Active US Hate Groups: Black Separatists

quote:

Also, the Nation of Islam is the most pervasive group listed. Do you consider them a "hate group"?

This has always been a rather curious notion. But, in truth, it's not so much that the site is "anti-bias" as it is PRO a certain type of "race"-orthodoxy which it reveals, rather openly from what you quoted:

quote:

From the site: "Black separatists typically oppose integration and racial intermarriage, and they want separate institutions -- or even a separate nation -- for blacks..."

So, essentially, the site holds out Integration as a virtue, in and of itself, right along with "race mixing" and the notion of [WHITE] Jews (at least in some significant portion) = Chosen people.

Of course, anyone who doesn't subscribe to that Orthodoxy = "HATER".
And, despite, the blatantly obvious historical difference between the NOI, e.g., and the WHITE HATE GROUPS the site associates the NOI with... Well, we're left with little besides the fact that the NOI doesn't subscribe to the (New) Race Orthodoxy (for White folks).

Now, clearly, they/one could point to the "White Man = Devil" rhetoric and characterize that as "hate" but, again, it differs sharply from the White Hate Groups the site lumps the NOI in with.

quote:

Originally posted by Nmaginate:
from what you quoted:

quote:

From the site: "Black separatists typically oppose integration and racial intermarriage, and they want separate institutions -- or even a separate nation -- for blacks..."

So, essentially, the site holds out Integration as a virtue, in and of itself, right along with "race mixing" and the notion of [WHITE] Jews (at least in some significant portion) = Chosen people.

Of course, anyone who doesn't subscribe to that Orthodoxy = "HATER".
And, despite, the blatantly obvious historical difference between the NOI, e.g., and the WHITE HATE GROUPS the site associates the NOI with... Well, we're left with little besides the fact that the NOI doesn't subscribe to the (New) Race Orthodoxy (for White folks).

Now, clearly, they/one could point to the "White Man = Devil" rhetoric and characterize that as "hate" but, again, it differs sharply from the White Hate Groups the site lumps the NOI in with.

good points.

What I want to know is what kind of criteria is used to determine the NOI and the NBPP are hate groups? I frankly don't feel that either the NOI or NBPP are hate groups. Additionally, if they are asking for seperation, there are plenty of public records and accounts to back up their point of view.
Neither of these groups have tried to purposely disenfranchise, dehumanize, or physically and mentally destroy anyone. This is a case of blacks vs. white liberals and what they think that we should think or do. The NOI and NBPP are no where near groups such as the KKK who have even had sympathizers on the Supreme court and the various citizens' councils whose main goal was to keep us disenfranchised take away our liberty as human beings.
Both of those groups are like the Girl Scouts in comparison. Furthermore, if A. Philip Randolph and the Sleeping Car Porters were considered a threat and were extensively documented by the FBI, how valid is this charge of the NOI and NBPP being hate groups?
I don't agree with this designation.

quote:

What I want to know is what kind of criteria is used to determine the NOI and the NBPP are hate groups?

Well, it seems like there is a nexus between the NOI = "hate" group and the "Chosen People" issue:

quote:

The Church of Morris Dees By Ken Silverstein Harper's Magazine, November 2000 - How the Southern Poverty Law Center profits from intolerance

In one case cited by Mr. Silverstein, Morris Dees won a judgment for a black woman whose son was killed by Klansmen. She received $51,875 as settlement. Mr. Dees, according to an investigation by the Montgomery Advertiser, pulled in $9 million from fund-raising solicitation letters that featured a particularly gruesome photograph of the grieving mother's son. Mr. Dees, who pays himself an annual salary of $275,000, offered the grieving mother none of the $9 million her son's death made for him... Mr. Dees took in $44 million from gullible contributors, mostly white, in 1999 and spent $13 million actually trying to help the poor and beaten down, mostly black, fight for their civil rights...

"You are a fraud and a con man," Stephen Bright, director of the Southern Center for Human Rights, which actually takes on dozens of death-penalty appeals for poor blacks every year, once told him. "You spend so much, accomplish so little, and promote yourself so shamelessly." Mr. Dees does not take death-penalty cases because this might scare off contributors in safe white liberal neighborhoods, many of whom imagine that the death penalty keeps black robbers, rapists and murderers off their streets. White guilt can be manipulated with black pain, but it has to be done carefully. It's a sordid scam. Some people would call what Morris Dees does a hate crime, but it's a living, and a very good one.

...CounterPunch says SPLC purposefully creates hysteria and fears about the right wing and extremist groups to raise money. So far their strategy has worked: Dees and SPLC have built a $100 million endowment.

... I began to see this long-term goal take shape when I learned in 1998 that with heavy lobbying from the ADL, the influential Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and its founder Morris Dees had for the first time in decades declared the Nation of Islam a "hate-group". This was a major development as the SPLC had traditionally targeted real hate groups that had for years physically attacked Blacks. The decision to include the NOI on the list was met with skepticism and suspicion by some Black groups but Dees, after admitting it wasn't an easy decision and that he was not fully informed of the NOI's track record, decided to maintain the "hate-group" designation. The Hate-Crimes Hoodwink at blackelectorate.com The Hate-Crimes Hoodwink at blackelectorate.com ... Interestingly, Black leaders and organizations did not speak out when the Nation of Islam was designated as a "hate-group" by Morris Dees Southern Poverty Law Center - an organization that works hand-in-hand with civil-rights organizations, the ADL and FBI and which is pushing for hate-crimes legislation that we believe is ultimately aimed at outlawing the Nation of Islam and other "unacceptable" groups in the Black community....

http://www.zpub.com/notes/znote-splc.html

I'm not quite sure about the source (liberal-progressive, apparently... with what slant? I don't know) but one has to wonder.

Coming from an anti-bias/racism etc. site, isn't the assertion that Jews are the "chosen people" rather odd? -- MBM

That is odd...

So, essentially, the site holds out Integration as a virtue, in and of itself, right along with "race mixing" - Nmaginate

Okay, so a group comprised of white people that strived for separatism would not be a hate group? Lets say that this group was not preaching for blacks and other minorities to be treated unequal, but wanted whites to segregate??

quote:

Originally posted by Yemaya:
Neither of these groups have tried to purposely disenfranchise, dehumanize, or physically and mentally destroy anyone. This is a case of blacks vs. white liberals and what they think that we should think or do. The NOI and NBPP are no where near groups such as the KKK who have even had sympathizers on the Supreme court and the various citizens' councils whose main goal was to keep us disenfranchised take away our liberty as human beings.
Both of those groups are like the Girl Scouts in comparison. Furthermore, if A. Philip Randolph and the Sleeping Car Porters were considered a threat and were extensively documented by the FBI, how valid is this charge of the NOI and NBPP being hate groups?
I don't agree with this designation.

I agree.

quote:

Originally posted by Sweetwuzzy:

Okay, so a group comprised of white people that strived for separatism would not be a hate group?

"Okay, so..." It's time for you to: TRY AGAIN.

quote:

Lets say that this group was not preaching for blacks and other minorities to be treated unequal, but wanted whites to segregate??

"Let's say..." you come up with something real first, then we consider something you have to say. That is, if you have an issue with what I suggested about Integration... come out and say it. Establish how Integration, in and of itself, is a "virtue" or whatever it is you feel about it. This "what if" approach won't defend that or advance anything in that regard.

You either have a position that you can articulate (and defend) or you don't. Likewise, either you can demonstrate how a position you disagree with is in err (or is disagreeable in its own right, on its own merits) or you can't.

quote:

Originally posted by MBM:
Also, the Nation of Islam is the most pervasive group listed. Do you consider them a "hate group"?

I neveer thought of them as one.

quote:

From the site: "Black separatists typically oppose integration and racial intermarriage, and they want separate institutions -- or even a separate nation -- for blacks. Most forms of black separatism are strongly anti-white and anti-Semitic, and a number of religious versions assert that blacks -- not Jews -- are the Biblical "chosen people" of God."

But isn't that what/how Black Separatists think/believe? I mean, if you substituted the word "white" for "black" wouldn't you call such a group haters?

quote:

I mean, if you substituted the word "white" for "black" wouldn't you call such a group haters?

That's the problem. There is no such "substitution" that is as simple as that. Now, reconcile your Thought 1 with your Thought 2. I mean, if you never thought of the NOI as a "hate group" then... why not? I mean, you're suggesting a substitution can be done. So do you come to a different conclusion?

Do you now feel like the NOI is a "hate group"?
If so, why? If not, why?

Explain if and why you believe the NOI to be different from White separatists/hate groups (since it seems like you do)?

Yemaya already submitted something to consider:
Neither of these groups [NOI and the NBPP] have tried to purposely disenfranchise, dehumanize, or physically and mentally destroy anyone.

Those things would seem to loom large and make for significant factors... White groups that profess to favor segregation/separation, etc. for "positive" reasons, their rhetoric has always amounted to little more than a shell for the things noted by Yemaya. So, it's not favoring "segregation" that's the issue but what those groups want to accomplish by it.

So, that's where a marked difference exists. That is, unless you're aware of and you're willing to defend the claims of a White separatist group that claims to prefer separation for supposedly innocuous reasons. Or, more importantly, for comparable reasons so-called Black Separatists favor said "separation."

"Integration" is not a virtue unto itself. To be "against" it is no sin, in and of itself. MLK questioned Integration.
So what seems to be the problem?

quote:

Originally posted by MBM:
A listing of "Black Separatist" groups in the U.S.

link

From the site: "Black separatists typically oppose integration and racial intermarriage, and they want separate institutions -- or even a separate nation -- for blacks. Most forms of black separatism are strongly anti-white and anti-Semitic, and a number of religious versions assert that blacks -- not Jews -- are the Biblical "chosen people" of God."

Coming from an anti-bias/racism etc. site, isn't the assertion that Jews are the "chosen people" rather odd?

Also, the Nation of Islam is the most pervasive group listed. Do you consider them a "hate group"?

Thanks for the listing MBM! I've been/am a member of all the groups mentioned at some point in my short lifetime(and can think of some others I've been a memeber of that would qualify using their standards) accept the "New Marcus Garvey Movement Black Panther Nation"... Too bad their isn't a local Dallas Chapter.

I do consider the NOI a hate group. They believe that Whites are inferior to Blacks and believe that a Black scientist "grafted" White people 6000 years ago. They also call White people "White Devils". If they view Whites as inferior or something to be exterminated or subjugated, that does make them a hate group. There is a distince difference between Black Nationalism and Black Supremacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_of_Islam#Teachings_on_race

quote:

The Nation of Islam teaches that Black people were the original humans. Louis Farrakhan has stated that "White people are potential humans...they haven't evolved yet." (Philadelphia Inquirer, 3/18/00).

"The Blackman is the original man. From him came all brown, yellow, red, and white people. By using a special method of birth control law, the Blackman was able to produce the white race. This method of birth control was developed by a Black scientist known as Yakub, who envisioned making and teaching a nation of people who would be diametrically opposed to the Original People. A Race of people who would one day rule the original people and the earth for a period of 6,000 years. Yakub promised his followers that he would graft a nation from his own people, and he would teach them how to rule his people, through a system of tricks and lies whereby they use deceit to divide and conquer, and break the unity of the darker people, put one brother against another, and then act as mediators and rule both sides." (Elijah Muhammad, Message to the Blackman in America, Muhammad's Temple No. 2, 1965 & Dorothy Blake Fardan, Yakub and the Origins of White Supremacy, Lushena Books, 2001)

I can't say too much about the NBPP because I don't know that much about them.


In our strive for Black Unity and Black Liberation, I see no need to defend unproductive and untrue elements of the struggle. Black Liberation needs no crank pseudoscientific theories on racial superiority/inferiority. Race Superiority is a White Man's game (as in an elite European creation).

quote:

Originally posted by Empty Purnata:
In our strive for Black Unity and Black Liberation, I see no need to defend unproductive and untrue elements of the struggle. Black Liberation needs no crank pseudoscientific theories on racial superiority/inferiority. Race Superiority is a White Man's game (as in an elite European creation).

True, but sometimes it is fun to hear the creative ways the NOI insult white folks, quite entertaining.

quote:

Originally posted by Empty Purnata:
I do consider the NOI a hate group. They believe that Whites are inferior to Blacks and believe that a Black scientist "grafted" White people 6000 years ago. They also call White people "White Devils". If they view Whites as inferior or something to be exterminated or subjugated, that does make them a hate group. There is a distince difference between Black Nationalism and Black Supremacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_of_Islam#Teachings_on_race

quote:

The Nation of Islam teaches that Black people were the original humans. Louis Farrakhan has stated that "White people are potential humans...they haven't evolved yet." (Philadelphia Inquirer, 3/18/00).

"The Blackman is the original man. From him came all brown, yellow, red, and white people. By using a special method of birth control law, the Blackman was able to produce the white race. This method of birth control was developed by a Black scientist known as Yakub, who envisioned making and teaching a nation of people who would be diametrically opposed to the Original People. A Race of people who would one day rule the original people and the earth for a period of 6,000 years. Yakub promised his followers that he would graft a nation from his own people, and he would teach them how to rule his people, through a system of tricks and lies whereby they use deceit to divide and conquer, and break the unity of the darker people, put one brother against another, and then act as mediators and rule both sides." (Elijah Muhammad, Message to the Blackman in America, Muhammad's Temple No. 2, 1965 & Dorothy Blake Fardan, Yakub and the Origins of White Supremacy, Lushena Books, 2001)

I can't say too much about the NBPP because I don't know that much about them.


In our strive for Black Unity and Black Liberation, I see no need to defend unproductive and untrue elements of the struggle. Black Liberation needs no crank pseudoscientific theories on racial superiority/inferiority. Race Superiority is a White Man's game (as in an elite European creation).

Please defend the humanity and righteousness of white people collectively over their span of history and sojourn and relation to black people. Please explain how as a people they are not devils.

Please do not point out a minority of white people. But the collective. Please do not explain the wrongdoings of blacks (under the system or influence of white dominated control or pressure) to justify the wrongdoings of white people.

Thank you in advance for your defense of white people.

quote:

Please defend the humanity and righteousness of white people collectively over their span of history and sojourn and relation to black people. Please explain how as a people they are not devils.

Please do not point out a minority of white people. But the collective. Please do not explain the wrongdoings of blacks (under the system or influence of white dominated control or pressure) to justify the wrongdoings of white people.

Thank you in advance for your defense of white people.

There is something to be said for how careless it is to lump the so-called "hate" certain Black folks "have" in with that of Whites. Me, I just can't divorce any of that from it's context. But maybe the playground teacher is right...

The child who passes licks with a classmate after first be struck... Well, it's only right to classify them in the same exact manner. They both were hitting each other, right?

Or, take it this way. One classmate says, "I hate you" to another child in a hateful manner no doubt. The other child retaliates, "I hate you (back)." Same thing. I understand that.

See, my problem is, I'm biased and I don't take most of what the NOI expresses in the way of "hate" to be much more than empty rhetoric, rhetoric born out of a REACTION to the much more material and impacting "hate" present and presented and that not just by so-called "hate" groups.

Most of all, my problem is that I have this thing were I believe Black folks can be human. I know... I know... It seems revolutionary but, seriously, I don't expect Black folks to be perfect. And, I'm thinking... out of all the people in the world, Black folks should rank right up there with people who have every reason to "hate." Of course, it's my very limited knowledge that causes me to be at a loss for why White folks "hate." But such is my bias. My bias that makes me go beyond saying, "espouses disdain for another group... CHECK !" You know, and that's it.

So, really, I have some serious issues with EP's remarks and they go back to something we've discussed about coalitions, IMO. Anyway, I'm not buying the underlying ideas in the "In our strive for Black Unity and Black Liberation, I see no need to defend unproductive and untrue elements of the struggle" rhetoric.

My, I didn't know seeking to be accurate and truthful about clear distinctions between such groups amounted to "defending" their particular pseudo-racist beliefs. And I can think of a lot of "unproductive" ideas and just as many problems with merely mouthing the words Black Unity and Black Liberation. One problem I see is one that's embodied in the (New) Race Orthodoxy that the Integration/Intermarriage logic are an epitome of.

It seems to me that some people have assimilated the lessons Whites took away from the Civil Rights Era as our own. That's my problem with the Integration logic... That Black folks should respond to the idea of Integration the way (mainstream) Whites should/have as if it is a virtue, in and of itself.

But maybe someone can tell me what's "unproductive" and why. I also want to know what's so "productive" about the Integration mindset (whatever it is that people see in the concept as it relates to Race Relations).

Doesn't the weight of one's analysis about these groups have to fall on actions and deeds and not just beliefs. Personally, I could care less if there were groups who thought all manner of ridiculous things - if they keep it to themselves then they poison only each other. The NOI may think certain things, but I think it's offensive to those of us who have routinely been the victims/targets of hate groups in this country to lump them in with a group like the Aryan Nation or the Skinheads or the Klan. I don't believe the Nation has ventered anywhere near the level of violence, criminal activity, and - well - murder, that these white supremacists have.

Beyond that, the Nation does all manner of things which even the most jaded person would consider positive and productive for our community. Have these white groups done that?

Lastly, it's interesting that this group includes "separatists" as a part of their criteria. Aren't Zionists separatists? It's OK for the "chosen people" to have a Jewish state but not for African Americans - is that it?

quote:

Lastly, it's interesting that this group includes "separatists" as a part of their criteria. Aren't Zionists separatist? nono It's OK for the "chosen people" to have a Jewish state but not for African Americans - is that it?

Damn, hammer... You're dropping it (the hammer). DON'T HURT 'EM!



It goes without saying... You are 100% correct. The Jewish state is just that. The irony and WHITE SUPREMACY thick. (And, yes, I include Zionist Jews in that group which is not to be confused with white supremacists. I'm talking about that Abe Lincoln WHITE SUPREMACY. That MANIFEST DESTINY... WHITE SUPREMACY that the state of Israel is a continuation of.)

quote:

Beyond that, the Nation does all manner of things which even the most jaded person would consider positive and productive for our community. Have these white groups done that?

Though it's perhaps possible for someone to make that argument for "these White groups", it is interesting to note the counterposition to EP's notion of "unproductiveness."

The irony is thick.

quote:

Originally posted by MBM:
Doesn't the weight of one's analysis about these groups have to fall on actions and deeds and not just beliefs. Personally, I could care less if there were groups who thought all manner of ridiculous things - if they keep it to themselves then they poison only each other. The NOI may think certain things, but I think it's offensive to those of us who have routinely been the victims/targets of hate groups in this country to lump them in with a group like the Aryan Nation or the Skinheads or the Klan. I don't believe the Nation has ventered anywhere near the level of violence, criminal activity, and - well - murder, that these white supremacists have.

My sentiments exactly, MBM.

quote:

Originally posted by Nmaginate:
Do you now feel like the NOI is a "hate group"?
If so, why? If not, why?

Explain if and why you believe the NOI to be different from White separatists/hate groups (since it seems like you do)?

Again, I have never thought of them as one, as I just said in my post. In case I didn't make myself clear ... no, I do not think of them as a "hate group". I don't know how to state it any plainer than that.

The reason is because I don't have any recollection of them actually committing violence towards other groups, and I generally associate a hate group with those that do violent acts against those they hate. Perhaps I have a better understanding or a different thought process about the NOI being that they are a Black group and I understand where the sentiment and anger comes from, and though I don't necessarily agree, I can relate.

Be that as it may, they do speak of hate towards other people, Whites in particular, and often say those words out loud ... "I hate White people." Such feelings have been expressed on this very board in the past. But, actions and words are two very different things ... and until the NOI goes out and starts lynching White people, I cannot and will not put them in the same category with the KKK.

And lastly, I'm not sure why you would have such a degree of difficulty with substituting one word for another in the paragraph above. It's really just a simple matter of delete and re-write:

quote:

From the site: "White separatists typically oppose integration and racial intermarriage, and they want separate institutions -- or even a separate nation -- for whites. Most forms of white separatism are strongly anti-black and anti-Semitic, and a number of religious versions assert that whites -- not Jews -- are the Biblical "chosen people" of God."

Given the above, I would re-state my question that doesn't that make them sound like a group of "haters"?

And what you just said still doesn't make any sense. You claim that you can't or won't put them in the same category yet you insist on this inane substitution mindlessness.

The "substitution" in words (exchanging Black for White, as you did) does not substitute for what is the observable reality where the two are markedly different. The idea is as silly as substituting WHITE in BET and acting like you're making an equal statement, that a WET is/would represent the exact same thing as BET.

It's a mindless exercise that doesn't say anything. And you even contradict that. You would have to establish what's inherently "wrong" or "racist" or "hateful" in this:
"separatists typically oppose integration and racial intermarriage, and they want separate institutions -- or even a separate nation."

Nothing but a mindless embrace of some unexamined Race Orthodoxy would have you or anyone automatically classify that as an expression of "hate." Explain how that is so, how that automatically makes someone "sound" like a "hater". What is it about opposing Integration that makes one a "hater"?

You have to explain that. What about the separate nation thing? What makes someone a "hater", automatically, just because they favor that?

Now, tell me, does this actually mean something to you:
"actions and words are two very different things"

Note how all you have to hang on the NOI are their "words." So how exactly does the "substitution" work when the same cannot be said for White separatists, etc.?

quote:

Doesn't the weight of one's analysis about these groups have to fall on actions and deeds and not just beliefs.

Says your substitution exercise amounts to mindlessness. What part of:
That's the problem. There is no such "substitution" that is as simple as that.

... don't you understand? What part of that is causing you such difficulty?

Nmaginate ...

Given the amount of time that you've been a member here and the fact that you find fault with almost everyone's views/thoughts/opinions/rationales ... there are very few things said on this board that I expect to make sense to you or that I expect you to understand. So, as usual, your (standard) reply is neither surprising nor interesting. And I shall move on and continue this conversation with people who don't seem to have such a hard time with basic comprehension.

I agree with nost of the posts and points made just some additions...

the 'unproductiveness' that I gleam from referring to white folks as devils is,,

1) Reactionary thought leads to reactionary actions (sometimes)...and as you all probably know by now, being reactionary is not being revolutionary

2) I know many people that I have conversated with that espouse the 'white folks are the devil'(as well as reptilians) thing and this causes them to think that they are somehow not human(I' not defending White folks humanity here, that is their job). I'm talking about how it makes some Black folk think that they are super-human(albeit in an evil way) and got the game sewed up, and that us fellow humans can't kick their ass if we wanted to on this earthly plane. In other words, they are looking for a super-human answer to solving the 'devil' problem, and instead of taking up the fight against them ourselves, we easily adopt a 'messianic' mentality and wait for some type of apocalyptic spiritual redemption to fall from above to stop their oppression and exploitation of us.

I know this is not the N.O.I.'s teachings. They mean white folks have a devilish nature, similar to the the reptilian/animal nature, or 'lower self' that many Eastern and African spiritual systems refer to. No argument from me with that concept when speaking of what the European/Western culture fosters, hence their are 'Black devils' too in their own teachings... but I've seen the 'devil' concept affect progressive Black folks around the activist community in the previousely mentioned way.

But then again this ideology could be blamed equally as much on these folks literalist X-tian indoctrination as children.

Besides these 2 points, I don't even blink when I here African people refer to Europeans as devils...if anyone ever earned(and continues to earn) being called a name, it is white folks. Plus, I'd rather people hate their oppressor than themselves.

"If white people don't want to be called the devil, then they should stop acting like one."

-my mother


MBM,

Zionism fosters an excuselvey Jewish bourgeois imperialist state dominated by Askenasim culture.

Please don't compare that to the the want of African people to have control over a land base, the basic requirement for any people's self determination. They are apples and oranges.

quote:

Originally posted by EbonyRose:
Nmaginate ...

Given the amount of time that you've been a member here and the fact that you find fault with almost everyone's views/thoughts/opinions/rationales ... there are very few things said on this board that I expect to make sense to you or that I expect you to understand. So, as usual, your (standard) reply is neither surprising nor interesting. And I shall move on and continue this conversation with people who don't seem to have such a hard time with basic comprehension.

More mindlessness....

Again... You would have to establish what's inherently "wrong" or "racist" or "hateful" in this:
"separatists typically oppose integration and racial intermarriage, and they want separate institutions -- or even a separate nation."

Can you do that? Obviously not.
If you were honest, that's why you're MOVING ON! Per your usual.



Explain how that is so, how that automatically makes someone "sound" like a "hater".
What is it about opposing Integration that makes one a "hater"?

Can you explain that?



What about the separate nation thing?
What makes someone a "hater", automatically, just because they favor that?

Very basic questions. Easy to comprehend and address if your "substitution" idea ever made any real sense. I mean, you put that part in the "substitution." Explain it.


This, too, is very simple and easy to understand:
The "substitution" in words (exchanging Black for White, as you did) does not substitute for what is the observable reality where the two are markedly different. The idea is as silly as substituting WHITE in BET and acting like you're making an equal statement, that a WET is/would represent the exact same thing as BET.

What seems to be your problem with it?

Or would you... have you... will you suggest that a "substitution" can be made and the two, WHITE Entertainment TV vs. BLACK Entertainment TV, "sound" the same or reflect something that can be seen as the "same": that the two can be substituted, one for the other.

quote:

the fact that you find fault with almost everyone's views/thoughts/opinions/rationales

There's your problem. I'm trying to find the logic in your "substitution" exercise which you yourself complicate and apparently can't explain.

Again, You would have to establish what's inherently "wrong" or "racist" or "hateful" in the idea of "separatism", etc.

Apparently, you can't. I would think after all this time, for as long as you've been a poster... that you would be able to explain the things you believe/say.

quote:

1) Reactionary thought leads to reactionary actions (sometimes)...and as you all probably know by now, being reactionary is not being revolutionary

Now that's something we can talk about but quite a bit of things can be and have been labeled as "reactionary" in nature. Revolution as an idea isn't very popular.

The so-called Civil Rights Establishment, perhaps even so-called "mainstream" Black thought has been criticized for it's "reactionary" (i.e. not proactive) stance.

You're a sick man, Nmaginate.

And I am not going to defend nor explain things I never said. Not even for you.

quote:

Originally posted by Oshun Auset:

Zionism fosters an excuselvey Jewish bourgeois imperialist state dominated by Askenasim culture.

Please don't compare that to the the want of African people to have control over a land base, the basic requirement for any people's self determination. They are apples and oranges.

I wasn't. The site lists "separatism" as a driver of who is a "hate group". It also says that some of the black groups say that they are the chosen people - "and not the Jews". I just thought it curious that the site would attack the will of some to be self-determined but not others.

quote:

And I am not going to defend things I never said. Not even for you.

Keep trying but you did say:
I mean, if you substituted the word "white" for "black" wouldn't you call such a group haters?

So my questions stand and you just can't defend your own little remarks made either without thinking or made hoping you could suggest that the "substitution" works for all that you quoted:

quote:

"Black separatists typically oppose integration and racial intermarriage, and they want separate institutions -- or even a separate nation -- for blacks. Most forms of black separatism are strongly anti-white and anti-Semitic, and a number of religious versions assert that blacks -- not Jews -- are the Biblical "chosen people" of God."

So, yes, if your "substitution" thing is to work, you will have to establish how:

[1] Opposing Integration is tantamount to being a "hater."
(You suggested the substitution works, so that I idea must follow.)

[2] Favoring separation or one's own nation = "hater" (i.e. "sounds" like "hate").


That's what you clearly suggested by quoting the statement and then saying:
But isn't that what/how Black Separatists think/believe?
I mean, if you substituted the word "white" for "black" wouldn't you call such a group haters?

Note: You substituted "white" in the part that spoke about OPPOSING INTEGRATION and WANTING SEPARATE INSTITUTIONS/NATION.

So, you said plenty for me to pose these questions that cause you problems because you can't explain how you jumped to the "hate" conclusion because you really can't say how such things automatically "sound" hateful. So the clear answer from several people here to your rhetorical (please validate me) question is:

NO. No I wouldn't allow for such a ridiculous substitution exercise. Neither would the author of the thread, apparently.

When the idea is to not place them in the same category... then "substitutions", like the one you suggest, fall flat. As if what Black people do is/can be defined by what Whites do. (That was inherent in your substitution principle.)

quote:

Originally posted by Nmaginate:

quote:

1) Reactionary thought leads to reactionary actions (sometimes)...and as you all probably know by now, being reactionary is not being revolutionary

Now that's something we can talk about but quite a bit of things can be and have been labeled as "reactionary" in nature. Revolution as an idea isn't very popular.

True, but these groups in particular often self proclaim that they are revolutionary when they are actually being reactionary in ideology.

quote:

The so-called Civil Rights Establishment, perhaps even so-called "mainstream" Black thought has been criticized for it's "reactionary" (i.e. not proactive) stance.

No argument from me there... I'm no 'mainsteamer' in thought. Although I take great issue with people who criticize the civil rights movement for this. IMO it would have continued onto revolution(or at least a call for the redistribution ofr wealth, which in this country would definately lead to revolution) hence the FBI coitelpro and assasination interfearence...

quote:

True, but these groups in particular often slef proclaim that they are revolutionary when they are actually being reactionary.

So very true...

quote:

I take great issue with people who criticize the civil rights movement for this.

You and me both.

quote:

IMO it would have continued onto revolution

Whether it would or would not have... it sure seems like a lot of "mainstreamers" are adverse to those "revolutionary" ideas.

redistribution of wealth

A lot of folks are really just now wrapping their heads around the idea of Reparations. Redistribution of Wealth, then, hasn't been something "mainstreamers" have wholeheartedly insisted on or made as an essential part of their politics.

quote:

Originally posted by Nmaginate:
redistribution of wealth

A lot of folks are really just now wrapping their heads around the idea of Reparations. Redistribution of Wealth, then, hasn't been something "mainstreamers" have wholeheartedly insisted on or made as an essential part of their politics.

What's sad is that this is what MLK was all about right before his assasination(Poor People's Campaign), and IMO that is one of the main reasons 'they' made the decision that he had to be murdered.

People don't know much about our 'mainstream' civil right's leader(s) and what his objectives were. Folks nowadays only know(or IMO only use) the "I have dream" MLK and know little about the man's true ideology. Him and Malcolm were coming together... They both had to go.

That's what happens when 'we' only deal with 'their' corporate owned media soundbites... 'They don't hilight that speech for nothin'

If we don't get rid of this shitstem I wouldn't be surprised if within a couple generations MLK and Bob Marley end up being morphed together in mythos and made into another White Jesus...Call me paranoid.

quote:

isn't the assertion that Jews are the "chosen people" rather odd? Confused

Also, the Nation of Islam is the most pervasive group listed. Do you consider them a "hate group"? Confused

Chosen to do what? I've always had a problem with that form of "racism"...how in the hell can one race of people be better than the rest of us based on a document written by man? I don't trust "man's" version/interpretation about anything...he lies too much! At one while he called us subhumans! Now was that true?

No....I don't considered Islam any more a hate group than Christians or Jews. They all want their "claim" to one God-and will kill for it. History proves that. They are just humans hating humans and using a "God" to justify the hate...that's all. This been going on for centuries....

Again I must stand by my position that neither of these groups are hate groups. The NOI and the NBPP has been on this list for some time now, but there is not a justifiable reason as to why. I mean you have to really consider the definition of this by the Southern Poverty Law Center:

quote:

From the site: "Black separatists typically oppose integration and racial intermarriage, and they want separate institutions -- or even a separate nation -- for blacks. Most forms of black separatism are strongly anti-white and anti-Semitic, and a number of religious versions assert that blacks -- not Jews -- are the Biblical "chosen people" of God."

This definition is problematic IMO because there are black jews. So why can't blacks be the chosen people. Additionally, being anti-white doesn't mean that these groups have again, deprived anyone of their humanity or committed outright murder of anyone solely based on their race.
Here is a link to the racial incidents so far for 2006. The majority of these incidents, violence were by whites against non-whites. The other so called incidents include a black guy who was prosecuted in Long Island because he was throwing bricks off an overpass. This hardly qualifies as a hate crime! It is a crime, a dumb crime; but not a hate crime.
I'm interested in knowing what the NOI and the NBPP did to get on this list. I would love to hear the answer to that!
Additionally, I'd like to point out that there are four so-called Black Seperatist/Hate groups.
However, there are so many white hate groups that they break them down into six different catagories including a catagory for othersand the lists are FULL. And they honestly have rationalized that the NOI and NBPP are a threat? Something is wrong with their logic.

Q:I'm interested in knowing what the NOI and the NBPP did to get on this list. I would love to hear the answer to that!

A: Be anti-Zionist and want self determination for Africann people.

You know Black people being politically aware and wanting to act on it is dangerous to 'the man'!

quote:

I'm interested in knowing what the NOI and the NBPP did to get on this list. I would love to hear the answer to that!

Additionally, I'd like to point out that there are four so-called Black Seperatist/Hate groups.
However, there are so many white hate groups that they break them down into six different catagories including a catagory for othersand the lists are FULL. And they honestly have rationalized that the NOI and NBPP are a threat? Something is wrong with their logic.

As you've probably already read, this is their "logic":

Although the Southern Poverty Law Center recognizes that much black racism in America is, at least in part, a response to centuries of white racism, it believes racism must be exposed in all its forms. White groups espousing beliefs similar to Black Separatists would be considered clearly racist. The same criterion should be applied to all groups regardless of their color.

Pretty shaky "logic", real shaky when you consider how the little disclaimer ("black racism = response to white racism" a la "The Hate That Hate Made") has no consequence in their formulation. But, while I question their "same criterion" idea, there is one that can be applied. The problem is, SPLC fails to articulate it in a rush to lump them in with, as you noted, the multitude of White groups which, again, I'm at a loss to know what's their angst is a "response" to.

quote:

Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
What's sad is that this is what MLK was all about right before his assasination(Poor People's Campaign), and IMO that is one of the main reasons 'they' made the decision that he had to be murdered.

People don't know much about our 'mainstream' civil right's leader(s) and what his objectives were. Folks nowadays only know(or IMO only use) the "I have dream" MLK and know little about the man's true ideology. Him and Malcolm were coming together... They both had to go.

That's what happens when 'we' only deal with 'their' corporate owned media soundbites... 'They don't hilight that speech for nothin'

If we don't get rid of this shitstem I wouldn't be surprised if within a couple generations MLK and Bob Marley end up being morphed together in mythos and made into another White Jesus...Call me paranoid.

Okay, Nmaginate ...

I'm going to type this real slow in hopes that it will help you better understand what I am saying.

I am not going to sit here and explain or try to defend things that you totally have made up in your head because that would be psychotic. I did not say this:

Again... You would have to establish what's inherently "wrong" or "racist" or "hateful" in this:
"separatists typically oppose integration and racial intermarriage, and they want separate institutions -- or even a separate nation."

nor this:

Explain how that is so, how that automatically makes someone "sound" like a "hater".
What is it about opposing Integration that makes one a "hater"?

nor this:

What makes someone a "hater", automatically, just because they favor that?

nor this:

Again, You would have to establish what's inherently "wrong" or "racist" or "hateful" in the idea of "separatism", etc.

nor any of this:

So, yes, if your "substitution" thing is to work, you will have to establish how:

[1] Opposing Integration is tantamount to being a "hater."
(You suggested the substitution works, so that I idea must follow.)

[2] Favoring separation or one's own nation = "hater" (i.e. "sounds" like "hate").


You made all that up and ascribed it to me!! And, again, I'm not going to play "Psycho for a Day" with you and try to explain or defend any of that crap! It's not what I said or think or believe. So, if you want an explanation to any of that you need to explain it to your damn self because you made it up and therefore you would be the best candidate for that job!

Now, what I did say is this:

quote:

The reason is because I don't have any recollection of them actually committing violence towards other groups, and I generally associate a hate group with those that do violent acts against those they hate. Perhaps I have a better understanding or a different thought process about the NOI being that they are a Black group and I understand where the sentiment and anger comes from, and though I don't necessarily agree, I can relate.

Be that as it may, they do speak of hate towards other people, Whites in particular, and often say those words out loud ... "I hate White people." Such feelings have been expressed on this very board in the past. But, actions and words are two very different things ... and until the NOI goes out and starts lynching White people, I cannot and will not put them in the same category with the KKK.

And if you wish to discuss this (minus all your fantasy land concocted notions about what you thought I said) ... I say let's go for it!! For good measure, let me give you a headstart ...

As far as I'm concerned, I don't think of the NOI as a hate group. I think of the KKK as a hate group. Why? Because the KKK has a history of commiting violent acts against Black people, where the NOI has not done the same against White people. That's my personal criteria for the designation of a "hate group."

The two groups basically have the same ideology of Black/White separatism, respectively, and by the definition of "separatists" given by that website I think both would qualify. Many members of both groups "hate" the other and make no secret of it. But any one of us can "hate" but not be a "hate group" by my definition.

The criteria or distinction or designation by those at that website may be somthing else, I don't know. Maybe you should ask them if you are confused. But do not put their words in my mouth. I have my own, thank you, and no problem expressing them.

quote:

As far as I'm concerned, I don't think of the NOI as a hate group. I think of the KKK as a hate group.

That's understood. We're past that point. At issue is the rhetorical question you posed.

quote:

You made all that up and ascribed it to me!!

BS!!! If the NOI is to "sound" like a "hate" group because of their "separatist views" then you would have to establish how:

[1] Opposing Integration is tantamount to being a "hater."

[2] Favoring separation or one's own nation = "hater" (i.e. "sounds" like "hate").

PERIOD!

You asked the question. You based it off of the given profile. Now it's on you to show how those things automatically make someone holding those views makes them "sound" like a "hate" group.

Nowhere do you find a claim where I said you said X, Y, or Z. I did say, however, that in order for the "substitution" to work and in order for the NOI (or any group, White or Black, for that matter) to "sound" like a "hate" group via the profile from the site (which you co-signed in terms of it "sounding" like a "hate" group per your question) that you would have to show how those things listed in the profile makes a group "sound" like "haters".

Your problem is that you can't defend or find a legitimate rationale for your mindlessness via this "substitution" stuff.

quote:

So, if you want an explanation to any of that you need to explain it to your damn self because you made it up

No, EBONY... It was your question which you even tried a second time:

quote:

quote:

From the site: "Black separatists typically oppose integration and racial intermarriage, and they want separate institutions -- or even a separate nation -- for blacks. Most forms of black separatism are strongly anti-white and anti-Semitic, and a number of religious versions assert that blacks -- not Jews -- are the Biblical "chosen people" of God."

But isn't that what/how Black Separatists think/believe?
I mean, if you substituted the word "white" for "black" wouldn't you call such a group haters?

So, it's on you to show how being a "separatist" makes one "sound" like a "group of haters."

Don't be shy... STOP MAKING EXCUSES... Explain the BS you let come out your mouth.


It was your question. Now, who were you referring to when you said:

quote:

Given the above, I would re-state my question that doesn't that make them sound like a group of "haters"?

Don't be shy. Explain the stuff you say and want to suggest. GIVEN THE ABOVE includes the OPPOSING INTEGRATION and WANTING A SEPARATE NATION ideas. Speak up. How exactly does holding those beliefs automatically makes someone "sound" like "a group of haters"?

Again, it was your question.

___________________________________________________________

Why ... oh WHY .... did the Good Lord make me so dayum stupid??!!



It was a question, psycho man!! Ever consider that the answer could be "no"?

That would pretty much negate all your babble, now wouldn't it?

(And the question is rhetorical ... don't blow your brain up trying to answer it!)

quote:

Ever consider that the answer could be "no"?

Sorry, not going to work, EBONY... You were not suggesting via that rhetorical question that the answer was.


TRY AGAIN!


"Wouldn't you call such a group haters?" isn't a (pure) YES or NO question. It's a suggestion... "wouldn't you say?"

Regardless, it's still on you to demonstrate how holding those beliefs about Integration and a Separate Nation makes someone "sound" like a "hater." Regardless as to what folks answers are, you still have to explain your views and why you would suggest or even think such views amounted to or sound like "hate" views.


It's not that difficult. Either you can explain why you think or wanted to suggest those things "sound" like "haters" views or you can't.

quote:

That would pretty much negate all your babble, now wouldn't it?

(And the question is rhetorical ... don't blow your brain up trying to answer it!)

That's the same type of question that's at issue!! LMAO!!


Thank you for BLOWING your own brains and your silly excuses out the water! LOL

quote:

Wouldn't you call such a group haters?

*** And the question is rhetorical!!! ***