quote:Originally posted by MBM:
I'm sorry that this thread devolved into personal attacks. I wished we could have dealt with the issue and not with the people. That said, I certainly understand why the discussion went where it did. When one's identity is attacked it is hard not to respond defensively/offensively.
That said - I wonder if someone could address the point of my post in this thread: that just about everything we do is white. There are plenty of people on this site - in this thread - who's "black credentials" are rock solid. At the same time I could certainly see how someone might call them white for being on the internet. The internet is white (Al Gore invented it remember! ). Message boards are white. Couldn't what we are doing now be considered a rather "white" activity?
In a world where just about everything we know is in some way attached to something white, how - credibly - can one make the attack that someone is "acting white"? Aren't just about ALL activities white until large portions of black folks adopt the activity/behavior? For example, since some of our youth so glorify the gangsta/mob culture, aren't they "acting white" trying to pattern themselves after the Italian Mafia? Aren't hip hop apparel designers "acting white" - in essence - by putting their spin on wholly western/white clothes? I've never seen a Pelle Pelle dashiki! Isn't BET white? It's exploiting black music but doing so in a white owned company over a white controlled medium with white owned equipment reporting to white management.
You see my point?
Good point, MBM. You were a bit tongue in cheek, but it still made me think about what classifies something as being specific to one group, especially when this something is an innovation upon another concept from another group, or people from outside the group contribuetd to the development of this something. Does that make sense?
Ok this is going a bit but at stormfront those morons are always saying how they invented this or that, much of which were modifications of earlier, Eastern inventions. When someone points this out, they say that even so, they made it better. Yet, they deride any other group that uses or improves "their" technology because they didn't think of it first. That makes no sense: if you improve on a concept, it shows that you're a genius; f someone else does so, it shows they lack creativity? OK, the point of that was to losely illustrate my first paragraph, that of who (group-wise) "owns" an invention or concept.