Skip to main content

When I said: "a person born on the continent of Africa is African" Negro replied:

(quote)
"according to whom?"

(reply)
According to the personl born in Africa if he chooses to be defined that way.
I have a friend born in Nigera who defines himself as Nigerian not African, however if he chose to define himself as African, he would be perfectly right in doing so. That's his decision not mine, yours, or anybody elses. The amount of Pigment in his skin is not a determining factor of weather or not he has this choice thus the white guy born in South Africa can define himself as either South African or African; just as the person born in Asia, Europe, etc can define themselves as such if they choose.---kevin1122

I am inserting myself into your exchange with negrospiritual...if I maybe.

I like, and agree with, your statement regarding the irrelevance of skin color to continental origin.

When I have said this...on this site...I got serious 'static'.

The amazing position was, 'I don't see the difference.'


James Wesley Chester said:

(quote)
"I just looked at your post again.

Your rationale of who you are continues to intrigue me.

Since you 'don't have time to explain African American all the time.' what do you say when you have time to explain the term 'black'?"


(reply)
Intrigued? Well; First of all, I've never had to explain "black". Ya see; in this country, if a person is discribed as black, it doesn't matter what country he came from, you know what he looks like; I've never seen that term disputed.---kevin1122

Can you see the irony of 'I've never had to explain 'black'?

But then you do go on to explain this: '...it doesn't matter what country he came from, you know what he looks like; I've never seen that term disputed.'---kevin1122

OH...MY...GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The term 'black'...applies in that manner..., because in American culture...hegemony...a 'black' mand is a 'black man' is a 'black man'. His national origin is irrelevant. Further...'black' is the term designated...DESIGNATED...for all Americans of unknown African ancestry, PRECISELY BECAUSE, American society has removed the knowledge of ancestral origin, AND created a societal structure to keep that lack of knowledge in place.


I"ve got a question for you:
Do you find the term "black" as insulting or offensive? If so, why?---kevin1122

No.

I do not find the term either insulting or offensive...as a descriptor.

That is true, because 'black' is the SOCIETAL DESCRIPTOR applied to me...as a descendant of American(s) of unknown African ancestry.

While that is an insult, I accept it because we embraced the term to counteract its application to us as a denigration.


PEACE

Jim Chester
James Wesley Chester replies:

(quote)
"OH...MY...GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The term 'black'...applies in that manner..., because in American culture...hegemony...a 'black' mand is a 'black man' is a 'black man'. His national origin is irrelevant. Further...'black' is the term designated...DESIGNATED...for all Americans of unknown African ancestry, PRECISELY BECAUSE, American society has removed the knowledge of ancestral origin, AND created a societal structure to keep that lack of knowledge in place."

(reply)
I disagree with the last part of your statement. The term "black" is designated to Americans who look like you and me weather our ancestry is known or unknown; and the same applies to the term "white".
Next he said concerning the term "black"

(quote)
"While that is an insult, I accept it because we embraced the term to counteract its application to us as a denigration."

(reply)
So why is the term black an insult, but the term white is not?
Also you neglected to answer a question I asked on my previously post:

(quote from kevin on 12/18/08)
"how far do you wanna go to classify someone this way? 5 generations; 10 generations; 20? If all of mankind origionated from Africa, you go back far enough everyone's ancestors can be traced back to Africa. Is everyone African American? I think not"

Your short explanation of african american doesn't seem to address this question.

Kevin
quote:
Nowhere in the definition does it say anything about power so I've always wondered who came up with this idea and how & why did they come to this conclusion?


Has nothing to do with power. Negroes have attempted to spin the definition to exonerate themselves from the same racism and bigotry that they hysterically rant about and condemn others for. End of subject.........
quote:
Originally posted by kevin1122:
James Wesley Chester replies:

(quote)
"OH...MY...GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The term 'black'...applies in that manner..., because in American culture...hegemony...a 'black' mand is a 'black man' is a 'black man'. His national origin is irrelevant. Further...'black' is the term designated...DESIGNATED...for all Americans of unknown African ancestry, PRECISELY BECAUSE, American society has removed the knowledge of ancestral origin, AND created a societal structure to keep that lack of knowledge in place."

(reply)
I disagree with the last part of your statement. The term "black" is designated to Americans who look like you and me weather our ancestry is known or unknown; and the same applies to the term "white".---kevin1122

PRECISELY!!!!!!!

The American societal system is based on color.

The basis of the relationship between European Americans, and African Americans is ABOUT 'SOCIETAL COLOR'


Next he said concerning the term "black"

(quote)
"While that is an insult, I accept it because we embraced the term to counteract its application to us as a denigration."

(reply)
So why is the term black an insult, but the term white is not?
Also you neglected to answer a question I asked on my previously post:---kevin1122

I have no concern about the term 'white'.

Further, insult is in the 'eyes of the beholder'.

If a person who describes himself/herself as 'white' says the term is an insult that is what it is...regardless of the intent of the person using it.


(quote from kevin on 12/18/08)
"how far do you wanna go to classify someone this way? 5 generations; 10 generations; 20? If all of mankind origionated from Africa, you go back far enough everyone's ancestors can be traced back to Africa. Is everyone African American? I think not"
Your short explanation of african american doesn't seem to address this question.---kevin1122

Now you are assigning creation of the term to me??

I have to define 'white'?

For your information...just in case you don't know...the definition is contained in the decision of the Plessy v. Ferguson Decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1896.

I think that determination is 1/32nd.

I further think that translates into five (5) generations.

That decision is saying a person whose African ancestry is more than five generations removed may be considered 'white'.

The Court...NOT ME has said that.

I have never been made aware that the determination has been altered in any way.

Have you?


Kevin


By the way...

I try very hard to not participate in the language...the hegemony...based on .societal color'.

Rather, I am prefer using the continental designations for identity.

This frequently confuses things...for some...so I try to remember to use the full designation of identity (African American-American) to maintain a clarityj of intent.

PEACE

Jim Chester
James Wesley Chester answers my questions.

(quote)
"I have no concern about the term 'white'.

Further, insult is in the 'eyes of the beholder'.

If a person who describes himself/herself as 'white' says the term is an insult that is what it is...regardless of the intent of the person using it.
"

(reply)
Okay! Allow me to rephrase my question:
Why do you as an African American male see it as an insult to be called Black?

(quote)
"For your information...just in case you don't know...the definition is contained in the decision of the Plessy v. Ferguson Decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1896.

I think that determination is 1/32nd.

I further think that translates into five (5) generations.

That decision is saying a person whose African ancestry is more than five generations removed may be considered 'white'.

The Court...NOT ME has said that.

I have never been made aware that the determination has been altered in any way.

Have you?
"

(reply)
You're right! I didn't know. This is definitely news to me; so you are saying according to this case any person of African ancestry 5 generations removed is to be considered WHITE???
Even though slavery existed in this country until 1865, they quit bringing slaves from africa in 1808. Even though some were brought here illegally up until 1859, the vast majority of our anscestors arived in this country pre 1808.
If the average generation is 25 years, a little quick math tells me that according to this Supreme Court case, the majority of us decendants of slaves born after 1933 would be considered white! Is this what you are tellin me? or am I misunderstanding you. If this is what you are sayin, that little bit of information could have been used to smack da hell outta Jim Crow back in the day!

Obviously I am misunderstanding you; please clarify.

Kevin
(reply)
You're right! I didn't know. This is definitely news to me; so you are saying according to this case any person of African ancestry 5 generations removed is to be considered WHITE???

It is important to be specific here, because the decision is specific.

If you are a 5th-generation descendant of an American of unknown African ancestry...YOU ARE 'black'.

The 1/32 is the minimum.

A person who would 'ask' to be considered 'white' would have to prove they are AT LEAST 1/64 in African American blood content.

That is 6th generation....AND THAT IS WITHOUT ANY ADMIXTURE IN BETWEEN!!!!!!!!


Even though slavery existed in this country until 1865, they quit bringing slaves from africa in 1808. Even though some were brought here illegally up until 1859, the vast majority of our anscestors arived in this country pre 1808.
If the average generation is 25 years, a little quick math tells me that according to this Supreme Court case, the majority of us decendants of slaves born after 1933 would be considered white! Is this what you are tellin me? or am I misunderstanding you. If this is what you are sayin, that little bit of information could have been used to smack da hell outta Jim Crow back in the day!

Obviously I am misunderstanding you; please clarify.---kevin1122

First: Please let me note that I am talking about WHO I am...an American who is African American.

The court decision was about WHAT you are...'color'

Who I am trancends my color...including societal 'color'.

Second: Surprisingly, Webster's does not offer a specific number of years constituting 'a generation'.

Rather, Webster's specifies a birth-to-birth span a with no number of years.

Therefore, a generaton can vary from mother-to-mother.

This time span can therefore be a short as puberty-to-puberty...of the mother...,or a long as an woman's end of ovulation.

Thus the observation: 'You look so young to be a grandparent'.

Third: Even your observation could be true ONLY when there was no intervening admixture of African blood...known or unknown.

Lastly: That court decision applied the label in 1896.

You must realize that the decision wrote in 'societal stone' the determination of color for all descendants of Americans of unknown African ancestry from that day forward!!!!

UNTIL I WROTE THAT SENTENCE, I DID NOT REALIZE IT EITHER!!!!!!!!!!!

But, that is the fact.

OH MY!!!!

OH MY!!!

This is further evidence of The DeGruy-Leary Effect.

I was taught that all my life.

I lived it all my life.

ONLY NOW...ONLY NOW have I realized the full impact of that teaching.

THAT COURT DECISION WAS NOT SIMPLY FOR PLESSY.

THAT COURT DECISION ASSIGNED THE DESCRIPTION OF ALL DESCENDANTS...ALL DESCENDANTS...OF AMERICANS OF UNKNOWN AFRICAN ANCESTRY...FOR ALL TIME...IN THIS NATION.

UNTIL WE WHO HAVE BEEN SO DESCRIBED...SAY DIFFERENTLY.

OH MY!!!!!!1

I HAVE TO THANK YOU FOR 'GETTING THIS OUT OF ME'.

THANK YOU!!!!!!!

I am constantly in search of the parameters that define (correction: constrain) me...in my search to define myself.

THIS LIFTS ME TO A NEW...AND BETTER...UNDERSTANING OF WHO I AM.

THANKS AGAIN!!!

Oh..I hope this helps you as well!!!!!!!!1

If you need...or want...further clarification, please let me know.


PEACE

Jim Chester
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by EbonyRose:
quote:
Originally posted by Cocoa Starr:
No. As a group/race, we have not had any significant power in the U.S. to disenfranchise any other group or block them from having any liberties.


Okay ... this means that we, as a group/race, cannot institute a system of racism against any other group. But ... can't we dislike or be prejudiced against other people without taking the action to actually oppress them? Confused


Of course you can!

Racism(and being a racist) are ideologies- plain and simple.

However, blacks actingon their racism as a collective is almost impossible given blacks lack of global power.

And when blacks do or try it will not be an impediment to whites(or some other ethnicity).
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by Wiz:
quote:
Originally posted by sunnubian:
"...but it is still racism"

_____________________________________________

Yeah, but someone thinking evil thoughts about you or believing ignorant information, just does not have the same effect as being hung from a tree, drug behind a truck/car, being burned alive along with your children in the middle of the night, having your land stolen away from you, winding up on a chain-gang for years because you were "lottering" not allowed to attend school/college, not being able to get a job, not being able to rent/purchase a home . . .


What you are talking about is oppression, racist oppression. And it starts very much with what people think



Exactly. I don't understand the confusion
quote:
Originally posted by kevin1122:
Negrospiritual said:

(quote)
quote:


(reply)
The 3 definitions you listed make my point.

*The first is a belief system; You can believe other people are inferior to you and still have love for them

*The second one is bacisally "Institutional Racism" That envolves laws and policies that are racist

*The third is simply hatred for someone because of their race.

I noticed you highlighted #2 to make your point; the question I am asking is can an individual black person be a racist. thus only #1 and #3 can apply because those types of racism can be accomplished by one person; #2 cannot.

If you agree that an individual black person is capable of believing our race is superior to others, (definition #1) and/or you agree that a black person is capable of hatred and intolorance of another race, (definition #3) then by your own definition you must admit; black people can be racist

Kevin



You pretty much laid it out... Racismm is mostly about ideology which can manifest its self to society. It is only then that society can act on their beliefs...
quote:
Originally posted by Xeon:
quote:
Nowhere in the definition does it say anything about power so I've always wondered who came up with this idea and how & why did they come to this conclusion?


Has nothing to do with power. Negroes have attempted to spin the definition to exonerate themselves from the same racism and bigotry that they hysterically rant about and condemn others for. End of subject.........



Exactly. Nothing is stopping a black person from killing a white person because he/she thinks whites are inferior.

Whether white society punishes the black person is irrelevent. The black person acted on their racism.
quote:
Originally posted by Sweetwuzzy:
quote:
Originally posted by Xeon:
quote:
Nowhere in the definition does it say anything about power so I've always wondered who came up with this idea and how & why did they come to this conclusion?


Has nothing to do with power. Negroes have attempted to spin the definition to exonerate themselves from the same racism and bigotry that they hysterically rant about and condemn others for. End of subject.........



Exactly. Nothing is stopping a black person from killing a white person because he/she thinks whites are inferior.

Whether white society punishes the black person is irrelevent. The black person acted on their racism.


The requirement of power in the determination of power is not spin.

Once again...we MUST understand the language being applied to us...,and in particular applied to us...by us.

From Webster's:
1 : a distinctive doctrine, cause, or theory
2 : an oppressive and especially discriminatory attitude or belief

The suffix 'ism' indicates a man-made construction,e.g. catholic..'ism', communism, conservatism, etc ., and I recognize systems such as botulism...the disease.

Individual act are racist.

If such acts are not punished by the system in which they are practiced, the SYSTEM is empowering those acts.

That construction is one of RACISM.


PEACE

Jim Chester
quote:
Originally posted by James Wesley Chester:
quote:
Originally posted by Sweetwuzzy:
quote:
Originally posted by Xeon:
quote:
Nowhere in the definition does it say anything about power so I've always wondered who came up with this idea and how & why did they come to this conclusion?


Has nothing to do with power. Negroes have attempted to spin the definition to exonerate themselves from the same racism and bigotry that they hysterically rant about and condemn others for. End of subject.........



Exactly. Nothing is stopping a black person from killing a white person because he/she thinks whites are inferior.

Whether white society punishes the black person is irrelevent. The black person acted on their racism.


The requirement of power in the determination of power is not spin.

Once again...we MUST understand the language being applied to us...,and in particular applied to us...by us.

From Webster's:
1 : a distinctive doctrine, cause, or theory
2 : an oppressive and especially discriminatory attitude or belief

The suffix 'ism' indicates a man-made construction,e.g. catholic..'ism', communism, conservatism, etc ., and I recognize systems such as botulism...the disease.

Individual act are racist.

If such acts are not punished by the system in which they are practiced, the SYSTEM is empowering those acts.

That construction is one of RACISM.


PEACE

Jim Chester



Nonsense. In the case I mentioned the white person is dead- PERIOD. Whether society punishes the black murderer is irrelevant, because the white person is DEAD- due to the ideology that whites are inferior....

Just because black people are powerless in general society, doesn't mean they are not able to show their power(in the case I gave it was through violence)ever.

Blacks can act on their ideologies on a daily basis, however not as much as whites...
Nonsense. In the case I mentioned the white person is dead- PERIOD. Whether society punishes the black murderer is irrelevant, because the white person is DEAD- due to the ideology that whites are inferior....---Sweetwuzzy

I don't get this.

'DEAD - due to the ideology that whites are inferior'.

Ignoring the first phrase...what ideology?


Just because black people are powerless in general society, doesn't mean they are not able to show their power(in the case I gave it was through violence)ever.---Sweetwuzzy

Power in the societal construction is precisely what is being referenced.

Saying there is no power...as you have just done...,and then there is the ability to show power negates the entire sentence.


Blacks can act on their ideologies on a daily basis, however not as much as whites...---Sweetwuzzy

Please cite the societal power...a power in the law of society...that enables us to '...act on their ideologies'..?

PEACE

Jim Chester
I will attempt to answer for sweetwuzzy; If I am wrong I am sure she will correct me:


JWC says:

(quote)
"I don't get this.

DEAD - due to the ideology that whites are inferior'.

Ignoring the first phrase...what ideology?"


(reply)
The Ideology that whites are inferior.

(quote)
"Power in the societal construction is precisely what is being referenced.

Saying there is no power...as you have just done...,and then there is the ability to show power negates the entire sentence
. "

(reply)
When she said "blacks are powerless in general society, she was refering to political power.
When she said we can show our power through violence, she was refering to physical power.

(quote)
"Please cite the societal power...a power in the law of society...that enables us to '...act on their ideologies'..?"

(reply)
Our physical power allows us to act on our ideologies

Kevin
quote:
Originally posted by kevin1122:
I will attempt to answer for sweetwuzzy; If I am wrong I am sure she will correct me:


JWC says:

(quote)
"I don't get this.

DEAD - due to the ideology that whites are inferior'.

Ignoring the first phrase...what ideology?"


(reply)
The Ideology that whites are inferior.

Did you start this...ideology?

Of course, I've heard people argue this.

But an ideology?

Where is it codified?


(quote)
"Power in the societal construction is precisely what is being referenced.

Saying there is no power...as you have just done...,and then there is the ability to show power negates the entire sentence
. "

(reply)
When she said "blacks are powerless in general society, she was refering to political power.
When she said we can show our power through violence, she was refering to physical power.

I KNOW...I KNOW...'Sweetwuzzy' can explain herself better than that.

(quote)
"Please cite the societal power...a power in the law of society...that enables us to '...act on their ideologies'..?"

(reply)
Our physical power allows us to act on our ideologies Kevin


If this is the kind of presentation that is to be made for us...we are lost.

Seriously...you should let 'Sweetwuzy' speak for herself.

If 'water' is to be held, this isn't even a 'bucket'.

'Sweetwuzzy'...you better 'come get this guy'.

He is giving you a bad name.


PEACE

Jim Chester
Dang JWC :

That's the oldest trick in the book! Don't know why folks keep using it; FYI If you gonna insult my reply by calling it silly, unable to hold water, ridiculas, or whatever adjectives you might wanna use; it only works if you articulate WHY what I said was unable to hold water, ridiculas, etc. etc.

Okay! let's try it again: Insult my reply but this time articulate exactly why what I said doesn't hold water.

Kevin
quote:
Originally posted by kevin1122:
I will attempt to answer for sweetwuzzy; If I am wrong I am sure she will correct me:


JWC says:

(quote)
"I don't get this.

DEAD - due to the ideology that whites are inferior'.

Ignoring the first phrase...what ideology?"

I will do this bolded to distinguish the expansion from earlier replies.


(reply)
The Ideology that whites are inferior.

Did you start this...ideology?

Of course, I've heard people argue this.

But an ideology?

Where is it codified?

What ideology is being talked about?

(quote)
"Power in the societal construction is precisely what is being referenced.

Saying there is no power...as you have just done...,and then there is the ability to show power negates the entire sentence. "

(reply)
When she said "blacks are powerless in general society, she was refering to political power.
When she said we can show our power through violence, she was refering to physical power.

We are not without political power.

We do not exercise that power to our benefit, but we do possess political power.

That is what all the fuss is about at election time...getting us to exercise that power to their benefit rather to benefit ourselves.


I KNOW...I KNOW...'Sweetwuzzy' can explain herself better than that.

(quote)
"Please cite the societal power...a power in the law of society...that enables us to '...act on their ideologies'..?"

(reply)
Our physical power allows us to act on our ideologies Kevin

Please specify those 'ideologies'?

We have ideologies.

I am asking for the ideologies being referenced.


PLEASE NOTICE HOW THE QUALITY OF THE DISCUSSION BECOMES VALUELESS WHEN PERSONAL MOTIVATION BECOMES THE SUBJECT.

AND THE FAULT IS ALL MINE.

I 'WENT THERE' FIRST.

I thought progress could be made using the route.

But, such effort always gets interpreted as personal attack rather than an effort to increase the merit of the discussion.

I will pursue this as long as it is a benefit to what you need.


PEACE

Jim Chester
quote:
Originally posted by Cocoa Starr:
Okay...here is a good definition of exactly WHY black people cannot be racist as of this current time.
Start at 2:35 and you will get your definition & reason.
Why black people cannot be Racist


I admire Dr. Claude Anderson.

I think in this clip, Dr. Anderson has over-simplified it to 'meet his audience half way'.

All the reasons/examples he offered as to why 'we' cannot be racist are examples of the application of power.

All the examples are attributes of racism...the structure of power.

All the acts are racist act...operating in a system of racism.

That is my understanding of the system he is talking.

Everything operates within a system.

Notice:

With all the things he is saying being true...

What is the system those things operate within called?

Racism.

Dr. Anderson is tailoring his comments to his audience.

That is the signature of a good speaker.

Talk to your audience in terms...in language...they can understand.

Sometimes this is called 'editorial license'.

Sometimes artistic license.

Sometimes simply 'latitude'.


PEACE

Jim Chester
quote:
Originally posted by James Wesley Chester:
quote:
Originally posted by kevin1122:
I will attempt to answer for sweetwuzzy; If I am wrong I am sure she will correct me:


JWC says:

(quote)
"I don't get this.

DEAD - due to the ideology that whites are inferior'.

Ignoring the first phrase...what ideology?"


(reply)
The Ideology that whites are inferior.

Did you start this...ideology?

Of course, I've heard people argue this.

But an ideology?

Where is it codified?


(quote)
"Power in the societal construction is precisely what is being referenced.

Saying there is no power...as you have just done...,and then there is the ability to show power negates the entire sentence
. "

(reply)
When she said "blacks are powerless in general society, she was refering to political power.
When she said we can show our power through violence, she was refering to physical power.

I KNOW...I KNOW...'Sweetwuzzy' can explain herself better than that.

(quote)
"Please cite the societal power...a power in the law of society...that enables us to '...act on their ideologies'..?"

(reply)
Our physical power allows us to act on our ideologies Kevin


If this is the kind of presentation that is to be made for us...we are lost.

Seriously...you should let 'Sweetwuzy' speak for herself.

If 'water' is to be held, this isn't even a 'bucket'.

'Sweetwuzzy'...you better 'come get this guy'.

He is giving you a bad name.


PEACE

Jim Chester



My post was not confusing at all.

The belief that races are either inherently inferior or superior is racism.

That my friend is an ideology. Most "isms" are an ideology.

Anyone can believe that. Blacks in this country do not have the POLITICAL power to create a massive apartheid, but blacks do have control in their daily lives to be "racist" That is acting out on their racial ideology(that races are inherently superior or inferior).

Just because blacks don't have great political power to recreate Jim Crow or apartheid, or discrimitory laws, does not mean blacks can not act on their racism.

Acting one ones racism can range from being hostile to the inferior race(what that person believes to be an inferior race) or they can harrass them.

They could even goes as far as to assault or kill them(thats the example I gave).


Black people are capable of doing the things I mentioned above.

If a black person kills a white person because he/she hates white peole, that dead white persons death is because of racism(the ideology).

What else could his death be attributed to(aside from gun shot, and beatings)???


And for GOD's SAKE, USE THE QUOTING FEATURE, IT DOES NOT TAKE THAT MUCH TIME!!
Cocoa Starr:

The Ideology that whites are inferior. Did you start this...ideology?

I agree that an 'ism' is an ideology.

The statement 'whites are inferior' is a contention of many.

Reluctantly, okay, it's a belief...it's a rant..., but...okaaaaaaaay.

It's an ideology.

Mendel characterized it as a result of a recessive gene.

That's codification...I supposed.

My bad.

PEACE

Jim Chester
Why is he wrong?

This video didn't bring anything new to the table, it's the same thing we've been discussing for 8 pages now; he claims blacks can only be bigoted (intolorant) but that we can't be racist because we have no power. He refused to recognize that by definition; racism doesn't require power.

Xeon said it best when he stated:

(quote)
"Negroes have attempted to spin the definition to exonerate themselves from the same racism and bigotry that they hysterically rant about and condemn others for"

This Negro is no different; he's wrong just like the rest of them

Kevin
quote:
Originally posted by James Wesley Chester:
Cocoa Starr:

The Ideology that whites are inferior. Did you start this...ideology?

I agree that an 'ism' is an ideology.

The statement 'whites are inferior' is a contention of many.

Reluctantly, okay, it's a belief...it's a rant..., but...okaaaaaaaay.

It's an ideology.

Mendel characterized it as a result of a recessive gene.

That's codification...I supposed.

My bad.

PEACE

Jim Chester


Are you referring to something Dr. Anderson said in his video??
quote:
Originally posted by kevin1122:
Why is he wrong?

This video didn't bring anything new to the table, it's the same thing we've been discussing for 8 pages now; he claims blacks can only be bigoted (intolorant) but that we can't be racist because we have no power. He refused to recognize that by definition; racism doesn't require power.

Xeon said it best when he stated:

(quote)
"Negroes have attempted to spin the definition to exonerate themselves from the same racism and bigotry that they hysterically rant about and condemn others for"

This Negro is no different; he's wrong just like the rest of them

Kevin


So Racism doesn't require power. Wink In other words you are saying that the practice of racism as I explained and defined earlier in this thread doesn't require a system to enforce? Additionally, you don't find it telling that the word 'Race' also defines a competition? Then what do the terms bigoted, biased, predjudiced mean?
An individual can be biased, bigoted and predjudiced, as they pertain to individuals.
However, I see that we have reached an impase. But you didn't define or explain your position. That's cool though.
If you note an earlier post from myself, I did define race & gave definitions to substantiate my view on the issue discussed.

So I have to stand by my position that black people cannot be racist, especially right now.
Kevin, why do you concentrate on a definition about racism which was probably one of the first and was probably also created by whites/Europeans (I assume)?
There are today more accurate definitions about racism as racism = white supremacy, which doesn't just fixate on the individual, but on a group/collective, which developed via culture and history a system of oppression in all aspects of life on the entire planet with 'networks' spread on every continent. The individual ideology isn't important to keep this system alive. Discrimination against PoC or Black people in that way Europeans/whites are doing it is only possible with a widespread support, whites in South Africa are only still in power [economically and otherwise] because of support of the outside, despite the fact that they are just 9% or so of the population.
Listener asks:

(quote)
"Kevin, why do you concentrate on a definition about racism which was probably one of the first and was probably also created by whites/Europeans (I assume)?
There are today more accurate definitions about racism as racism = white supremacy, which doesn't just fixate on the individual, but on a group/collective, which developed via culture and history a system of oppression in all aspects of life on the entire planet with 'networks' spread on every continent. The individual ideology isn't important to keep this system alive. Discrimination against PoC or Black people in that way Europeans/whites are doing it is only possible with a widespread support,

(reply)
Because there are those who are trying to pretend that type of racism doesn't exist. Now let me ask you a question:
Why do you concentrate on a definition about racism which was probably one of the last and ignore the other definitions?
there are today more accurate definitions about racism which doesn't just fixate on the group but on an individual ideology.
The group ideology isn't important to keep racism alive, hatred aginst PoC or Black people in that way Eropeans/Whites have been doing it will continue as long as there are those individuals who believe we are inferior and they are superior

Kevin
quote:
Because there are those who are trying to pretend that type of racism doesn't exist.

which type of racism?
quote:
The group ideology isn't important to keep racism alive

the group ideology is important to keep racism alive because only with a more or less common agreement [personal racism isn't necessary] you can create a social net-work which discriminates against entire groups. Individuals with racist ideologies wouldn't have the power to enforce their ideology as a form of government and system if there wasn't a culture where this ideology is rooted in.
Coco Starr says:

(quote)
"So Racism doesn't require power. In other words you are saying that the practice of racism as I explained and defined earlier in this thread doesn't require a system to enforce?"

(reply)
Don't know which of your posts you are refering to but maybe it does! That isn't the only type of racism that exists ya know

(quote)
"Additionally, you don't find it telling that the word 'Race' also defines a competition? "

(reply)
No I don't! BTW competition race can be a group or an individual effert ya know.

(quote)
"Then what do the terms bigoted, biased, predjudiced mean?"

(reply)
A bigot is an intolorant person: Intolorant meaning refusing to put up with something that bothers you.
Biased and prejusticed meaning to pass judgment before getting all the facts

(quote)
"An individual can be biased, bigoted and predjudiced, as they pertain to individuals."

(reply)
I agree! But we can also be racist which is believing we are superior to other races.

(quote)
"However, I see that we have reached an impase. But you didn't define or explain your position. That's cool though."

(reply)
Over the last 8 or 9 pages, I've only explained my position 100 times already; would you like me to go for 101?

(quote)
"If you note an earlier post from myself, I did define race & gave definitions to substantiate my view on the issue discussed.

(reply)
Again; I don't know which post you are refering to, but I guess we are just gonna have to agree to disagree on this one huh?

Peace
Kevin
quote:
Originally posted by Cocoa Starr:
quote:
Originally posted by kevin1122:
Why is he wrong?

This video didn't bring anything new to the table, it's the same thing we've been discussing for 8 pages now; he claims blacks can only be bigoted (intolorant) but that we can't be racist because we have no power. He refused to recognize that by definition; racism doesn't require power.

Xeon said it best when he stated:

(quote)
"Negroes have attempted to spin the definition to exonerate themselves from the same racism and bigotry that they hysterically rant about and condemn others for"

This Negro is no different; he's wrong just like the rest of them

Kevin


So Racism doesn't require power. Wink In other words you are saying that the practice of racism as I explained and defined earlier in this thread doesn't require a system to enforce? Additionally, you don't find it telling that the word 'Race' also defines a competition? Then what do the terms bigoted, biased, predjudiced mean?
An individual can be biased, bigoted and predjudiced, as they pertain to individuals.
However, I see that we have reached an impase. But you didn't define or explain your position. That's cool though.
If you note an earlier post from myself, I did define race & gave definitions to substantiate my view on the issue discussed.

So I have to stand by my position that black people cannot be racist, especially right now.


Two out of the three definitions you did had to do with racism being an ideology.

Only one definition talked about racial oppression.

Therefore ,blacks can be racist(practice racism) by two of the definitions.

Blacks only fail to meet the third definition.

And no, it is not interesting that word "race" also means a contest or competition.
quote:
Originally posted by listener:
the group ideology is important to keep racism alive because only with a more or less common agreement [personal racism isn't necessary] you can create a social net-work which discriminates against entire groups. Individuals with racist ideologies wouldn't have the power to enforce their ideology as a form of government and system if there wasn't a culture where this ideology is rooted in.


This is true but just because a group ideology is important in creating racial oppression doesn't mean blacks can't be racist.

There are more than enough blacks who are racist and could find other blacks who felt the same. Without power they can't create many situtation which would negatively affect whites, but they are non the less racist in that they believe in the inherent inferiority or superiority of races.
quote:
Originally posted by James Wesley Chester:
Cocoa Starr:

The Ideology that whites are inferior. Did you start this...ideology?

I agree that an 'ism' is an ideology.

The statement 'whites are inferior' is a contention of many.

Reluctantly, okay, it's a belief...it's a rant..., but...okaaaaaaaay.

It's an ideology.

Mendel characterized it as a result of a recessive gene.

That's codification...I supposed.

My bad.

PEACE

Jim Chester


er, just because white peoples skin(light eye color too) is due to recessive genes doesn't mean they are inferior.

There are many recessive traits which aren't race specific, anyway- and you can see people of different races having it.

A dominante trait need not be "superior" or a biological advantage(or vice versa).
I think I have been in this debate way too long.

Basically if you think racism only has to do with racial oppression and subjugation,(in which case you are wrong), then yes blacks can't be racist- or not until blacks get political and economic power to do it.

HOwever if you believe racism is mostly an ideology(in which case you are right), then any race/ethnicity can be racist.

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×