anxiety springs from something much deeper, a sense that large and disruptive forces are coursing through the world. In almost every industry, in every aspect of life, it feels like the patterns of the past are being scrambled. "Whirl is king, having driven out Zeus," wrote Aristophanes 2,400 years ago. And—for the first time in living memory—the United States does not seem to be leading the charge. Americans see that a new world is coming into being, but fear it is one being shaped in distant lands and by foreign people. |
Nice touch of xenophobia, and perhaps fueled to some extent by the illegal immigration debate that leaves the Left license to call everyone who doesn't like it a racist.
However, it's almost entirely wrong. The U.S. via the internet, fiber optics, free trade, outsourcing, container shipping, consumer-driven economy, and so forth is indeed leading the charge. It's that segment of American society... that all white working-class, labor-union worker types who are in deep distress... It's not the case in silicon valley...
| Quote: | | Look around. The world's tallest building is in Taipei, and will soon be in Dubai. Its largest publicly traded company is in Beijing. Its biggest refinery is being constructed in India. Its largest passenger airplane is built in Europe. The largest investment fund on the planet is in Abu Dhabi; the biggest movie industry is Bollywood, not Hollywood. Once quintessentially American icons have been usurped by the natives. The largest Ferris wheel is in Singapore. The largest casino is in Macao, which overtook Las Vegas in gambling revenues last year. America no longer dominates even its favorite sport, shopping. The Mall of America in Minnesota once boasted that it was the largest shopping mall in the world. Today it wouldn't make the top ten. In the most recent rankings, only two of the world's ten richest people are American. These lists are arbitrary and a bit silly, but consider that only ten years ago, the United States would have serenely topped almost every one of these categories. |
True. And ten years ago, we would have been criticized for exporting skyscrapers, hamburgers, rock and roll, etc. such that every country was becoming (indeed has become) more American. China is communist, so state-capitalism and large cap firms without anti-monopoly legislation would be considered regressive in the US--look at how our oil companies are attacked. The U.S. has moved away from the hub-and-spoke model airports that are common to Europe, and were to the U.S. until deregulation--the 787's lighter weight, longer range, and newer technology makes it perhaps the most advanced and environmentally friendly airliner ever conceived. Sovereign wealth funds would also be considered contrary to the American way of life. We could easily build bigger government-owned investment funds than anywhere in the world. We choose not to. Large Ferris wheels and casinos aside, the U.S. is not exactly forlorn...
| Quote: | | People would often ask me about … Donald Trump. He was the very symbol of the United States—brassy, rich, and modern. He symbolized the feeling that if you wanted to find the biggest and largest anything, you had to look to America. |
Indeed... but Donald Trump wasn't the American story... not in the 80's, the '90s or now...
| Quote: | | There are dozens of Indian businessmen who are now wealthier than the Donald. Indians are obsessed by their own vulgar real estate billionaires. And that newfound interest in their own story is being replicated across much of the world. |
Many of them due to trade with the U.S., which was principally Global Crossing, the Internet, free trade, and so forth... all things that America has pushed forward. Bollywood is the result of a number of things... the declining cost of technology and a large market... that is taking an American-invented medium and creating its own version of it... any guesses why the call it Bollywood?
| Quote: | | We are living through the third great power shift in modern history. The first was the rise of the Western world, around the 15th century. It produced the world as we know it now—science and technology, commerce and capitalism, the industrial and agricultural revolutions. It also led to the prolonged political dominance of the nations of the Western world. The second shift, which took place in the closing years of the 19th century, was the rise of the United States. Once it industrialized, it soon became the most powerful nation in the world, stronger than any likely combination of other nations. For the last 20 years, America's superpower status in every realm has been largely unchallenged—something that's never happened before in history, at least since the Roman Empire dominated the known world 2,000 years ago. During this Pax Americana, the global economy has accelerated dramatically. And that expansion is the driver behind the third great power shift of the modern age—the rise of the rest. |
The Alvin Toffler, John Naisbitt, Lord William Rees-Mogg and other macro-wave types wouldn't characterize it this way. They have characterized it as First Wave = Agriculture/Agrarian Society; Second Wave = Mechanical/Industrial Society; Third Wave = Technology / Information Society.
I said earlier...
| me wrote: | We know that in both Mesopotamia and Egypt circumcision was practiced as early as 4000 BCE. We know that the math necessary to build pyramids and obelisks has to be quite precise. We know that Egyptian writing was hieroglyphic and Sumerian was based on cuneiform, and they also had a position-based numbering system like ours today--they used a decimal system with both base 10 and base 60 (which the seconds and minutes of our clocks still use today). The Egyptians were more consistent with base 10, but like the Romans, they didn't use position-based numbering, which likely truncated their ability to develop more complex math. Sumerians developed the 12 hour split for time measurement, and the 360 day year. But what makes mesopotamia so much more interesting is that there is so much more writing. Cuneiform is much easier--like an alphabet--than hieroglypics. While the Egyptians were quite advanced, the notation of their writing--both records and math--impeded their progress. Heck, Leonardo da Fibonnacci launched a virtual renaissance in math alone by just dumping the Roman numeral system for the Indo numeral system (i.e., Arabic, but it really came from the subcontinent). The Egyptians were more advanced than the Babylonians in circular measurements, but the Babylonians were fairly close to or had already discovered the Pythagorean theorem. In fact, if you read through a history of scientific development, you often get anecdotes of people who made earlier discoveries, but credit generally goes to the person who writes it down and disemminates it--fairly or unfairly. Both the Egyptians and Babylonians/Chaldeans developed iron weapons--moving them past the bronze age early on... Let's also not forget the Phoenicians for the invention of an early Alphabet... In writing, alphabets were a huge leap forward, and in math, the position-based base 10 number system was a huge leap forward.
But from there... it becomes really hard to say that the Egyptians came up with everything and the Greeks merely stole... we've seen from our own history what introducing the Indo-Arabic numeral system into Europe did for mathematics. It wasn't long before they came up with variables, and not long after that Cartesian graphs. So why is it hard to believe that the Greeks learned a thing or two from the Egyptians, and then went well beyond the Egyptians?
At any rate, we don't have a DNA sample of the people who did the math...so why should we assume? And what difference does it make? |
This is where we are today... binary math, not so much introduced as innovated... the blending of binary mathematics and electrical engineering brought us the electronics industry... but much more... it underpins the entire system addressed in the article I posted...
The computer you use, the network you use, the workflow engines and e-commerce applications that underpin all this global trade all depend upon a move from the base-10 number system to a base-2 0/1 numbering system that underpins computer logic.
| Quote: | | The post-American world is naturally an unsettling prospect for Americans, but it should not be. This will not be a world defined by the decline of America but rather the rise of everyone else. It is the result of a series of positive trends that have been progressing over the last 20 years, trends that have created an international climate of unprecedented peace and prosperity. |
The rise of everyone else isn't an accident of history. It was led, and is still led by the United States. $9/hr phone clerks in the U.S. are not a significant faction of our economy... those jobs have transferred to India...euphemistically, at the speed of light. That sheds relatively low paying jobs from the U.S., and creates relatively high-paying jobs in India... a simple wage arbitrage... those working class folks in the U.S. really feel the difference...
| Quote: | The last 20 years have produced an information revolution that brings us news and, most crucially, images from around the world all the time. The immediacy of the images and the intensity of the 24-hour news cycle combine to produce constant hype. Every weather disturbance is the "storm of the decade." Every bomb that explodes is BREAKING NEWS. Because the information revolution is so new, we—reporters, writers, readers, viewers—are all just now figuring out how to put everything in context.
We didn't watch daily footage of the two million people who died in Indochina in the 1970s, or the million who perished in the sands of the Iran-Iraq war ten years later. We saw little of the civil war in the Congo in the 1990s, where millions died. But today any bomb that goes off, any rocket that is fired, any death that results, is documented by someone, somewhere and ricochets instantly across the world. Add to this terrorist attacks, which are random and brutal. "That could have been me," you think. Actually, your chances of being killed in a terrorist attack are tiny—for an American, smaller than drowning in your bathtub. But it doesn't feel like that. |
And this is why the Iraq War costs trillions of dollars and has resulted in millions of deaths, etc... even though it isn't even a close approximation to the truth.
| Quote: | In dozens of big countries, one can see the same set of forces at work—a growing economy, a resurgent society, a vibrant culture, and a rising sense of national pride. That pride can morph into something uglier. For me, this was vividly illustrated a few years ago when I was chatting with a young Chinese executive in an Internet café in Shanghai. He wore Western clothes, spoke fluent English, and was immersed in global pop culture. He was a product of globalization and spoke its language of bridge building and cosmopolitan values. At least, he did so until we began talking about Taiwan, Japan, and even the United States. (We did not discuss Tibet, but I'm sure had we done so, I could have added it to this list.) His responses were filled with passion, bellicosity, and intolerance. I felt as if I were in Germany in 1910, speaking to a young German professional, who would have been equally modern and yet also a staunch nationalist.
As economic fortunes rise, so inevitably does nationalism. Imagine that your country has been poor and marginal for centuries. Finally, things turn around and it becomes a symbol of economic progress and success. You would be proud, and anxious that your people win recognition and respect throughout the world. |
Sound like someone you know Dave?
| Quote: | In many countries such nationalism arises from a pent-up frustration over having to accept an entirely Western, or American, narrative of world history—one in which they are miscast or remain bit players. Russians have long chafed over the manner in which Western countries remember World War II. The American narrative is one in which the United States and Britain heroically defeat the forces of fascism. The Normandy landings are the climactic highpoint of the war—the beginning of the end. The Russians point out, however, that in fact the entire Western front was a sideshow. Three quarters of all German forces were engaged on the Eastern front fighting Russian troops, and Germany suffered 70 percent of its casualties there. The Eastern front involved more land combat than all other theaters of World War II put together.
Such divergent national perspectives always existed. But today, thanks to the information revolution, they are amplified, echoed, and disseminated. Where once there were only the narratives laid out by The New York Times, Time, Newsweek, the BBC, and CNN, there are now dozens of indigenous networks and channels—from Al Jazeera to New Delhi's NDTV to Latin America's Telesur. The result is that the "rest" are now dissecting the assumptions and narratives of the West and providing alternative views. |
What we are dealing with is 0/1's run the information world, and people like you are buying and selling sentiments in a can. That you want to talk about an Afro-centric view of the world is really more a symptom of the end of racism as we knew it, and evidence that blacks have entered the prosperous classes; unfortunately for you, at a time when that has occurred all around the world, and thus you must compete with Sino-centric, Indo-centric, Arab-centric, Islam-centric, and Western-centric views of the world with your Afro-centric flavor of world history...
Yet, what has transpired is that the West has exported its industrial technology to the world, and uses information technology to manage it and the global economy while inventing the newer technologies. iPods are designed in the US, but built overseas. Same with so many other things.
_________________
"A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Last edited by johnwilkins on Mon May 05, 2008 7:32 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johnwilkins
Joined: 15 Apr 2002
Posts: 4858
Location: West Coast
|
| Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 6:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Interesting
_________________
"A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
davemyers
Joined: 11 Apr 2008
Posts: 151
Location: P.NW.
|
| Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 11:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
... for myself, at this point, the conversation that began on april 11th, and has carried on in interesting fashion since... is beginning to deteriorate...
... my wont is not to authoritatively 'profess', but when I discover words that have been written by great men and women, that speak to my heart, and in my opinion, speak to the larger truth, I will include them...in quotation marks...
...i am not saying anything new... everything that i have said has been stated before... my only 'claim', is to my own experience, and the perspective that it has given me...
...i 'think', that i understand 'where' you are coming from john... your 'need' to call in to question, or refute, anything that you hear or read that challenges your euro-centric world view... it's very frightening when our core values, or that which we have learned to except as 'reality', are... 'challenged'... especially by someone whom you don't really 'respect'...
_________________
...in life, do what-ever you want to do, but do it perfectly...
Last edited by davemyers on Fri May 09, 2008 2:07 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johnwilkins
Joined: 15 Apr 2002
Posts: 4858
Location: West Coast
|
| Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 3:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dave myers wrote: | | ... for myself, at this point, the conversation that began on april 11th, and has carried on in interesting fashion since... is beginning to deteriorate... |
I don't think so. What I think is that we have enough information to "call into question" or "refute" some of your contentions; introduce some additional evidence about rather tough distinctions from within what you might call the "white" world; and, to point out some interesting things that you seem rather uncomfortable with...
| dave myers wrote: | | ... my wont is not to authoritatively 'profess', but when I discover words that have been written by great men and women, that speak to my heart, and in my opinion, speak to the larger truth, I will include them...in quotation marks... |
I have no problem with citations, and I don't think anybody else does either. The question I have is "what do YOU think." We have a thread area called "Jump Balls" where you can post articles that you think may be of interest. We generally prefer it when you cite your own thoughts in conjunction with your citations--because it is you and your ideas that are important.
| dave myers wrote: | | ...i am not saying anything new... everything that i have said has been stated before... my only 'claim', is to my own experience, and the perspective that it has given me... |
It is concededly quite interesting; however, as I pointed out early on, there is more to your case than race. Yet, you seem focused exclusively and rather poisonously on race. With race as a "social construct," you are ignoring many of the others--you are also ignoring the "ethnic sensitivity" issues within Europe, and as it spills out across its former colonies. These are serious issues. In my case, these so-called "white" people were killing each other along Catholic/Protestant lines during my lifetime. My grandmother came to the United States to "escape the troubles." This has also occurred in Africa, whether the Biafran wars or the Tutsi/Hutu bloodbath of the 1990s, and so forth. You just seem oblivious to it... I don't see how this is possible other than to "want" your narrative to be real. How can it be real if you ignore some of its basic facts?
I also have a white friend from South Africa who would tell you pointedly that he is more African than you are... how would you respond to that? He definitely has an African world view--that's where he was raised... like it or not.
| dave myers wrote: | | ...i 'think', that i understand 'where' you are coming from john... your 'need' to call in to question, or refute, anything that you hear or read that challenges your euro-centric world view... it's very frightening when our core values, or that which we have learned to except as 'reality', is 'challenged'... especially by someone whom you don't really 'respect'... |
Dave... give me a break...
You have only one thing right: I will refute or call into question or embrace any idea to examine its dynamics, parameters, etc. to better understand it. At one point, I might embrace the Nazi-centric view, and then in the next I will trash it. Admittedly, that can sometimes be frustrating to deal with... but it usually reveals some interesting insights.
I brought that last article to bear for exactly the reason that our industrial-centric world view is being systematically replaced (challenged, threatened, etc) by a global information-centric society; and many whom Barack Obama might characterize as "clinging" to guns and religion are finding that their livelihoods and the culture that surrounds it--elementary school, high school, vocational school, nuclear family, church, etc. are not serving them; and they are truly afraid. By contrast, those of us who make our livelihood in the base-2 0/1 world, not the base-10 world, do not have the same level of trepidation.
I also brought it to bear so that you might continue your quest, but hopefully don't waste your time with fantasy... unless, as I've suggested, a multiplicity of narratives is what will replace a Euro-centric one... I don't think an Afro-centric world view is wrong. I'm just saying, don't expect the American-centric, Euro-centric, Arab-centric, Sino-centric, and other world views to just take a back seat to your ideas by default... they all have elements of truth, and all have elements of crap; they all have things they are proud to point out; and all have things they are ashamed of...
You have things like this to say:
| dave myers wrote: | | ..." if blacks created egyptian civilization, how can we explain their present decline?...that question makes no sense, for we could say as much about the fellahs and the copts, who are supposed to be the direct descendants of the egyptians and who, today, are at the same backward stage as other blacks, if not more so... |
Irrespective of whether it was created by blacks or not; let's just go with Africans--as that is more or less dispositive of fact. We know from the archaeological evidence that this ancient civilization used slavery; and that its master class was not Anglo-Saxon-Gallic-Jute-Norman white people. So we can say that THE or ONE OF THE first great civilizations in known human history was born on the African continent, built more or less by people born and raised on the African continent; and that the society in question implemented a system of slavery. We can also infer from biblical evidence that this Egyptian civilization at one point in its history used Jewish slaves, and at some point some of these Jews liberated themselves from this tyranny and escaped Egypt into the Sinai and eventually into the Levant around Judea. That's a Jewish-centric view... who don't always see themselves synonymous with "White."
So are we going to "white wash" away Africa's history of slavery? Can we say in this great claim of precedence that Africa gave the Euro-centric world both slavery and slaves?
Mircea has repeatedly mentioned that slavery was already a staple of Africa before whites had even built colonies there--(even during the age of exploration they rarely had anything more than a coastal trading post until quinine, as they died too quickly of malaria from travels inland).
Further, we can also introduce the fact that slavery is a bigger problem today than it was in 1880--and it is practiced principally in Africa and India, with smatterings in the Dominican Republic among other areas. Principally, slavery exists in places with dark-skinned people who are oppressed and held in bondage by other dark-skinned people.
Now I can understand a dialog that wants to single out a Euro-centric view and hold it accountable for its transgressions during the Age of Exploration/Age of Reason through the Industrial Revolution. But part of your African-centric world view should include clear and essentially inarguable facts about Africa's history too--that slavery has been part of these "great" African civilizations from time immemorial, to the Age of Exploration, until our time.
It seems that you are uncomfortable with this dave. It is somehow not worthy of mention. So I think you are constructing a myth to boost black pride, rather than to develop a deeper understanding of African civilization and its accomplishments.
I've already said pointedly--my mother's family were 'victims' of the Norman invasion--the feudal lords that ruled England, Wales, Ireland and Scotland from roughly 1066-1200 forward... these are many of the same people who lost their baronies in the 16th century and emigrated to the America, where they set up plantations--using indentured servitude followed later by slavery--even setting up certain colonies (e.g., South Carolina) specifically as slave-based colonies.
There is a very big and bitter difference between those who ruled and those who didn't. Just as you are both black and white--I am both Gallic and Norman--a distinction which is inherently inconvenient to you if you are trying to ascribe guilt to people based upon their skin color. My grandmother isn't responsible for slavery--she came to America after the civil war. She could certainly be characterized as racist--as she only saw white Catholic people from birth until her 21st birthday--but if we're going accept that narrow criteria, we also have to apply it to everyone else in the world uniformly--again, something that doesn't seem to be a staple of the American-centric discussion on race...
This is something I think you should really consider, because your Afro-centric world view at this point is really just a subset of an American-centric racial discussion with its splash of Marxist dialects--using race as class; and America is a derivative of the Euro-centric world view...
My contention is that if my foregoing statement wasn't true, you'd be as comfortable speaking about African slavery and it's tyranny as I am talking about Norman tyranny in England, Wales, Ireland, Scotland, Southern Italy, Normandy, etc. (and by the way, it's not the same thing as pride). Instead, I think your dialog is exactly what was described in the article I cited--a narrative you are using to boost black pride, whether it is based upon fact or not. As the article points out, the US and UK won the spoils of WWII, but the biggest battles were fought between Germany and Russia. Russians find that frustrating. Americans would counter that we fought the entire Pacific War, and that our marine invasion of Okinawa dwarfed the Normandy invasion... but it is generally ignored in Europe. They only carry the atomic bomb story, and the narrative is "America was mean for dropping nukes on Japan."
But isn't this really all just Critical Theory in a nutshell? Isn't this the Euro-centric view's odd little self-hating neurosis encouraging and embracing any criticism no matter how ridiculous like something out of a Leopold von Sacher-Masoch novel?
_________________
"A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Last edited by johnwilkins on Wed May 07, 2008 4:25 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fred
Joined: 07 Nov 2002
Posts: 2950
|
| Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 3:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| johnwilkins wrote: | | Ok fred... see how I said they are not the same? See how Wikipedia also says they are not the same? |
Nope. What I see is that Wikipedia placed them as subheadings under the heading Social and Political Movements.
I then use the leader of the Civil Rights movement as an example of how intertwined these movements actually were.
| johnwilkins wrote: | | Yes. We know that Dr. King drank the Kool-Aid, and we've seen that Dr. King's ideas didn't materialize and that Patrick Moynihan's warnings did materialize. So maybe we should celebrate Patrick Moynihan's birthday instead--merit should be recognized. |
What warnings? What did or did not materialize? 
Enumerate.
| johnwilkins wrote: | | I think his bigger issue was to withhold support for the war in order to force more spending on social programs. |
What evidence do you have that lead you to that conclusion? You fail to mention it. How did you divine the mind of MLK to know what he thought was bigger or where he placed emphasis.
MLK was evolving to a point where MalcolmX found himself, and that was a greater issue beyond civil rights and one involving human rights.
I then provide evidence on how MLK concerned himself with the US' misguided role and its lack of responsibility in being leader of the free world, and this extended beyond the US' role in Vietnam. One of MLK's concerns rested in how the US was seeking its own economic interests beyond the human rights of the populace in Latin America.
You have no idea how MLK weighted his positions in his mind, so why pretend that you can at the indulgence and attempt at popularizing your preferred bias.
Interestingly, MLK's position on the US role in Latin America echoes what I posted in the Book section of ST as it relates to the shock doctrine.
| johnwilkins wrote: | | That's why it didn't matter in Iraq, because the Democrats led the U.S. into Vietnam and the Democratic Party fractured. |
I know others at ST for the sake of the integrity of the argument will ignore all the subtopics you sneak in to the discussion, which is just another ploy of a propagandist like yourself, but I won't indulge you that same magnanimous decency.
The involvement of the US began in earnest under Truman, but was escalated by Eisenhower. JLK continued that escalation, followed by LBJ. Nixon took it even further. Vietnam was a bipartisan effort and failure.
| johnwilkins wrote: | | The Republican party didn't fracture on the war. |
The integrity of sheep. 
Or, doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results is a sure sign of insanity.
| johnwilkins wrote: | | They fractured on reckless spending and immigration. |
Really? Spending? Where did the Republicans in either houses of congress do anything to prevent President-Chuckle-Nuts from being a president that has borrowed and spent more than all previous presidents COMBINED!
| johnwilkins wrote: | I think he understood the situation fred. Marxists look at everything through the imperial lens--and he was speaking directly to them. A big element of the Vietnam War was China's nuclear program--not unlike the war in Iraq today and hostility toward Iran. Things haven't changed much in geopolitics.
|
You think? No evidence. But, you think. And oddly enough, MLK's position, according to you, coincided exactly with yours.
If you bothered to do any research, you would find that MLK's sole problem with Marxist thought was based on the fact as a reverend of God he could not accept Marxist nihilistic view of religion.
MLK almost without exception concentrated on the US policies on the geopolitical stage.
| johnwilkins wrote: | | What's the trouble fred? Some deep-seated guilt about a divorce you've been through? |
Uh … no … Nothing to do with the pet goldfishes and turtles that died when I was a child either. Why do you ask?
| johnwilkins wrote: | | It indicates that I'm puzzled that people have not looked at 40 years of policy and said to themselves |
Yeah. What's up with that? During those 40-years, we had Republican presidents for about 27-of-those-years, and a Republican controlled Congress from 1995 - 2006. Saint Reagan's Revolution from 1981 - 1988. The moving to the center and bringing back Reagan Democrats back into the fold with creation of the DLC. A Republican controlled Congress and Oval office from 2001 - 2006, it is quite puzzling what happened to the social and political movements of 40-years ago. Odd, indeed.
| johnwilkins wrote: | As a result of it, we've got that whack job McCain as our nominee... and you thought Bush was a war monger...
|
I'm surprised, John. Why such animosity towards McCain who will virtually extend almost every policy of Bush's.
Thanks for playing.
| johnwilkins wrote: | | At what point do you think that America is going to slash its military budget and spend all its loot on social programs. |
I take it the period at the end of your sentence means it was a rhetorical question. Otherwise, I would answer probably never, even when the infrastructure of the United States which is currently rated D- decreases to an F grade.
| johnwilkins wrote: | if only we could shut down the military and give all the loot to poor people... nothing like buttering people up with false hopes to keep them from taking action on behalf of themselves...
|
Agreed. It's cheaper just to buy them bootstraps.
| johnwilkins wrote: | | Since the Iraq War is what matters the most to the political left, there isn't really much of a point to it. |
As you keep reminding us, virtually on almost every topic on ST.
Okay. Everyone, please click on Democracynow.org's archives and put Wilkins' assertion to the test. Moving on.
| johnwilkins wrote: | | That said, I've listed quite a number of black Americans who have made great contributions to our society. I don't find that "weird" generally. In fact, I'm quite grateful for it. |
Right. It's those other 90% of the black electorate you have a problem with. Got it. I'm sure we're all grateful for your gratefulness.
| johnwilkins wrote: | | What I find weird about blacks is that they've been promised the same thing by the same people (liberal whites) for 40 years and have been regularly disappointed, but are still willing to hold out "hope" for some dollop of public gravy to soothe their hurts. |
Racial mix of welfare recipients in the United States
In fact, the decline in white welfare caseloads only began to decrease in 1996.
| Quote: | Myth: People on welfare are usually black, teenage mothers who stay on ten years at a time.
Fact: Most welfare recipients are non-black, adult and on welfare less than two years at a time.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfareblack.htm
|
More facts to burst John's bubble:
| Quote: | Summary
The historical evidence is clear: welfare reduces poverty, and the lack of it increases it. In the 1920s, fully half of all Americans could not make ends meet. Roosevelt's New Deal programs had reduced poverty to about 20 percent in the 50s. Johnson's Great Society reduced this to 11.1 percent by 1973. Since the rise of the corporate special interest system in 1975, individual welfare benefits have been shrinking, and poverty has been steadily rising, to over 15 percent today.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfarepoverty.htm
|
| johnwilkins wrote: | Mostly consisting of poor white people who were also members of the Democratic Party...not the Republican Party, which people like you are keen to point out is only for rich people, when it suits you... What you also fail to point out is that your Democratic Party buddies also lynched white Republicans... or is that something you just don't want to talk about?
|
You're ridiculous. That's right, John. The rise of JFK, Robert Kennedy, the black congressional coalition, Obama, etc., they all owe an affiliation and appreciation to the poor whites in the KKK. 
| johnwilkins wrote: | | See how I come to that conclusion fred? |
No. Do you?
| johnwilkins wrote: | | More African-Americans die EACH YEAR in black-on-black violence than through lynchings during the entirety of the Jim Crow years. |
You forgot beatings. You forgot burning down houses. You forgot shootings. All those took place under Jim Crow. Perhaps, you'll break down the numbers. I'm sure there was a Republican stalwart following these things during the Jim Crow years just to save the Republicans the embarrassment unfairly placed upon them by those dastardly Democrats at some future time.
| johnwilkins wrote: | | Knowing that slave masters had no incentive to kill slaves, |
And yet ...
| johnwilkins wrote: | | nor to foster conditions for high infant mortality, |
And yet ...
| Quote: | She found that these nine women had had between them 55 children, or an average of over 6 each. Five of the children were stillborn, 12 were miscarried, and 24 had already died. In other words, out of 55 children, only 14 were still alive. As one slave explained, "I've lost a many; they all goes so."
|
| johnwilkins wrote: | | it is easy to see why the liberal social policies have killed far more blacks than slavery, |
Nope. That's not Rush Limbaugh, folks. That's our very own John Wilkins.
Thanks for once more providing your cognitive contortions, John.
_________________
"I am at this moment writing a lengthy indictment against our century. When my brain begins to reel from my literary labors, I make an occasional cheese dip."
— John Kennedy Toole (A Confederacy of Dunces) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johnwilkins
Joined: 15 Apr 2002
Posts: 4858
Location: West Coast
|
| Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 7:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| fred wrote: | | I then use the leader of the Civil Rights movement as an example of how intertwined these movements actually were. |
They are all infused with the Marxist dialectic, as was the Vietnam war itself.
| fred wrote: | | What warnings? What did or did not materialize? |
That they needed to do something to empower black men--as the AFDC program was empowering women at the expense of men and undermining the patriarchal family... which is a central objective of the communist party by the way... it destroys the bourgeois family structure...
Proletarians and Communists
| Quote: | Abolition [Aufhebung] of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.
On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.
The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital. |
The purpose is to destroy the nuclear family, and they have succeeded to a significant degree--except that people from broken homes are not liberated. They are the ones likely to become less fortunate in so many ways. This is now understood in empirical terms--no more need to consult the bible, as social science demonstrates it. In some respects, we could say that the black family was the laboratory for Marxist theory, not unlike the Tuskegee Experiments.
| fred wrote: | | What evidence do you have that lead you to that conclusion? You fail to mention it. How did you divine the mind of MLK to know what he thought was bigger or where he placed emphasis. |
It's standard fare in politics--particularly in a time of war. Think of it in Chomsky-esque terms... you manufacture dissent; then, sanction the actions of the state if you get your sought after prize. The Irish did this during WWI (i.e., the Easter Rising).
| Quote: | | Plans for the Easter Rising began within days of the August declaration of the war against Germany. The Supreme Council of the IRB held a meeting in 25 Parnell Square and, under the old dictum that "England's difficulty is Ireland's opportunity", decided to take action sometime before the conclusion of the war. The Council made three decisions: to establish a military council, seek whatever help possible from Germany, and secure control of the Volunteers. |
To succeed, MLK and others had to press the government when it was over-committed elsewhere. Extracting concessions is what the game is all about.
| Quote: | | I then provide evidence on how MLK concerned himself with the US' misguided role and its lack of responsibility in being leader of the free world, and this extended beyond the US' role in Vietnam. One of MLK's concerns rested in how the US was seeking its own economic interests beyond the human rights of the populace in Latin America. |
Human rights as defined by the socialists fred... The U.S. definition includes private property rights... Life, liberty, property, and due process of law... the socialists do not believe in private ownership of the "means of production."
| fred wrote: | | You have no idea how MLK weighted his positions in his mind, so why pretend that you can at the indulgence and attempt at popularizing your preferred bias. |
I don't claim to know exactly what he was thinking at any given point in time. However, as a minority leader, to win against a majority you have little choice but to create a ruckus when the government you are negotiating with is otherwise occupied.
| fred wrote: | | Interestingly, MLK's position on the US role in Latin America echoes what I posted in the Book section of ST as it relates to the shock doctrine. |
Keynesian views were still dominant then... the monetarists rose as a result of inflation in the late 70s.
| fred wrote: | | The involvement of the US began in earnest under Truman, but was escalated by Eisenhower. JLK continued that escalation, followed by LBJ. Nixon took it even further. Vietnam was a bipartisan effort and failure. |
I'm sure JLK is flattered by his influential role in your mind. Actually, the Vietnam War was a smashing success. Following Nixon's visit to China, the U.S. was able to exploit a Sino-Soviet conflict, which made wholesale opposition to Communist China irrelevant. Ironically, while we credit Nixon, it was George Herbert Walker Bush who was the U.S. envoy there--Reagan's appointment of Bush as VP laid the groundwork for Most Favored Nation trading status for China, which was implemented during the Clinton administration (another Bush/CIA proxy). Wal-Mart, COSCO, etc.--the rest is history...
| fred wrote: | | The integrity of sheep. |
Different values and objectives...
| fred wrote: | | Really? Spending? Where did the Republicans in either houses of congress do anything to prevent President-Chuckle-Nuts from being a president that has borrowed and spent more than all previous presidents COMBINED! |
They didn't, which is why the Republican base--among other reasons--threw out the Republican majority. The other big issue was illegal immigration. The purpose of supporting illegal immigration--of course--is to undercut working class wages so that they can maintain an expansionary monetary policy without inducing wage and price inflation.
| fred wrote: | | You think? Rolling Eyes No evidence. But, you think. And oddly enough, MLK's position, according to you, coincided exactly with yours. |
I didn't say he agreed with everything I said... far from it. I just pointed out that he had been a member of the Republican party, and that he led a movement from a minority position, and like many who had done that before, he had to put pressure on a government otherwise pre-occupied with bigger fish to fry...
| fred wrote: | | If you bothered to do any research, you would find that MLK's sole problem with Marxist thought was based on the fact as a reverend of God he could not accept Marxist nihilistic view of religion. |
Neither could many of the Catholics, which is why we ended up with Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, etc. on the political right... by all accounts, they would otherwise have been Irish-Catholic Democrats. That was one of the great miscalculations of the communists.
| fred wrote: | | MLK almost without exception concentrated on the US policies on the geopolitical stage. |
In the same way that the Irish did when seeking independence from the UK...
| fred wrote: | | I'm surprised, John. Why such animosity towards McCain who will virtually extend almost every policy of Bush's. |
He's not a team player...
| fred wrote: | | I take it the period at the end of your sentence means it was a rhetorical question. Otherwise, I would answer probably never, even when the infrastructure of the United States which is currently rated D- decreases to an F grade. |
Actually, that's another thing that makes the Republicans irate... as you know, we all drive BMWs with the sport package--with those low-profile run-flat tires--and we can't stand the cracks, bumps and potholes on our highways... so if the Republicans wanted to impress us on how much money they can waste, they could have at least made our highways as smooth as a baby's bum...
| fred wrote: | | Right. It's those other 90% of the black electorate you have a problem with. Got it. I'm sure we're all grateful for your gratefulness. |
I didn't say that only 10% of blacks had ever achieved anything by virtue of their participation in the Republican Party. I did point out that some of the greatest black Americans were Republican, and further pointed out that we'd never get that out of the media or a history book written by liberals.
| fred wrote: | | In fact, the decline in white welfare caseloads only began to decrease in 1996. |
Thank St. Clinton for that...
| Quote: | Status of Father 1973 1992
-------------------------------------
Divorced or separated 46.5% 28.6
Deceased 5.0 1.6
Unemployed or Disabled 14.3 9.0
Not married to mother 31.5 55.3
Other or Unknown 2.7 5.5 |
| fred wrote: | | More facts to burst John's bubble: |
Sure fred. That's why we have 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. working for piecemeal wages, etc.
| Quote: | Myth: Welfare increases poverty.
Fact: The more welfare, the less poverty -- both historically and internationally.
...
Many conservatives believe that welfare does not accomplish what it sets out to do; that, despite decades of massive anti-poverty spending, poverty is still with us, and perhaps even worse than before.
|
The argument goes like this... welfare was not tied to performance, training, etc. There were many efforts to remedy the situation--the Job Training Partnership Act, the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, etc. The problem is that welfare was separating people from the workforce and creating an intergenerational underclass that depended upon welfare benefits. If poverty is defined as lack of money, adding money to the equation solves poverty. Nobody debates that. What people debate is whether it was creating bigger problems--like intergenerational welfare dependency, or long-term dependence on welfare. I know it gets tiresome to read all these articles, but your thread also includes our Bell Curve friend, Charles Murray (part 1), (part 2)... and a full 18 clips if you have the time.
| Quote: | In 1984, Charles Murray published a bestseller entitled Losing Ground. In it, he argued that the success of welfare in reducing poverty was really illusory. The official poverty statistics measured poverty only after welfare benefits had already been paid. Murray was much more interested in what he called "latent poverty," namely, the amount of poverty that would have existed without these transfers. It was his argument that the welfare state had increased latent poverty.
To support his argument, Murray noted that latent poverty decreased fastest in the 1950s and early 60s, when welfare outlays grew slowest. However, latent poverty leveled off and actually began rising again in the late 60s and 70s, when welfare outlays grew fastest. Murray argued that increased welfare outlays had caused latent poverty to grow, because the poor had been lured out of the workplace and into welfare dependency. |
Conservatives generally do not oppose helping the poor. Charity is a good thing. Long-term welfare should require some level of consideration--job training, public works, etc. to ensure that the electorate will not revolt at the tax payments necessary to support the system.
| fred wrote: | | The rise of JFK, Robert Kennedy, the black congressional coalition, Obama, etc., they all owe an affiliation and appreciation to the poor whites in the KKK. |
If you insist... I only pointed out that the KKK was mostly populated by poor white Democrats.
| fred wrote: | | You forgot beatings. You forgot burning down houses. You forgot shootings. All those took place under Jim Crow. |
I don't have any beating or house burning statistics. Deaths are much easier to quantify and much more reliable.
| fred wrote: | | I'm sure there was a Republican stalwart following these things during the Jim Crow years just to save the Republicans the embarrassment unfairly placed upon them by those dastardly Democrats at some future time. |
Just take a look at the PBS series/
| Quote: | | Democrats used violence, fraud, intimidation and murder to win. |
Things haven't changed much have they...
| Quote: | | The Democratic Party identified itself as the "white man's party" and demonized the Republican Party as being "Negro dominated," even though whites were in control. |
| Quote: | | The South remained a one-party region until the Civil Rights movement began in the 1960s. Northern Democrats, most of whom had prejudicial attitudes towards blacks, offered no challenge to the discriminatory policies of the Southern Democrats. |
That's PBS fred...
Chris Rock
Look who's clapping... not Rush Limbaugh, not John Wilkins.... but quite a few black people... What's his closing statement...
| Chris Rock wrote: | | When I'm going to the ATM at night, I ain't looking over my back for the media; I'm looking for N****z... |
Echoes of Jesse Jackson...
Robert Byrd
And of course, no discussion is complete without some South Park...
Cartman's Hate Crime
Chef says South Park is racist
Here comes the neighborhood
The Jeffersons
With Apologies to Jesse Jackson
| fred wrote: | | Thanks for once more providing your cognitive contortions, John. |
My pleasure...
_________________
"A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Drgonzaga
Joined: 27 Jun 2005
Posts: 809
|
| Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 3:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Is not most of what you have been discussing, Dave, intricately related to the prevalence of what sociologists have called the "Laws of Major and Minor Descent" (i.e. one drop of "white" blood raises status / one drop of "black" blood makes you black) and its implication in race relations within an American setting? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
davemyers
Joined: 11 Apr 2008
Posts: 151
Location: P.NW.
|
| Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 3:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
...Indeed, it is.
_________________
...in life, do what-ever you want to do, but do it perfectly... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JeffD
Joined: 07 May 2008
Posts: 2
|
| Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 8:19 pm Post subject: Fishing and chips |
|
|
Hi Dave,
I have no idea why you would want to invite me to join this erudite (did someone actually use that expression?) discussion. I've scraped teh surface of it. Too deep for me....
My simple view, expressed to you many times personally, is that you simply need to remove the huge fried potato from your nicely-colored and shapely shoulder (there are many white-folks out there who would happily trade bodies with you..! this is getting quite gay...); and quit fishing around for some words of comfort/support from someone with some dubious credibility and which might underpin your erroneous belief that all of the misfortunes that have befallen you are the result of your wicked mother's racism.
Time to be a big boy and take responsibility for your life and not blame your mother; society or the spectre (oops, specter) of racism for life's random insensitivities or injustices. Have you yet taken my advice and visited Africa? Your eyes sorely need opening and perhaps the only thing that will do it is a good dose of reality about how blacks treat other blacks. Racism is alive (until dealt with by machete) and well in the land of at least half of your ancestors. Talk to a few Hutus or Tutsis, for example. Take a look at the physical and mental scars of those that survive. Why don't you describe your life to them. How many of them do you suppose would want your miserable life???
But there is little point in debating American racism with you. I have tried it before - knowing that, in a few weeks, you will return to the subject with some quotes that you have dug up to bolster your needs and deflect reality. You are not a product of injustice - social or personal - but rather of your need to find others to blame for your self-imposed sense of segregation. The fact that blacks were able to vote in the USA 50 years before women or that slavery was abolished in America in 1865 compared to 2003 in Niger and 2007 in Mauritania (where it is estimated that 20% of the population are enslaved) will surely not diminish your determination to feel oppressed.
When you stop feeling different you will stop being different....
Apart from having to listen to all this crap again - nice to hear from you.....
Jeff |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Drgonzaga
Joined: 27 Jun 2005
Posts: 809
|
| Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 11:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Interesting observation--
| Quote: | | Time to be a big boy and take responsibility for your life and not blame your mother; society or the spectre (oops, specter) of racism for life's random insensitivities or injustices. Have you yet taken my advice and visited Africa? Your eyes sorely need opening and perhaps the only thing that will do it is a good dose of reality about how blacks treat other blacks. Racism is alive (until dealt with by machete) and well in the land of at least half of your ancestors. Talk to a few Hutus or Tutsis, for example. Take a look at the physical and mental scars of those that survive. Why don't you describe your life to them. How many of them do you suppose would want your miserable life??? |
--but terribly wrong not only in its juxtapositions but in the bland platitudes on life and injustice. A trip to Africa would not enlighten one either on the nature of racism nor the implications of historical slavery. An appeal to Africa is as ridiculous in the mouth of an avocat de la negritude as it is in any attempt at pseudo-absolution of 19th century Anglo-American slavery.
Now there might be a hint of truth if what was written was more or less an appeal to "get over it", but hey through a social microscope the problem of "the other" is universal. Nevertheless, such should not blind us to the particulars of a curiously American problem |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
